I have been wrestling with the issue of Russophobia in the United States for some time now. As someone who cut his academic teeth studying Russian history in college, and who, at an early stage in my development as an adult had the opportunity to live and work in Russia during the Soviet era, I have a deep, yet admittedly incomplete, appreciation for Russian culture, language and history. This appreciation has empowered me to make informed judgments about Russia, its political leadership, and its people, especially when assessing the interactions between Russia and the United States today.
Right-wing populism in the Western world is generally associated with ideologies such as anti-environmentalism, anti-globalization, nativism, and protectionism. In Europe, the term is often used to describe groups, politicians, and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration, especially from the Muslim world, and for Euroscepticism. Right-wing populists may support expanding the welfare state, but only for those they deem fit to receive it; this concept has been referred to as “welfare chauvinism”.
According to welfare chauvinists, the safety nets of the welfare state are for those whom they believe belong in the community. By the right-wing populist standard, affiliations with society are based in national, cultural and ethnic or racial aspects. Considered to be included in the category are those that are regarded as nourishing. The debilitating group (primarily immigrants) is considered to be outside of society and to be unjustly utilizing the welfare system. In essence, welfare chauvinists consider immigration to be a drain on societal scarce resources. They believe these resources should be used for the ethnically homogeneous native population, preferably children and the elderly.
If you haven’t been living under a rock for the past couple of years, you will be familiar with the concept of the anti-“woke” culture war the Republican Party grows and farms for its own purposes. This isn’t to say there aren’t real cultural conflicts we need to work out as a country, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that much of what you hear about in the press is specifically cultivated by one party or another to generate headlines and outrage for the purposes of votes and campaign contributions.
One, the bans are generally designed to agitate a xenophobic base and give the impression the GOP is “doing something about China.” But the party that couldn’t care less about rampant corruption or privacy violations isn’t doing much of anything meaningful to thwart China. In fact, letting adtech, telecom, and app companies run rampant with little oversight runs contrary to any such goal.
Two, the bans distract the public and press from our ongoing failure on consumer privacy and security issues. Banning TikTok, but doing nothing about the accountability optional free for all that is the adtech and data-hoovering space, doesn’t actually fix anything. China can just obtain the same data from a universe of other international companies facing little real oversight on data collection.
Three, the ban is really just about money. Trump gave the game away with his proposal that TikTok be chopped up and sold to Oracle and Walmart. That cronyistic deal fell through, but it’s pretty clear that this moral panic is designed to either help TikTok’s competitors (Facebook lobbyists are very active on this front), or force the sale of the most popular app in modern history to GOP-allies. At which point they’ll engage in all the surveillance and influence efforts they pretend to be mad about.
After conservatives attacked M&Ms for slightly redesigning some of their signature mascot characters to be more “inclusive,” the beloved candy brand has announced it is taking an “indefinite pause from the spokescandies” and replacing them with actress and comedian Maya Rudolph.
The rising ruling class wants a neocon-neoliberal-totalitarian humanist regime for which shady faux progressive characters like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg will be the front figures, with neocon puppets like Ron DeSantis functioning as faux-controlled opposition culture war cheerleaders from the Right. The purge is on.
Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Ms. Cat’s Chronicles.
I mean, these days this point should seem obvious, no? Does anyone out there still think that Silicon Valley is somehow different from all the other corporate clusters that run our society? Media, energy, finance, pharma, agriculture — these corporations represent the vast bulk of the organized capital of this military oligarchy of ours, and tech’s no different, regardless of the early bullshit the industry spun about itself being a beacon of radical democracy and freedom. In fact, given the specific origins of the Internet, I’d argue the link between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon is stronger and deeper that any of the other industries. They’re basically the same thing.
Newsweek claims that American Accountability Foundation is non-partisan. According to Wikipedia, it’s a “conservative opposition research group”. I suppose that Newsweek would deny that PNAC was a neoconservative think tank, as well.
With his refusal to go along with lockdowns and mask mandates during the pandemic, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis emerged as a hero to many in libertarian circles. But as his name is now consistently put forward as a prospective or even likely 2024 Republican Presidential candidate, those who view him favorably should take a sober second look. On foreign policy in particular, DeSantis promises to continue the disastrous policies of his predecessors, which have made us uniformly less free, less safe, and much poorer.
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.