Your writing, arguments and personal journey are getting stronger, more courageous and compelling with each essay. At the same time you are not making naive appeals to emotion but instead appeals to critical and rational thinking. With regard to the subject, you fairly describe the history and competing forces and make insightful analogies to past purges and mania. Only the most shut mind could not be enlightened by the essay. The Woke seek to damn two primary groups; explicitly straight white men, and implicitly blacks via welfare dependency, SNAP food stamps for no father present, failed schools rendering them unable to reasonably read or add, Soros DA’s rendering killers on the street, and overwhelmingly messaging about how they are victims. I believe History will identify these themes but I expect it will be at least decades before it’s allowed out.
The ultimate irony to the left’s TDS was the recent Reuters article showing that virtually every US president had slaveholder ancestors -- including Obama (!). So did many Democrats in Congress...guess who didn’t? Hilariously: Trump!
The ideology is basically two (overlapping) ideologies. The first is a re-framing of Marxism in terms of "immutables" rather than class. (During Marx's time class was effectively an immutable.) The second rejects all of Western Civilization, and could hardly be called anything other than "Rejectionism".
It begins with making assertions like "There is no such thing as objective truth", and ends with regarding its own interpretations as objective truth, what a coincidence. A particularly insidious aspect of Rejectionism is that, if there is no such thing as objective truth, there is no point in worrying about fallacies. Very convenient. Now we have a generation of young people who routinely regard fallacies as non-fallacies. We also have a generation of young people who have no idea that division is (get this) divisive.
Good points, David. I recently was debating someone (she called the group “Moms for Liberty” a white supremacist organization” and I asked her to define these terms. She made logic fallacy after fallacy in her arguments and relied very heavily on building strawmen and ad hominem attacks. I called her on this and she said, just like you point out here, that these weren’t fallacies because ...racism and the patriarchy. 🧐
In my heart of hearts I still think the Dems will walk back from the precipice of actually making Trump serve jail time. What they’ve been doing is playing with fireworks and and enjoying the oohs and aahs of their friends. They harass him and get their perverse kicks from each new indictment, but they haven’t fathomed what happens if they succeed in imprisoning him. I don’t think they’ve thought through that far. That’s the real Rubicon. When it becomes fair game to literally imprison your adversaries, this country will never recover.
When the retribution comes, and it will come, we will have lost everything.
I think they are looking forward to the day. I don't think they have thought a minute about it because to them Trump isn't even human. They don't understand why he isn't currently in prison. But as noted, turn around is going to get ugly. I am fairly certain that no member of congress is actually right with the law. It just takes a bit of digging, a little creative lawyering, and perhaps a good place to lay out the charges that ensure a guilty plea. Meaning D's will indite in DC, not sure where R's can go. Maybe Alabama.
If our resident contrarian is any indication, they are anticipating that day almost like the Second Coming. They most definitely look forward to it like a kid waiting for Santa.
It's really a shock that a majority of adult Americans want to outsource their understanding of reality to the government and so-called "experts." An astounding level of naivety and laziness.
Also worth noting that the data is clear in that average IQ scores across groups is not random; ie some groups have much higher average IQ scores than others even when controlling for environment. Eg Asians have higher average IQ score than whites, and so on.
The key word in that poll is “false.” I trust no polls anyway, they’re always skewed to generate propaganda, but most people who replied likely didn’t absorb the second half of the question, “even if it limits freedom of information.” Note avoidance of the word “speech.”
Anyway most of the “misinformation” “limited” thus turned out to be true. As we know.
Note that immediatly after warning of the rise of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower issues a another warning, one that's been overshadowed and yet equally as dangerous: the rise of a government-science complex (in YT above start at minute 9:28). Naturally few people have ever heard of this, let alone take the warning.
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Wow. Thank you. You’re correct, this warning definitely has been overshadowed. So spot on, the dangers of DOD’s nefarious practices (on our military🤬) along with CDC, FDA, and all the other ‘health’ agencies all while promoting vaccine trials conducted on orphans.
One libertarian to another, what makes me appreciate him is the older I get the more I realize its pretty damn easy to take a hard absolutist position. But its pretty f***ing hard to get something done.
Sasha, I wouldn't go so far as to state that Oppenheimer was "never a communist." Granted, he never officially "joined" the Communist Party but he was most definitely sympathetic to communist ideals and policies. He stated in his application for his initial security clearance that he had been involved with every communist organization on the West Coast, then denied he said it even though it was in writing. He told the committee he appeared before when his security clearance was revoked that he was a "fellow traveller," which is a euphemism for someone who is a communist but not a card-carrier. His girlfriend AND his wife were both Communists with a capital C. SOMEBODY was keeping the USSR abreast on the Manhattan Project.
