The Jimmy Dore Phenomenon

I have talked with as many people as possible (preferably in person) from as many factions as I can, and before 2018, among the thousands who could be identified as some kind of liberal, leftist, socialist, progressive, etc. — not one — would throw Hillary, Obama, the Democratic Party establishment, or the mainstream media under the bus. Sure, some would complain about them as becoming too much like Republicans, but they were still the good guys and were far superior to the Republicans who were pure evil; whereas, Jimmy Dore says that Hillary, Obama, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media are more evil than Republicans because they are doing the same things as Republicans while preaching the opposite, and because they all conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders.

He goes further. Whereas, leftists have always supported what the mainstream media tells them to believe, Jimmy Dore is disgusted by such divisive misdirection as Russiagate.

In fact, Jimmy Dore doesn’t waste any time bashing Republicans or conservatives because the things for which he could bash them are already being done by Democrats too, and the Democrats have the added sin of hypocrisy, so he can just bash the Democrats and still deliver all the same messages, but with more passion. He is thus more effective because he is just about the only one on the left calling out the putatively leftist establishment that runs the country.

Jimmy Dore even criticizes Israel, although he does pretend that he is promoting the most liberal solution by promoting a two-state solution; whereas, any real liberal would say that the European invaders should get out of Palestine.

So, don’t think Jimmy Dore has it all figured out, or that he is unusually noble. (He is brave though.) He just wants to regain the moral high ground that Democrats lost by supporting evil candidates like Hillary Clinton. For example, when Democrats get apoplectic about candidates like Roy Moore, they are surprised when even those who don’t support Roy Moore throw it in their face that these Democrats supported Hillary, who is possibly the most evil candidate in America. Naturally Hillary supporters are then mortified to discover that they have lost the moral high ground because the mainstream media has continued to assure them that they are right, that they are the good guys, and that they are on the right side of history. Although that was never actually true, to lose that euphoric feeling of self-righteous superiority must be very painful, and they want that feeling back! Just like any addict, they would do anything for just … one … more … hit …

Jimmy is especially tough on those lying douche bags at MSNBC, but he doesn’t ever mention how MSNBC and the Democrats have always been lying douche bags. It is as if there were once some unmentioned magical before time when they were not lying douche bags.

Jimmy is not only wrong about economics, but he shows no signs of wanting to get it right. Also, he says he used to support an armed citizenry, but now he says, “I don’t want to take you guns. I just want to shove them up your ass.” So, he recently began siding against the people on their right to keep and bear arms.

How is it the people who want to empower the little guyare the people who want to disarm the little guy?

Interestingly, Hillary boldly came out as the first “progressive” Democratic Party candidate in decades in 2007, and in 2015, Bernie boldly came out as the first “socialist” Democratic Party candidate in decades, but Jimmy doesn’t call himself a socialist. He continues to refer to himself as a progressive, which is especially bad because Hillary didn’t just come out as some kind of new and reformed progressive, she came out as a progressive modeled after that racist eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger, who was typical of progressives of her time.

Although I found some good evidence of Hillary coming out as a progressive modeled on Margaret Sanger in 2007-2009, after several hours of looking for the single best statement from Hillary, which was one I saw first hand when it was originally delivered (in a debate with Obama I think), I cannot find it on the Internet. It has been scrubbed. (BTW, a similarly incriminating statement by Trump has also been scrubbed.)

So, as much as I like that Jimmy Dore has boldly defied the leftist establishment, I don’t see him as being motivated by a love of the little guy. It seems like his motivation is the same as what the only honest socialist, George Orwell, observed, which is that those on the left are not really motivated by their love of the little guy. They are instead motivated by partisanship and their hatred of the rich.

Update 08/19/2018: I had stopped listening to Jimmy Dore for a while because it sounded like he was selling out like he had frequently offered to do if he could make $30,000 per day like Rachel Maddow … but he’s back! Here are some good clips where he goes after the establishment media.




