WHY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT HATES ITS OWN BASE

 

Well, Hakeem Jeffries really disliked my direct questions about why he won’t support ABOLISH ICE or why he continues to take money from AIPAC. Instead, he gave me a bunch of nonsense word salad filled with plastic fruit and vegetables.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has thrown her weight behind Governor Newsom, even as he actively goes against the Democratic base when it comes to his positions on Israel’s genocide, ICE, and taxing the billionaires.

Democrats believe they can waltz their way to power by ignoring their own base, repeating their donors’ talking points, and simply reminding people they are better than Trump.

We don’t think it’ll work this time.

Here’s Danielle Moodie with her write-up of today’s DEMOCRACY-ISH episode

---

There is a specific kind of condescension that only the Democratic establishment can master. It’s a flavor of arrogance that suggests if you have a pulse, a conscience, and a set of demands for your tax dollars, you are simply too “radical” to be understood.

We saw it play out in real-time recently during an interview with Representative Hakeem Jeffries. When presented with a mountain of facts—that ICE is spending $38 billion to convert warehouses into what are effectively concentration camps, that 60% of Americans now disapprove of the agency, and that its history of terrorizing Black and brown communities is documented and visceral—the response wasn’t a defense of policy. It wasn’t even an argument.

It was: “I don’t understand anything that you just said.”

It wasn’t spoken in a different language. It was spoken in the language of the majority. But to the “Big Club” of establishment politics, the majority is a fringe group to be managed, not a constituency to be led.

The “Word Salad” Shield

Establishment leadership has become a master of the “four-quadrant” strategy. In Hollywood, that means making a movie so vanilla it doesn’t offend 18-year-olds, 49-year-olds, men, or women. In politics, it results in a lackluster “word salad” designed to obfuscate and distract.

When Jeffries says, “I’m going to use the language that I want to use,” what he really means is: I will not stand for anything.

The bar has been set so low that we are expected to celebrate “restoration” instead of “transformation.” The Democratic elite is currently spiking the ball because they think they’re winning elections by simply not being Donald Trump. They believe that as long as the “D” is behind their name, they don’t have to do an audit of their failures. They don’t have to stop supporting the brutalization of Palestinians. They don’t have to tax billionaires.

They think you’ll vote for them anyway because the other side is the devil. But choosing between the devil and the devil’s helper isn’t a choice—it’s a hostage situation.

The Party That Hates Its Base

It is a bizarre phenomenon: the Democratic establishment seems to hate its own base more than Republicans hate theirs.

Republicans, for all their faults, meet their base where they are. They amplify the anger, they pivot their messaging, and they embrace the terms “right-wing” and “conservative” with pride. Meanwhile, Democrats use “leftist” or “progressive” as slurs. They are embarrassed by the very people who put them in power.

The Popularity Gap

If you want to know who is actually winning, look at the numbers. The politicians who stand “ten toes down”—those who don’t use kid gloves with leadership and aren’t afraid to say “Abolish ICE” or “Free Palestine”—are the ones with the highest approval ratings.

The bottom of the list is populated by the “safe” fundraisers. The top is populated by the fighters.

Selective Outrage and the Normalization of Hate

Nowhere is the establishment’s cowardice more visible than in their selective silence. Take Representative Randy Fine, who recently tweeted: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Where is the censure? Where is the press conference? Where is the leadership standing against this dehumanization?

When Rashida Tlaib criticizes a foreign government, the establishment moves with lightning speed to censure her. When a representative compares an entire religious group to animals, the “Big Club” chooses to do nothing. This is how hate speech becomes normalized political language—through the calculated silence of those in power.

By the time this rhetoric turns into physical violence and death, they’ll act surprised. But it starts with words, and it’s sustained by their “feckless, impotent” refusal to act.

Radicalized in Real Time

While leadership stammers, the people are waking up. We are seeing a new phenomenon: the radicalization of the “average” American.

Take the Navy veteran from Indiana who spent eight years in the military and now looks at ICE yanking people out of cars and says, “This is not what I signed up for.” Or the white man in New Jersey, holding an American flag and near tears, who watched masked ICE agents waiting at a school bus stop for fourth and fifth graders.