Incidentally, Orwell also had communist sympathies. He went to Spain to fight with the Communists although he later changed his views.
I haven't seen the film and don't plan to until it comes out on streaming so I can't comment on whether it is sympathetic to communism or not, but Oppenheimer most definitely was.
As far as Bobbie goes, I WAS around in "the old days" when Barbie Dolls came out. My sister had one. The big deal was that they had breasts. Incidentally, the big craze before Barbie was a black baby doll. All little white girls had to have one.
No, Oppenheimer DID NOT "build" the atomic bombs. Oppenheimer headed the organization at Los Alamos, New Mexico where the bomb was assembled but the building was a community effort with a lot of different people involved and doing the work. Much of the work was actually at Oakridge, Tennessee. The single person most involved with the building of the bomb was General Leslie Groves, who got the ball rolling. Oppenheimer worked for him. If Oppenheimer hadn't been there, someone else would have.
Sam, we’re not historians here. We hope to get the major themes and players right but we really don’t have the time to do 10 years of research before we make any assertion about the past. Please bear (or is it bare?) with us.
This is not just a true statement; it is also a realistic observation. Raised by a communist mother and a soc-dem father --- who loudly disagreed every day and yet loved each other to their eighties --- I experienced repeating the prescribed slogans and then questioning them and objecting to them and then being ill-treated for doing so. This also injected in me an elemental truth of human nature: Any one of us at any random time can and do say something "communist" --- or something "fascist," for that matter, without becoming -ist of any kind. By the same token, celebrated individuals can and do perform vile acts, at times soon after delivering lofty-ovated-memorialized passages. Not only slum-level party ("Party") secretaries, but world leaders or soon-to-be-sainted greats with mass of followers.
Ben, with all due respect, there is tons of information out there about Oppenheimer. I don't need to see the film to understand the situation. it's certain that he had communist leanings even though he denied being a card-carrying Communist (which is a common tactic. One of the founders of the Highlander Folk School denied being a Communist - but he was the Secretary of the Communist Party in North Carolina!) Some of his biographers believe he was a member of the Communist Party but denied it. Some believe he was being orchestrated by the USSR while others believe he was loyal to the US, some believe he was a black sheep wandering around in a flock of white sheep (Communists.) Leslie Groves said at the hearing where his security clearance was revoked that under the security policies of that time, he would not have requested that Oppenheimer be given a clearance. He's the reason he was cleared in the first place, Groves felt that he needed his knowledge for the Manhattan Project.
One of the factors about Los Alamos is that the scientists working on the bomb there were all for it as long as they thought it was going to be used on Nazi Germany (most of them were Jews) but once Germany surrendered, they started having second thoughts. The irony is that the War Policy Committee, who were actually the people in charge of deciding where to use it, planned to use it on Japan from the get-go. Oppenheimer got in hot water after the war by coming out against the H-bomb, which the Air Force wanted. He wanted to stick with atomic bombs and advocated the development of low-yield tactical weapons (of which there are so many in the modern arsenal.)
By the way, this is the third film production (at least) about the A-bomb and Oppenheimer, although this one seems to focus on him.
now, I've seen both movies: really liked 'Oppenheimer,' really hated 'Barbie.' Suppose, one can say that they are both about conformity. I was surprised that so many people came to 'Barbie' wearing pink. What is this conformity? Should I have worn red for Oppenheimer yesterday? har har. yes, Neither movie is funny. 'Barbie' is just what your guy friends are warning you now/not to see: a long bland movie about a doll. A little throwaway line near the end of 'Barbie', suggests what might have been, if it really wanted to have satire and symbolism that worked. It compares the plastic world Barbie is leaving for the plastic one she is going to in Los Angeles. This is what Northern Californian people really think of Los Angeles. Like me. I lived in L.A. once in the early/mid 80's. Almost everyone under 40 wore walk-shorts, either in black and red plaid or purple and baby blue plaid. You'd go to an Amusement part of the beach, I swear, 99% of girls, 95% of guys. I never in my life saw such conformity in Texas! In short the 'Barbie' world in Act 1 seems the same as Los Angeles.