Update 4/18/19:

In this video from 4/17/19, the problem is not how Jimmy Dore was praising Bernie Sander’s for his performance in a puff piece on Fox News in which Bernie was not getting real questions. The problem is that he shut down debate by shadow banning my comment that called out the Fox show as a puff piece, and which listed some real questions they could have asked Bernie. My comment was the following:
This Fox show was what’s called a puff piece. An example of a real question would be, “Don’t you agree that no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor?” Another real question would be, “Do you oppose all wealth inequality, or just when it is the result of cronyism or other cheating?” Another real question would be, “Which system, socialism or free-markets, has killed far more of its own people?” Another real question would be, “Why did you endorse Hillary so strongly, or at all, after she colluded with the whole establishment to cheat you? Is your position, Always blue no matter who?” Another real question would be, “Do you pay more taxes than you are forced to?” Instead, the questions were tantamount to: “Please give us your talking points.” And, “Do you wish everyone could write a book and make 1 million dollars?”

  • Lawrence Beck says:

    I appreciate that you have well reasoned doubts about Tulsi Gabbard. I was very suspicious of her intentions before I learned that she was CFR. I’d like to know when she became a member as it appears that she is being carefully groomed and directed much as Obama was by Zbig. Those who become members are invited and, as you wisely state: are “controlled opposition.”
    I’ve mentioned this in comments following youtube videos on Tulsi and the reaction is predictable. No one ever questions the points I make. They just attack like programmed zombies. I won’t dignify responses to “hopeful but brainwashed imbeciles.”
    I’ve felt that much like Trump, who was promoted by the mainstream press (because they profited from his spectacle), the press is making it seem like they don’t like Tulsi so as to con the viewing sheeple. Since the press can’t be trusted, the fact that they hammer Tulsi must mean she’s righteous and the answer to the Democrat’s problems. This is just another sleight of hand used to give hope to Democratic party faithfuls who have already forgotten they were conned by Obama’s “Hope and Change” message.
    I think she’s a trojan horse. That “Aloha” babble is just so much bs I have a difficult sitting through interviews when she begins with that con.
    Keep your eyes on this one. There’s a different tactic being used by the press and it will challenge our wits.

    • Jim says:

      Yes, Tulsi seems to have the establishment behind her (like Obama). Any establishment criticism would just be to give her street cred. I do not see the same level of establishment support for Bernie or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Camacho. They seem to be betting on Tulsi.

      • Lawrence says:

        From what I’m seeing in comments following any interview of Tulsi that appears on youtube it looks like she has a lot more support from Progressives than Bernie.
        Bernie really screwed the pooch when he threw his suport to Hillary after so many hopefull progressive voters supported him thrugh the primaries. That, to me at least, signalled that Bernie was controlled by the DNC.
        There’s something about Tulsi that just raises the hair on the back of my neck. She never addresses the point of cause and effect: by terrorizing Arab countries and destroying their entire infrastructures we’re bound to generate hatred amongst the citizenry.
        We then call that “terrorism” and use it to justify our presence. The real mission, of course, is capturing their resources. What could be more clear than the name chosen for the dubya’s 2003 attack on Iraq: Operation Iraqi Liberation, later changed to Freedom because the acronym spelled OIL.
        The CFR is the big issue for me. And why don’t the progressive media pundits who interview Tulsi ever ask her why she doesn’t disavow her membership in the CFR if she’s really a Progressive?
        I don’t know if you ever saw the 1990 town hall meeting where Ted Koppel interviewed Nelson Mandela. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6eE9BIUfBg
        At 57:10 into the interview Mandela poses a question to Koppel regarding the propensity of many leaders to change their stand on an issue based on who they’re speaking with. Mandela asks Koppel his thoughts and there is a long pause. Mandela then calmly states: “I don’t know if I have paralyzed you.”
        I can see this line being used against Tulsi if and when asked about her CFR membership, her “controlled opposition” as you’ve stated in an earlier piece.

  • >