@Airaasayss 16 visibles:
6 in the front
6 in the back
1 on top
1 sleeve r side
1sleeve L side
1 on bottom
Non visible the thousands in between each thread
Not the way I planned on spending my afternoon, but 7,600 comments should not be ignored! Bots, trolls and personal attacks notwithstanding, the critics of yesterday’s post were dominated by a large and vocal contingent who rushed to remind me that there’s “a difference between socialism and communism,” an obvious indication that they didn’t actually read the post.
Shelley Armour writes… “Mike! You know there is a difference between democratic socialism and communism, right?”
Hi, Shelley. Yes, I know there’s a difference, and I understand what the difference is. The larger point, and the fundamental flaw with your comment, is that you seem to believe the candidates within the Democratic Socialist Party are both “democratic and socialist" simply because that’s the name of their club. Well, maybe some of them are. I really couldn’t say. What I can tell you for sure is that more than a few have called for the complete dismantling of capitalism, free markets, representative government, property rights, borders, police, prisons, and the Constitution in general. My post referred to them, as well as a number of elected Democrats who have agreed to campaign on their behalf – including Gavin Newsom, who said, "The Democratic Party must accept the DSA in order to take back the Congress.” His words, not mine.
Tracey Steele writes…“Wow! I cannot believe Mike Rowe said this. He has a huge reach, and he is actually spouting the word “communism” like it’s the 1950s! Wow Wow Wow!”
Wow indeed, Tracey, and thanks for noticing the size of my reach! (Contrary to popular belief, size does matter!) To say it again, I am not the one “spouting” communism or conflating socialists and communists. The word is being “spouted” by members of the DSA who are using it to describe themselves. I am not accusing them; I am quoting them.
John Engles… Hey Rowe, what’s the difference between the Communists who want to run the country and the Nazi/fascist who currently is?
Several differences, John, but the only one relevant to this conversation is the fact that the communists currently running for office have clearly identified themselves as such. They do not dispute or reject the label. They embrace it. It is who they are, who they claim to be, and who they want to be. The president, on the other hand, has never claimed to be a Nazi or a fascist. That doesn’t mean he isn't, but it is worth noting he has rejected the accusation outright. Obviously, you are entitled to that opinion and the right to share it publicly, thanks to our Constitution. Unlike in a fascist, Nazi, or communist regime. (Also worth noting, Nazis and fascists are not the same thing.)
Chris Tomaloff writes… “Kinda like how the political right didn’t shout down the extreme rhetoric coming from their candidates?”
No, Chris, not like that at all. In the video I shared, we saw examples of prominent Democrats saying things like, “We need to elect more communists!” (Cea Weaver, Director of the NYC Mayor’s Office.) Mamdani himself literally tweeted, "Each according to their need, each according to their ability." That’s a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto.
But what exactly is the corollary from the right? Are prominent Republicans tweeting, “We need to elect more Nazis! We need to elect more fascists! Eat the poor!” I don’t think so. John Engles may think Trump is fascist and a Nazi, but Trump disagrees, and so do a majority of voters. Communists, on the other hand, say it loud and say it proud. I’m inclined to take them at their word.
Beto Ojeda… “Mike has always leaned to the Trumpian view of things but never states it, so as not to alienate anyone, but we know how to read between the lines. This “communist” talk is McCarthyism 2.0.”
I wasn’t around in the 1950s, Beto, but from what I’ve read, it was indeed a very difficult time to be a communist in this country. Lots of private citizens were dragged before Congress, made to take “loyalty oaths," and blacklisted in their places of work. I can’t justify it or condone it, but I can explain it. We had just fought a hot war against fascism and Nazism and just begun a Cold War against a communist regime. The existence of an organized Communist Party in this country at such a time strained the limits of tolerance. But do you really think we’re less tolerant today than we were seventy-five years ago? Do you really believe my comments about communists who claim to be communists are synonymous with another Red Scare? If you haven’t noticed, Chris, no one in the DSA, including the communists, is being dragged before Congress and made to swear a loyalty oath to the Constitution. Today, a communist in America can run for office…with the endorsement of the governor of California! And the tacit approval of a major political party! Seems to me we’re about as far from McCarthyism as we can get.