As for what angered the red team about this movie, sorry, could not locate the trans thing, and the cartoon map with the lines that Ted Cruz complained about, sorry, that is a nothing burger as well. I suppose they have points maybe about the all male supreme court that the Kens wanted, even though the Barbies wanted an all female supreme court, and then the changing of the constitution and building the wall wrong things. It would not matter if there was some funny lines going along, you know, as in a real comedy, like in "Joy Ride." Yes, there is a lot of preachy speeches, including (spoiler-alert) one where we are told there should be a Barbie that is just Barbie, and not an accomplished lawyer or doctor or astronaut or president, cause you know what? we're all equitable and equal just being us. if we are female. seems at odds with the scenes where the females get all anger about being suppressed, since what would it matter, if all/everyone/is the same, no matter what? I would describe this middle to end or middle part of the movie as incoherent.
What I will say, is 'Barbie' made me yearn to see those talking rocks again in 'Everything/everywhere/random things/ so critics must like it/all at once'. Yes, overrated is still my opinion, but in comparison to 'Barbie,' it's 'Citizen Kane.'
Ultimately, 'Barbie' will be a financial success for only one reason: name recognition. So, yes, the thing about commercialism being associated with a doll, no surprise, was accurate. Ironically, though, Barbie will do better in red states than in blue states and Oppenheimer will do better in blue states than in red states.
finally, as a las question, why does the movie need to present the entire MatchBox 20 song "I want to Push You Around" ---twice, but you only get the very opening riff of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Maybe cause they knew this movie's joy falls well below the Lauper song?
I saw Oppenheimer twice today. I was so moved from the first second by the images, and then the appearance of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and remarkably, Kurt Gödel, who show up to remind us that as the giants of 20th century physics, that they were real people caught in the conflicts of history. I was moved by the tight, complex, transcendent story telling. I walked out of the theater, and bought another ticket, and watched it again. The performances of Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt (especially when Teller faces her), Robert Downey, Jr., Matt Damon, and Florence Pugh were the best of their careers. If my first viewing captured the beauty and potential of scientific discovery, my second viewing reminded me that power corrupts by rationalization and cult-like control. It is a remarkable film. As I drove home, I wished for a prequel that would have captured the story of early Einstein, the Vienna Circle, the gathering of Nobel laureates at Solvay in 1927, followed by the stories of Jewish scientists who had to leave Germany and Austria as the implication of Hitler’s rise became apparent. It is amazing how little has change in a century and a quarter.
Great piece; shedding more light on Oppenheimer is good. Don't worry, Sasha, you are gaining more true people than 'supposed friends' of the past. Same with Taibbi, Greenwald, etc. You all will be more vociferously defended than you can imagine - take another trip across the midwest again. You know.
Trump simply said it like it is and the UniParty has attacked him for eight years now; trying to take his freedom. And yours.
Thanks Sasha. You’re absolutely right that hysteria over Trump is at the root of all this. He definitely sets their hair on fire. And that’s why we love him, ironically. He’s willing to stand up and call them out regardless of threats and smears. Never thought the Democrats would sink this low but they have. Sad situation. Also a tinder box. The good news is that more people are speaking up, like you, and the more voices the better our chances of sanity.
Sasha, about the red scare one can concede that McCarthy made mistakes in hunting communists. He quarreled too much, the public hated his performance in the Army hearings, and he called one senator "Sanctimonious Stu." (Sound familiar?)
To be fair, however, it's not true that McCarthy simply smeared everybody or found no communists. Blacklisted by History, by M. Stanton Evans, shows, with the benefit of Venona decrypts, that McCarthy's batting average was better than one might think.
It's not bad reading for those who want to inquire into the truth about the commonly held story line about this subject.
Sasha, another beautifully nuanced piece. Your ability to parse the ideological complexities of the day without your losing moral and intellectual compass is so rare and so needed right now. You leave me (and so many of us, I think) eager for more.
I didn't come away from the movie as being pro-communist. What I did take away was he was the sole voice, as Oppenheimer rightly perceived, of letting the weapons genie out of the bottle. What Oppenheimer faced in his day when he tried to warn of the incredible danger unleashed upon the world, against the state's view, he was persecuted. The correlation of what happened to him is no different than what we are witnessing today with the state pursuing Trump in an effort to destroy him. To me, that is the deeper lesson.
“They believe in forced conformity and ideological compliance in art, science, education, and even relationships between people, language, comedy, and everything else they control, which is almost everything.”
I started to address the left’s monopoly of major media, but re-read the above. Ideological compliance in all of those areas is much larger than just the media. I doubt that realizing the rest of us disagree with most of said ideology would cause any of them to relent.
Pardon me for asking, can you see any way through this?
With mocking humor. That is the way out. Fortunately Trump has energized a very significant part of the country who may well choose not to comply and write songs and jokes about it. The jokes and songs might be "cancelled" by some, but others will keep them alive. Most of the countries footprint is red.