“I watched fourth and fifth graders run from our government today... in our country, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. I love my country, but I just can’t. They’re going after children.”

These aren’t “left-wing activists.” These are people seeing the “Gestapo” tactics of a 2003-era agency being turned against their neighbors. And yet, Democrats continue to fund the beast, terrified of being called “soft on crime,” repeating the same mistakes Joe Biden made with the 1990s crime bill.

Sand in the Gears: The Minnesota Lesson

The establishment wants us to sit silently, to not protest, and to wait for the next midterm as if we aren’t being sprayed with bear spray today. They want us to follow the “law” even as the law is used to smash car windows and batter bodies with rubber bullets.

But the people in Minnesota have shown us a different way. They didn’t wait for a governor or a mayor to tell them what to do. They linked arms. They created meal trains and laundry trains so their neighbors could stay safe inside. They became “sand in the gears” of an injustice.

The Tide is Turning

Even with the flood of “dark money” from groups like AIPAC, which spent millions to unseat progressives like Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, the strategy is failing. In New Jersey, AIPAC tried to knock out a Democrat for being “off-script” on Israel, only to see a pro-Palestinian, “Abolish ICE” organizer, Ana Lilia Mejia, take the victory.

We have been fed crumbs for ten years. We have been told to be moderate in the face of extremism. But moderation in the face of a burning house is just a slower way to let it turn to ash.

The “Big Club” is real, and they are more comfortable with center-right Republicans than they are with you. It’s time we stopped asking for an invitation to their table and started building our own.

THE LEFT HOOK with Wajahat Ali

Feb 16 There's no doubt, the democratic party is going through a crisis of confidence between the majority of its base and its aging and too shy top leadership and management, it could lead to some big losses in the upcoming Nov. elections, and further down the line, this report and analysis describes it in detail and thoroughly, I thought of sharing the article for better understanding of this situation.    As always my many thanks to all.

UNENDING CONFLICTS AND WARS.....

 

Arab News published a new report discussing Lebanon And its current situation, especially in light of the Israeli continuation of its attacks and military operations against the country, the report said that "Lebanon should focus on achievable goals."

 
The report, translated by "Lebanon24 ," states that "amidst this tense regional climate, one wonders if Lebanon will offer a glimmer of hope," and continues: "This is a country and a people who have suffered greatly as a result of war."Syrian war". This led to a refugee crisis, as well as an economic collapse, not to mention the port explosion. Beirut Israel's war in 2023-2024."

The report noted that "Lebanese people need real relief," but at the same time asked: "What is the reason for optimism in the country? For various reasons, a pivotal moment may soon come in which a weak and fragile state can assert its sovereign control and break free from the aggressive ambitions of external powers, primarily Israel and Iran."

 

It continued: “Firstly, Lebanon, represented by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who have been in power for about a year, has a ruling duo that enjoys broad credibility at the local, regional and international levels. But this situation may not last, so the two need support that is not only economic, but also political.”

 

It added: "Secondly, in its efforts to consolidate the role of the state, non-governmental actors must relinquish some of their positions and respect this role, and this represents a weakness for "Hezbollah" This is a golden opportunity to achieve that. Indeed, the assassination of the party's charismatic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who led the party for a long time, and many of his aides, damaged the organization's standing, whose military capabilities have clearly declined in the war

with Israel, and it has also lost a key ally in the Assad regime.

The report concluded that "Hezbollah is no longer capable of deterring Israel, but has become a primary target of attacks by Israel, it continued, "Also, Iran no longer retains its former strength thanks to the US sanctions regime and last year's June war. In reality, Iran can no longer provide its allies, including Hezbollah, with the same weapons, training, and funding it once did. At the same time, Iran still maintains considerable influence over Hezbollah, but it has more pressing domestic concerns.

Furthermore, the report states that "the Israeli leadership, as with Gaza, is having difficulty understanding what a ceasefire with Lebanon entails," and continues: "According to a report of the United Nations In Lebanon, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement signed in November 2014 more than 10,000 times, and has repeatedly targeted the UN agency itself. These violations have escalated in recent months, leading some to wonder whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning another large-scale attack on Lebanon in an Israeli election year.