As for my desire not to alienate anyone, I suppose I am guilty of that. I run a foundation that is open to people of all political beliefs, and we’ve assisted lots of Americans who lean to the left. I also know for a fact that many Democrats have supported mikeroweWORKS historically, and I have no desire to run them off. But do you really have to “read between the lines” to understand where I’m coming from?
True, I’ve never endorsed a candidate or publicly encouraged people to vote. But I’ve been very transparent about the fact that I’m a registered Independent who favors policies and programs that often align with conservative principles. Obviously, I would not characterize those conservative principles as “Trumpian,” because a) they were around long before him, b) Trump is not a conservative, and c) I do not agree with or support everything the President says and does. So, is it possible, Beto, that your accusation is rooted in the fact that I have never publicly denounced the president to your satisfaction? Is it possible you think I'm a Trumper, simply because I've never called him a fascist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a conman, or a traitor, or whatever else you believe him to be?
Gretchen Seipp… Mike, the fact that you still act as though you’re not political after all this time is a bit ridiculous. I still support your work and foundation because I believe in it, but the folksy act has worn thin.
Aw, shucks, Gretchen. Folksy? Lil' ole me?
Honestly, how am I acting as if I am “not political?” This entire conversation is the very definition of “political.”
Christopher Pugh… I would have voted for Mike Rowe and Freddie a few years ago before he went full-on MAGA, and I’m all in favor of his project, but it’s pretty clear the political direction that he’s moved in and the money trail that has influenced it.
It’s Freddy, not Freddie. (I don’t much care, but he’s a terrier and particular about such things.) As for the “full-on MAGA” moniker, is there something I did specifically to earn that designation? Is there some kind of general definition you can share? Or, are you coming from the same place as Beto? Is calling me “Full-On MAGA" your way of saying that I’ve failed to condemn Trump to your satisfaction?
For the record, MRW is supported by liberals and conservatives alike. I have no idea what “money trail” you are referring to. Also, regarding my personal politics, think about the implications of what I wrote. I said that the Democrats have been given a gift – an opportunity to appear reasonable by speaking the truth to their own party, just as Bill Maher has done. All they have to do is distance themselves from candidates who have called for the complete dismantlement of our Constitution. All they have to do is say, “Hold on, comrade. Our tent is not that big. We respect your right to hate America, but we don’t want you in our party, and we will not support your candidacy.”
If they say that, I think a lot of Independents would see them as they see John Fetterman, who has, in the eyes of many voters, become the most “rational” Democrat currently in office. If they don’t – if they actually welcome communist candidates into their party – then I’m afraid the Democrats, by default, will offer the American people a very simple choice in November – a party that disavows communism vs. a party that doesn’t. I think such a choice would be very positive for Republicans because I don’t think most Americans want to align themselves with a Democratic Party that welcomes communists. The question for you, Chris, is why would a “Full-On MAGA” like me encourage Democrats to act in a way that would disadvantage the Republican Party? And the answer is simple – it’s because I support the existence of a Democratic Party that believes America is still a fundamentally good place.
I think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our country, and I believe the best way to realize those improvements is for Democrats and Republicans to have continuous, robust and public debate about all the issues. But if one of those parties is affirmatively determined to transform our democratic republic into a communist state, then we’re no longer debating the various ways to make our country better; we’re debating the merits of destroying it. And really, what’s the point of tolerating that?
America is already a big tent, filled with hundreds of millions of people with wildly differing views and lots of political parties that represent those views. We’ve got the Green Party, the American Freedom Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Constitution Party, and of course, the Communist Party USA, as well as the Democratic Socialist Party. America’s tent is so big, we can even tolerate fringe parties like the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and so forth. Why then, does Gavin Newsom want to make room in the Democratic tent for socialists and communists? There’s only one reason, and he’s already spelled it out for us – he believes the Democrats need them to win back the Congress. I think it’s a bad bet for the Democrats and for America. And if a prominent Republican reached out to the KKK with the same “big tent” offer, you’d better believe my vote would be in play.