Sounds good. I was asking Sasha, but I’ll take any reasonable answer.
The real problem being, this ideology is ingrained in university cultures, spilled over into public schools, often is supported by courts, has the support of the corporatocracy and even the United Nations. My claim that the WEF (along with people like Soros) deliberately push this crap to cause societies to fail, so they can sweep ‘em up into world rule, no longer really matters.
There’s another huge issue, and it’s just as devastating. Check this out:
The only certainty I see is that nothing will ever return to what we think is normal. No matter what. A couple of times I’ve started to write about it, but my conclusions at this point are, shall we say, socially not constructive.
Since I've lived under communism (or, actually, under its Moscow-dictated ershatz version) and studied its writings through grad school, I found the ensuing discussion interesting enough to induce me to see the film once it comes my way.
It gave me a special chuckle to read one contributor's passage referring to "high-ranking government toadies persecuted people, not for any crime they had committed, but for what they might be thinking."
Now there is an apt description of today's USofA. Sad but true.
Pretty good article (going to see both movies tonight) but I take issue with a two things you wrote.
You said:
"Even those who are against “cancel culture” and understand fanaticism and dogma have captured all of our major institutions, from culture to education to science to government, will never be able to take one step further to understand that the source of the hysteria is the person that disrupted the utopia: Donald Trump.”
Trump is not the source of all the woke hysteria; it had been going on for at least several years before he decided to run for the 2016 election, and had been evolving even before that.
You said:
"We’ve now become almost numb to watching our fellow Americans, millions of them, treated as enemies of the state, not to mention the unprecedented persecution of Trump — Jack Smith’s indictment as the most recent example, but the raid on mar-a-logo, Russiagate, the two impeachments…”
Lumping all of Trump’s travails together as if they were all just trivial, politically driven, illegitimate endeavors to destroy an innocent man, treats him as a mere victim of bad actors, instead of someone who quite possibly broke the law, quite possibly numerous times.
I get a hint of the opposite of Trump Derangement Syndrome here: Trump Victimhood Syndrome
How come he’s been attacked on the same grounds as those his opponents could be but aren’t? The double standards are glaringly apparent as is the hypocrisy. Lying to investigators is a crime when Flynn does it but not McCabe; improper storage of classified docs is a crime when Trump does it but not Biden, Hillary etc. A special prosecutor is fine for Trump on zero evidence but not ok for Biden despite evidence of corruption and compromise from foreign government payouts. J6 protesters get max prison terms while 2020 rioters get released without charges.
I agree with you about the double standards in several cases you site. However, regarding the classified docs, Biden and Clinton cooperated and turned over docs they had when requested, Trump did not. In fact, he made every effort to delay, to hide, to deceive. There is a difference, and one that has criminal liability.
Not so—Clinton destroyed subpoenaed emails and phones. Re Biden, we only have assertions from his lawyer that there are no more classified docs in his possession. Trump says he was negotiating with NARA and his case hasn’t been adjudicated yet. The double standard is clear here too, including the vast difference in the amount of time given to resolve classified doc issues in each case.
Your writing, arguments and personal journey are getting stronger, more courageous and compelling with each essay. At the same time you are not making naive appeals to emotion but instead appeals to critical and rational thinking. With regard to the subject, you fairly describe the history and competing forces and make insightful analogies to past purges and mania. Only the most shut mind could not be enlightened by the essay. The Woke seek to damn two primary groups; explicitly straight white men, and implicitly blacks via welfare dependency, SNAP food stamps for no father present, failed schools rendering them unable to reasonably read or add, Soros DA’s rendering killers on the street, and overwhelmingly messaging about how they are victims. I believe History will identify these themes but I expect it will be at least decades before it’s allowed out.
Indeed. As soon as I get a notification of a new posting from Sasha I try and stop what I'm doing and immediately consume it.
We are blessed to have her as well as her readers. Good is out there, you just have to seek it out (and start by turning off the damn television).
Well said 👏👏
The ultimate irony to the left’s TDS was the recent Reuters article showing that virtually every US president had slaveholder ancestors -- including Obama (!). So did many Democrats in Congress...guess who didn’t? Hilariously: Trump!
Including the current Vice President, the Queen of Intersectional Word Salad, who has had quite the merry-go-round of identities over the years.
Before she was a Woman Of Color she was African American
Before she was AA she was Black
Before she was Black she was Indian-American
Before she was Indian-American she was Hindu-American
Before she was Hindu-American she was
...wait for it.
Canadian.