It added: "What will encourage the Prime Minister of Israel, It is the lack of international response to these violations. It is true that Some US steps have been taken in this direction, but not with the full force that the US president's administration can muster, or the president can use. Instead of condemning the attacks on UNIFIL forces, the Security Council stipulated that its mandate would end at the end of 2026, largely at the insistence of the United States, which is a reckless decision given the history of these borders and the wars and clashes that turned in this small area clearly demonstrate the need for a multinational presence."

It continued: “To take advantage of this limited opportunity, key international actors must pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, including UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This means a complete withdrawal from the five hills occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon. This withdrawal should be implemented immediately, and if it is not, a suitable timetable should be set for it as a minimum.”

It continued: "The United States has led efforts to disarm Hezbollah, and that makes sense. Likewise, the Lebanese state should... and exercise full monopoly on the use of force, and Hezbollah has undermined this right for a long time."

It said: “But the Lebanese government faces a real dilemma. Removing weapons from south of the Litani River is one thing, and completely disarming Hezbollah without a political agreement is quite another. All parties should be careful not to drag the Lebanese army into a military confrontation with Hezbollah, as it is unlikely to achieve victory. Also, it is crucial that the army has the credibility of a national institution that protects all communities.”

It said: “Some political offer must be made to Hezbollah regarding how to integrate its fighters into the country’s armed forces, while Shiite communities will demand guarantees that they will not be harmed politically and economically. In return, the Israeli government and the United States are pressuring Lebanon to agree to normalization, and Israeli officials have sought to hold inter-ministerial meetings instead of the ceasefire mechanism as a means of moving towards full relations. The United States has even had to allay concerns by emphasizing the continuation of this mechanism.”

The report argued that "normalization should not be rushed," stating that "Lebanon is a frontline state, has been invaded by Israel many times, and its territory has been occupied for long periods, while the Lebanese people are not yet ready for that."

In contrast, the report found that "reaching a security agreement between Lebanon and Israel may be possible," noting that "a final demarcation of the borders is also possible," and concluded: "Therefore, it is better to focus on what can be achieved rather than being preoccupied with illusions."

A good analysis reporting the very factual situation between Lebanon, Israel and consequently Hezbollah, retranslated to fit our blog and to help better understand the hairy situation over that part of the world.

A Lesson from Noam Chomsky about Israel and Iran and the entire M-E region.

All Human Rights Abuses Are Equally Wrong. But We’re More Responsible for Those We Help Commit....

As always, my many thanks to all. 

 

 

A DIFFERENT AND CONTROVERCIAL REALITY......

 

Iran Feeling Its Oats

(((Will Schryver)))

It must be understood that, in firmly rejecting US/Israel demands, Iran is effectively dictating terms — and this strongly confirms what many of us have argued since last summer: Iran was the clear winner of the 12-Day War. Israel knows it, the United States knows it, and Iran knows it.
I have no way of confirming the veracity of the following report, but it is unquestionably consistent with other confirmed reports emerging out of Iran these days.
Former UK ambassador and intelligence officer Alastair Crooke, on Geopolitika, writes as follows:
(Over the past two weeks, two important messages were conveyed to Iran, both of which were rejected.
One came from the U.S. and the other from Israel. The former was: “We [the U.S.] will carry out a limited attack and you should accept it; or at least, give only a symbolic response.” Tehran rejected this request, saying that it would consider any attack to mark the beginning of a full-scale war.
Israel’s message, delivered through one of the various mediators, was: “We will not participate in the American attack.” It asked Iran therefore, to not target Israel. This request also met with a negative response, together with the explicit clarification that were the U.S. to commence military action, Israel would be immediately attacked. In parallel, Iran informed all states in the region that any attack launched from their territory or airspace, would result in an Iranian attack on whomsoever facilitated such U.S. military action.)
These reports are actually quite astounding, for not only do they parallel perfectly what happened in the final 48 hours of the 12-Day War, but they reveal a profound degree of self-doubt and hesitation percolating in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The Pentagon and the IDF are coming face to face with something I have been shouting from the house tops for several years now:
There are no easy wars left to fight.
And, contrary to the perceptions of most Americans and others around the world, making war against Iran in its own backyard here in 2026 is all but certain to produce disastrous results for both the US and Israel — and has pronounced potential to spark a regional war, spiral out of control, and ultimately draw in Russia, China, and North Korea.
In any case, it must be understood that, in firmly rejecting US/Israel demands, Iran is effectively dictating terms — and this strongly confirms what many of us have argued since last summer: Iran was the clear winner of the 12-Day War. Israel knows it, the US knows it, and Iran knows it.
It is undeniably evident that Washington is angling for an exit from this march to madness. But, given that the Iranians are now dictating the terms of that exit and will not agree to a reprise of the orchestrated Operation Midnight Hammer, and its fictitious B-2 bunker-busting strike, and given the massive concentration of American military power in the region, and given the huge investment in menacing bravado Trump has already made in this ill-conceived adventure, {war may now be unavoidable}. 