Michael Tillman… When are you going to throw your hat into the ring, Mr. Rowe?
Ha! When it no longer fits my head!
This makes A LOT of sense. This explains why so many woman get manipulated into being liberals
“George Orwell once wrote women are always and inevitably on the side of the state.
He wasn't being misogynistic, he was making a psychological observation. In his view, women, particularly in their role as caregivers and moral enforcers, tend to prioritize safety and compassion over risk and freedom, and that instinct, while natural, is easily weaponized by totalitarian systems.
When conformity is marketed as compassion, control is rebranded as care, the state taps into the feminine psyche to enforce ideological obedience.
Now consider this: men will do almost anything to attract a mate, so when the state captures women through propaganda, redefining tyranny as empathy and compliance as virtue, men follow, especially those who can't compete in the traditional dating market, they feminize themselves and trade strength for submission. This is what evolutionary biologists call the sneaky f - strategy.
Low status males mimicking feminine traits or moral positions in hopes of reproductive access. And while all of this unfolds, families disintegrate. Single motherhood, a top predictor of poverty and social dysfunction, becomes the norm.
Children from single parent homes are far less likely to climb the economic ladder, and who steps in as provider and protector? Not the father, the state. But here's the kicker, the state is funded disproportionately by men, so rather than supporting the women they married and raised children with directly, men subsidize the state, which in turn provides for women through social programs. Why? Because women have been propagandized to see every relationship as a power dynamic, except one with the state, which is ironically the centralization of raw power.
They've been told that to rely on a man is weakness, but to rely on a bureaucracy is empowerment. This is not progress. This is dependency with a new face. And both men and women are suffering. The childless middle aged woman and the incel are two sides of the same broken culture.
A woman without her own child often directs her maternal instinct towards abstract causes, infantilizing minorities under the guise of social justice. What we are witnessing from psychologically unwell men and women is Nietzsche's concept of resentiment. Envy dressed up as morality. The strong became evil. The weak became good.
Strength became tyranny. We now live in a pathologically soft society that sides even with those who harm it, where punishing crime feels unfair and victimhood is the highest virtue. Nietzsche called them the tarantulas, those who preach justice but act from bitterness. They don't want to uplift the weak, they want to drag down the strong. Orwell saw them too.
Most middle aged socialists, while theoretically pining for a classist society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige. These bitter, well educated, and affluent types don't actually care about the downtrodden. They weaponize them. The real target is success, competence, independence, because those qualities expose their own inadequacies. But the answer to pathological femininity isn't pathological masculinity.
It's not swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. The answer is balance. Masculinity and femininity are not enemies. They're symbiotic. We've simply overcorrected.
We escaped a world where masculinity once tyrannized femininity only to arrive in a world where femininity is tyrannizing masculinity. We are not oppressed by patriarchy, we are being suffocated by pathological softness, envy, and resentment. And unless we recognize this imbalance, the future will not be free. It will be emotionally manipulated, morally confused, and biologically unsustainable.”
🚨SHARE THIS! Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse drops bombshells on FOX NEWS!
Donald Trump reportedly met with Ripple.
$XRP is about to change everything.
#XRPArmy Our time has come 💯💪🏽
#Ripple#XRP
Are you better off now than you were when I was president?
Our economy is shattered. Our border has been erased. We're a nation in decline.
Make the American Dream AFFORDABLE again. Make America SAFE again. Make America GREAT Again!
#TrumpOnX
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: "I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."
🚨BIG NEWS:
Our campaign is now accepting donations made in cryptocurrency. I hope you will chip in and support our efforts to retire Elizabeth Warren. Please spread the word.
https://t.co/GPzPn85YYl
NEW: UFC champ Sean Strickland tells Canadian journalist to go "f**k" himself after the journalist tried asking a 'gotcha' question about the LGBT community.
🔥🔥🔥
"You're a weak f**king man. You're the f**king problem. You elected Justin Trudeau."
"The fact that you have no f**king backbone. [Trudeau] shut down your f**king country and seized bank accounts. You asked me some stupid shit like that. Go f**k yourself."
Video: @MMAJunkie