Regardless, she is descended from Jamaican slave holders (and has never dubbed herself "Jamaican-American".
The ideology is basically two (overlapping) ideologies. The first is a re-framing of Marxism in terms of "immutables" rather than class. (During Marx's time class was effectively an immutable.) The second rejects all of Western Civilization, and could hardly be called anything other than "Rejectionism".
It begins with making assertions like "There is no such thing as objective truth", and ends with regarding its own interpretations as objective truth, what a coincidence. A particularly insidious aspect of Rejectionism is that, if there is no such thing as objective truth, there is no point in worrying about fallacies. Very convenient. Now we have a generation of young people who routinely regard fallacies as non-fallacies. We also have a generation of young people who have no idea that division is (get this) divisive.
Good points, David. I recently was debating someone (she called the group “Moms for Liberty” a white supremacist organization” and I asked her to define these terms. She made logic fallacy after fallacy in her arguments and relied very heavily on building strawmen and ad hominem attacks. I called her on this and she said, just like you point out here, that these weren’t fallacies because ...racism and the patriarchy. 🧐
Nicely said, David White. Keep talking.
Not only do they not think division is divisive but half of them can do 33/3=?
Or 10% of anything.
It is divisive for Trump to not accept a beating.
Well-stated
In my heart of hearts I still think the Dems will walk back from the precipice of actually making Trump serve jail time. What they’ve been doing is playing with fireworks and and enjoying the oohs and aahs of their friends. They harass him and get their perverse kicks from each new indictment, but they haven’t fathomed what happens if they succeed in imprisoning him. I don’t think they’ve thought through that far. That’s the real Rubicon. When it becomes fair game to literally imprison your adversaries, this country will never recover.
When the retribution comes, and it will come, we will have lost everything.
I think they are looking forward to the day. I don't think they have thought a minute about it because to them Trump isn't even human. They don't understand why he isn't currently in prison. But as noted, turn around is going to get ugly. I am fairly certain that no member of congress is actually right with the law. It just takes a bit of digging, a little creative lawyering, and perhaps a good place to lay out the charges that ensure a guilty plea. Meaning D's will indite in DC, not sure where R's can go. Maybe Alabama.
If our resident contrarian is any indication, they are anticipating that day almost like the Second Coming. They most definitely look forward to it like a kid waiting for Santa.
A recent poll showing that TODAY a MAJORITY of people are in FAVOR of suppressing speech:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F10bb75f1-0441-46f5-a668-0a28f653f02b_1138x1280.jpeg?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
THAT is truly scary stuff.
It's really a shock that a majority of adult Americans want to outsource their understanding of reality to the government and so-called "experts." An astounding level of naivety and laziness.
"An astounding level of naivety and laziness."
Always remember that half the population has an IQ under 100.
https://www.brainalytics.org/img/articles-images/iq-bell-curve/iq-bell-curve-3.webp
Also worth noting that the data is clear in that average IQ scores across groups is not random; ie some groups have much higher average IQ scores than others even when controlling for environment. Eg Asians have higher average IQ score than whites, and so on.
The key word in that poll is “false.” I trust no polls anyway, they’re always skewed to generate propaganda, but most people who replied likely didn’t absorb the second half of the question, “even if it limits freedom of information.” Note avoidance of the word “speech.”
Anyway most of the “misinformation” “limited” thus turned out to be true. As we know.
Very perceptive point, Ken, RE: limiting ‘information’ vs. ‘speech’
Comes of suspicion. 🧐
Most of human history accounts for this belief. Ours government (as written) is an abomination on humanities history if you think about it.
Note that immediatly after warning of the rise of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower issues a another warning, one that's been overshadowed and yet equally as dangerous: the rise of a government-science complex (in YT above start at minute 9:28). Naturally few people have ever heard of this, let alone take the warning.
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Wow. Thank you. You’re correct, this warning definitely has been overshadowed. So spot on, the dangers of DOD’s nefarious practices (on our military🤬) along with CDC, FDA, and all the other ‘health’ agencies all while promoting vaccine trials conducted on orphans.
I didn’t know about that one but the more I learn about Eisenhower, the more impressed by his actions and wisdom I am.
One libertarian to another, what makes me appreciate him is the older I get the more I realize its pretty damn easy to take a hard absolutist position. But its pretty f***ing hard to get something done.
And when you can’t throw a Hail Mary, sometimes you just have to grind it out.
Yes. It seems that integrity and results are often in conflict.
A very important warning to amplify now.
Between Covid, climate change, and AI, I'd think its pretty damn important.
It will also be ignored.