Received through a forward on my phone, a good analysis and very factual scene, of course it comes against the open assumptions and discussions of the situation for this conflicts, and his conclusions of the coming war, that I believe the present American administration is trying to avoid, but the Israeli connection might think differently and work to ignite a war for different reasons of their own. 

As always, my many thanks to all. 

A FAIRLY PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO........

 

*How was Khomeini created to manage the chaos in the Middle East to this day?*

Noël Lechâteau was not an exile… but an operations room…

In politics, there are no "innocent coincidences" when it comes to changing major regimes...
No revolutions descend from the sky without ladders.
What happened in Iran in the late seventies was not just the fall of the Shah and the rise of a religious man, but a calculated transfer of power from an expired instrument to one more suitable for the next stage.
Anyone who reads the documents on which I based my articles, and which will be published when I publish my book, will realize that Khomeini was not an incident, but a project...
And that "Noël-le-Château" was not a quiet French village, but a "stage" where the leader was tailored to fit international needs...

This may seem shocking to those still captive to the romantic narrative of the "revolution of the oppressed," but history, when read from the angle of interests rather than from the angle of slogans, exposes itself.
The real question is not: Why did the Shah fall? But:
Why was Khomeini specifically chosen?
And why did France, which supposedly prohibits political activity on its territory, open all doors for him to turn a remote village into a global broadcasting center?

The truth is clear:
The Shah was not overthrown because he was an enemy of America, but because he overstepped his bounds a little...
He began building a strong army.
He hinted at buying weapons from the Soviets.
- Raising the oil ceiling
- And he closed off hotspots of tension that Washington preferred to keep simmering...
*Herein lies the principle that summarizes the behavior of empires:
It does not first bring down its opponents, but rather it brings down its tools when it thinks that it has become a "state" and not a "job".

Henry Kissinger says – with painful realism – that great powers do not reward loyalty, but rather utility.
This is not a personal cruelty on his part, but rather a description of a global system that discards allies like one discards gloves when they get dirty.
The Shah was a useful glove, then he became a disturbing glove that scratched sensitive American skin!

And here's where the most clever part of the script begins:
The goal was not to replace the Shah with a strong, independent adversary, but with an alternative capable of generating long-term chaos, without completely severing ties with the West...
Therefore, the choice was not a nationalist officer who might lead a nationalist coup that would break away from the house of obedience.
No leftist would throw themselves into Moscow's lap.
There is no weak liberal without a street...
The choice was a religious man, because a religious man does not need an economic program or an institutional vision to rule; it is enough for him to possess a “sanctity” that absolves him of accountability, and to possess a “street” that protects him with anger.

*In the 1953 Musaddiq experiment, the CIA learned the most important lesson: religious figures are the quickest key to the minds of the masses...*
*When the first coup failed, the CIA did not save its plan with tanks, but rather by activating the network of religious figures and buying loyalties with money, then pushing the street to revolt against Mossadegh...*
This is not a novel, but a recurring pattern: money + the pulpit + the street = a successful coup.

Therefore, when Washington wanted to get rid of the Shah, it did not go to the political parties or the elites, but went directly to the religious figures.
She was not interested in who "hated" her in his speech, but rather in who could control the masses and turn politics into a religious ritual, because ritual is not up for discussion.