Sasha, I wouldn't go so far as to state that Oppenheimer was "never a communist." Granted, he never officially "joined" the Communist Party but he was most definitely sympathetic to communist ideals and policies. He stated in his application for his initial security clearance that he had been involved with every communist organization on the West Coast, then denied he said it even though it was in writing. He told the committee he appeared before when his security clearance was revoked that he was a "fellow traveller," which is a euphemism for someone who is a communist but not a card-carrier. His girlfriend AND his wife were both Communists with a capital C. SOMEBODY was keeping the USSR abreast on the Manhattan Project.
Incidentally, Orwell also had communist sympathies. He went to Spain to fight with the Communists although he later changed his views.
I haven't seen the film and don't plan to until it comes out on streaming so I can't comment on whether it is sympathetic to communism or not, but Oppenheimer most definitely was.
As far as Bobbie goes, I WAS around in "the old days" when Barbie Dolls came out. My sister had one. The big deal was that they had breasts. Incidentally, the big craze before Barbie was a black baby doll. All little white girls had to have one.
No, Oppenheimer DID NOT "build" the atomic bombs. Oppenheimer headed the organization at Los Alamos, New Mexico where the bomb was assembled but the building was a community effort with a lot of different people involved and doing the work. Much of the work was actually at Oakridge, Tennessee. The single person most involved with the building of the bomb was General Leslie Groves, who got the ball rolling. Oppenheimer worked for him. If Oppenheimer hadn't been there, someone else would have.
Sam, we’re not historians here. We hope to get the major themes and players right but we really don’t have the time to do 10 years of research before we make any assertion about the past. Please bear (or is it bare?) with us.
You don't have to do 10 years of research to find out that Oppenheimer was surrounded by Communists and said that he was a fellow traveler.
you should see the film, Sam. Being surrounded by communists doesn't necessarily make you one.
This is not just a true statement; it is also a realistic observation. Raised by a communist mother and a soc-dem father --- who loudly disagreed every day and yet loved each other to their eighties --- I experienced repeating the prescribed slogans and then questioning them and objecting to them and then being ill-treated for doing so. This also injected in me an elemental truth of human nature: Any one of us at any random time can and do say something "communist" --- or something "fascist," for that matter, without becoming -ist of any kind. By the same token, celebrated individuals can and do perform vile acts, at times soon after delivering lofty-ovated-memorialized passages. Not only slum-level party ("Party") secretaries, but world leaders or soon-to-be-sainted greats with mass of followers.
Words, words, words. What matters is what we do.
And one of the words "facist" was described by none other than Joseph Stalin as anyone who didn't support the Communist revolution.
Words are a reflection of what we think, and what we do is governed by our thoughts.
In the case of Stalin, those words were not a reflection of what he thought, but a reflection of what he wanted other people to think.
Ben, with all due respect, there is tons of information out there about Oppenheimer. I don't need to see the film to understand the situation. it's certain that he had communist leanings even though he denied being a card-carrying Communist (which is a common tactic. One of the founders of the Highlander Folk School denied being a Communist - but he was the Secretary of the Communist Party in North Carolina!) Some of his biographers believe he was a member of the Communist Party but denied it. Some believe he was being orchestrated by the USSR while others believe he was loyal to the US, some believe he was a black sheep wandering around in a flock of white sheep (Communists.) Leslie Groves said at the hearing where his security clearance was revoked that under the security policies of that time, he would not have requested that Oppenheimer be given a clearance. He's the reason he was cleared in the first place, Groves felt that he needed his knowledge for the Manhattan Project.
One of the factors about Los Alamos is that the scientists working on the bomb there were all for it as long as they thought it was going to be used on Nazi Germany (most of them were Jews) but once Germany surrendered, they started having second thoughts. The irony is that the War Policy Committee, who were actually the people in charge of deciding where to use it, planned to use it on Japan from the get-go. Oppenheimer got in hot water after the war by coming out against the H-bomb, which the Air Force wanted. He wanted to stick with atomic bombs and advocated the development of low-yield tactical weapons (of which there are so many in the modern arsenal.)