And so Khomeini awoke from his long slumber in Najaf....
He was not transferred to a nearby Muslim country, but rather smuggled out across the border and then taken to France. France supposedly stipulated that he refrain from political activity, but the opposite occurred:
Noël Le Chateau has turned into a media beehive working twenty-four hours a day...
It was as if the whole world had suddenly discovered that a man in a French village deserved to have broadcasting towers erected for him, radio stations opened for him, and newspapers racing to report his words.

This is not support for a revolutionary, but rather the creation of a symbol.

George Orwell said: “He who has the power to shape language has the power to shape consciousness.”

Khomeini did not initially triumph through weapons, but rather through the language that was formulated for him, and the image that was portrayed of him.
He became a “leader,” not because he was the most knowledgeable or the wisest, but because he was the most likely to be the embodiment of the entire scene.
And here came the moment of the great deception: a religious man was polished as the “voice of the people,” while other political forces were more organized and present.

The most ironic thing is that the wave of glorification was not limited to the media, but was also joined by great philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir...!!
Foucault, who was supposed to see the mechanisms of power, fell under the spell of "spiritual revolution," and later apologized after seeing the blood...
But the belated apology doesn't change the fact that he contributed to marketing the myth.
*Here we understand the meaning of Hannah Arendt's statement:*
"The most dangerous thing about totalitarian regimes is not that they lie, but that they make people get used to lying until it becomes reality!"

*When Khomeini returned to Tehran, he did not begin building a state, but rather began eliminating his partners...*
Because the systems we use do not allow for multiple heads....
Getting rid of the men of the moment:
Yazdi, Qutbzadeh, Abolhassan Banisadr, then it was the turn of the most difficult number: Beheshti.
*This pattern is not random, but a rule:*
Everyone who helped in the ascent becomes a danger after the arrival.

Then came the hostage drama, which credible documents indicate was not merely a revolutionary act against America, but a card played within the American elections between Carter and Reagan.

*Herein lies the essence of Khomeiniism:*
-Open hostility boosts popularity
-And deep understandings that preserve the job....
** The job was clear: to create a permanent regional adversary, to frighten the Gulf, to drain Iraq, to ​​lay the groundwork for a long sectarian conflict, and to make the whole region need an "international mediator."
It never disappears.
From here, the connection with today becomes clear and effortless....
What is happening in the region now is not a "breakaway" from the past, but a direct extension of it...

Iran today, under Khamenei or whoever comes after him, is not a normal state project, but rather an influence project based on proxies.
She doesn't need to win militarily as much as she needs to keep the fire burning....
Because when the fire goes out, the question that every ideological system fears returns:

What is your legitimacy domestically? And why should we pay the price for your projects?

Therefore, the developments in Iran today are not just an economic crisis or social protests, but rather the beginning of a crack in the equation:
The Iranian people no longer see a "revolution," but rather the price they are paying.
They believe that Khomeiniism has turned into a privileged class.
And that the Revolutionary Guard has become a state within a state
And that doctrine has become a meaningless means of control....

This is the most dangerous thing that regimes face: when people lose faith, only fear remains, and fear does not build a future.

Khomeini, therefore, was not the antithesis of the Shah, but rather the most suitable alternative for managing a new phase:
A phase of calculated chaos, a protracted conflict, and a bleeding equilibrium.
Today, when we look at the burning maps from Iraq to Syria to Yemen, we don't need much intelligence to understand that Khomeiniism was not just an internal Iranian event, but a re-engineering of the Middle East.

*I repeat the conclusion that should be said at the end of every article, and with coldness:*
Khomeini died, but what was created for him did not die; because systems do not live by individuals, but by functions....
*When the job ends, the symbol falls away, even if its image remains hanging on the walls.*
*=================*
*Ihsan Al-Faqih.*
*From the book Khomeini and Khomeinism... The Origin of the Story.*

As received by email, originally in Arabic, translated and forwarded to the benefit of our blog readers.,, I haven't read the book myself, but the idea in this short summary is pretty clear.    

As always, my many thanks to all.