By the way, this is the third film production (at least) about the A-bomb and Oppenheimer, although this one seems to focus on him.
now, I've seen both movies: really liked 'Oppenheimer,' really hated 'Barbie.' Suppose, one can say that they are both about conformity. I was surprised that so many people came to 'Barbie' wearing pink. What is this conformity? Should I have worn red for Oppenheimer yesterday? har har. yes, Neither movie is funny. 'Barbie' is just what your guy friends are warning you now/not to see: a long bland movie about a doll. A little throwaway line near the end of 'Barbie', suggests what might have been, if it really wanted to have satire and symbolism that worked. It compares the plastic world Barbie is leaving for the plastic one she is going to in Los Angeles. This is what Northern Californian people really think of Los Angeles. Like me. I lived in L.A. once in the early/mid 80's. Almost everyone under 40 wore walk-shorts, either in black and red plaid or purple and baby blue plaid. You'd go to an Amusement part of the beach, I swear, 99% of girls, 95% of guys. I never in my life saw such conformity in Texas! In short the 'Barbie' world in Act 1 seems the same as Los Angeles.
As for what angered the red team about this movie, sorry, could not locate the trans thing, and the cartoon map with the lines that Ted Cruz complained about, sorry, that is a nothing burger as well. I suppose they have points maybe about the all male supreme court that the Kens wanted, even though the Barbies wanted an all female supreme court, and then the changing of the constitution and building the wall wrong things. It would not matter if there was some funny lines going along, you know, as in a real comedy, like in "Joy Ride." Yes, there is a lot of preachy speeches, including (spoiler-alert) one where we are told there should be a Barbie that is just Barbie, and not an accomplished lawyer or doctor or astronaut or president, cause you know what? we're all equitable and equal just being us. if we are female. seems at odds with the scenes where the females get all anger about being suppressed, since what would it matter, if all/everyone/is the same, no matter what? I would describe this middle to end or middle part of the movie as incoherent.
What I will say, is 'Barbie' made me yearn to see those talking rocks again in 'Everything/everywhere/random things/ so critics must like it/all at once'. Yes, overrated is still my opinion, but in comparison to 'Barbie,' it's 'Citizen Kane.'
Ultimately, 'Barbie' will be a financial success for only one reason: name recognition. So, yes, the thing about commercialism being associated with a doll, no surprise, was accurate. Ironically, though, Barbie will do better in red states than in blue states and Oppenheimer will do better in blue states than in red states.
finally, as a las question, why does the movie need to present the entire MatchBox 20 song "I want to Push You Around" ---twice, but you only get the very opening riff of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Maybe cause they knew this movie's joy falls well below the Lauper song?
I saw Oppenheimer twice today. I was so moved from the first second by the images, and then the appearance of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and remarkably, Kurt Gödel, who show up to remind us that as the giants of 20th century physics, that they were real people caught in the conflicts of history. I was moved by the tight, complex, transcendent story telling. I walked out of the theater, and bought another ticket, and watched it again. The performances of Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt (especially when Teller faces her), Robert Downey, Jr., Matt Damon, and Florence Pugh were the best of their careers. If my first viewing captured the beauty and potential of scientific discovery, my second viewing reminded me that power corrupts by rationalization and cult-like control. It is a remarkable film. As I drove home, I wished for a prequel that would have captured the story of early Einstein, the Vienna Circle, the gathering of Nobel laureates at Solvay in 1927, followed by the stories of Jewish scientists who had to leave Germany and Austria as the implication of Hitler’s rise became apparent. It is amazing how little has change in a century and a quarter.
Great piece; shedding more light on Oppenheimer is good. Don't worry, Sasha, you are gaining more true people than 'supposed friends' of the past. Same with Taibbi, Greenwald, etc. You all will be more vociferously defended than you can imagine - take another trip across the midwest again. You know.
Trump simply said it like it is and the UniParty has attacked him for eight years now; trying to take his freedom. And yours.
Thanks Sasha. You’re absolutely right that hysteria over Trump is at the root of all this. He definitely sets their hair on fire. And that’s why we love him, ironically. He’s willing to stand up and call them out regardless of threats and smears. Never thought the Democrats would sink this low but they have. Sad situation. Also a tinder box. The good news is that more people are speaking up, like you, and the more voices the better our chances of sanity.
Sasha, about the red scare one can concede that McCarthy made mistakes in hunting communists. He quarreled too much, the public hated his performance in the Army hearings, and he called one senator "Sanctimonious Stu." (Sound familiar?)
To be fair, however, it's not true that McCarthy simply smeared everybody or found no communists. Blacklisted by History, by M. Stanton Evans, shows, with the benefit of Venona decrypts, that McCarthy's batting average was better than one might think.
It's not bad reading for those who want to inquire into the truth about the commonly held story line about this subject.
Sasha, another beautifully nuanced piece. Your ability to parse the ideological complexities of the day without your losing moral and intellectual compass is so rare and so needed right now. You leave me (and so many of us, I think) eager for more.
I didn't come away from the movie as being pro-communist. What I did take away was he was the sole voice, as Oppenheimer rightly perceived, of letting the weapons genie out of the bottle. What Oppenheimer faced in his day when he tried to warn of the incredible danger unleashed upon the world, against the state's view, he was persecuted. The correlation of what happened to him is no different than what we are witnessing today with the state pursuing Trump in an effort to destroy him. To me, that is the deeper lesson.
“They believe in forced conformity and ideological compliance in art, science, education, and even relationships between people, language, comedy, and everything else they control, which is almost everything.”
I started to address the left’s monopoly of major media, but re-read the above. Ideological compliance in all of those areas is much larger than just the media. I doubt that realizing the rest of us disagree with most of said ideology would cause any of them to relent.
Pardon me for asking, can you see any way through this?
With mocking humor. That is the way out. Fortunately Trump has energized a very significant part of the country who may well choose not to comply and write songs and jokes about it. The jokes and songs might be "cancelled" by some, but others will keep them alive. Most of the countries footprint is red.
I want you to be right. I wish you were
If Ok here on this substack, here is the link to the Chris Rufo substack podcast from today titled: Weekend Listen: The Theory of Revolution- A discussion with members of the “dissident Right” on the true nature of the Left. https://rufo.substack.com/p/weekend-listen-the-theory-of-revolution?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If uncomfortable w/clicking the link, try a search of Christopher Rufo on substack or just do a google of the podcast title.
Sounds good. I was asking Sasha, but I’ll take any reasonable answer.
The real problem being, this ideology is ingrained in university cultures, spilled over into public schools, often is supported by courts, has the support of the corporatocracy and even the United Nations. My claim that the WEF (along with people like Soros) deliberately push this crap to cause societies to fail, so they can sweep ‘em up into world rule, no longer really matters.
There’s another huge issue, and it’s just as devastating. Check this out:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joebot/p/humanity-20-is-coming-you-ignore?r=1zyuut&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
The only certainty I see is that nothing will ever return to what we think is normal. No matter what. A couple of times I’ve started to write about it, but my conclusions at this point are, shall we say, socially not constructive.
That’s a big big question I know.
Since I've lived under communism (or, actually, under its Moscow-dictated ershatz version) and studied its writings through grad school, I found the ensuing discussion interesting enough to induce me to see the film once it comes my way.
It gave me a special chuckle to read one contributor's passage referring to "high-ranking government toadies persecuted people, not for any crime they had committed, but for what they might be thinking."
Now there is an apt description of today's USofA. Sad but true.
Pretty good article (going to see both movies tonight) but I take issue with a two things you wrote.
You said:
"Even those who are against “cancel culture” and understand fanaticism and dogma have captured all of our major institutions, from culture to education to science to government, will never be able to take one step further to understand that the source of the hysteria is the person that disrupted the utopia: Donald Trump.”
Trump is not the source of all the woke hysteria; it had been going on for at least several years before he decided to run for the 2016 election, and had been evolving even before that.
You said:
"We’ve now become almost numb to watching our fellow Americans, millions of them, treated as enemies of the state, not to mention the unprecedented persecution of Trump — Jack Smith’s indictment as the most recent example, but the raid on mar-a-logo, Russiagate, the two impeachments…”
Lumping all of Trump’s travails together as if they were all just trivial, politically driven, illegitimate endeavors to destroy an innocent man, treats him as a mere victim of bad actors, instead of someone who quite possibly broke the law, quite possibly numerous times.
I get a hint of the opposite of Trump Derangement Syndrome here: Trump Victimhood Syndrome
How come he’s been attacked on the same grounds as those his opponents could be but aren’t? The double standards are glaringly apparent as is the hypocrisy. Lying to investigators is a crime when Flynn does it but not McCabe; improper storage of classified docs is a crime when Trump does it but not Biden, Hillary etc. A special prosecutor is fine for Trump on zero evidence but not ok for Biden despite evidence of corruption and compromise from foreign government payouts. J6 protesters get max prison terms while 2020 rioters get released without charges.
I agree with you about the double standards in several cases you site. However, regarding the classified docs, Biden and Clinton cooperated and turned over docs they had when requested, Trump did not. In fact, he made every effort to delay, to hide, to deceive. There is a difference, and one that has criminal liability.
Not so—Clinton destroyed subpoenaed emails and phones. Re Biden, we only have assertions from his lawyer that there are no more classified docs in his possession. Trump says he was negotiating with NARA and his case hasn’t been adjudicated yet. The double standard is clear here too, including the vast difference in the amount of time given to resolve classified doc issues in each case.