Hardkill

Although, some women say that they enjoy the no-strings-attached relationship and are sexually liberated, especially if the guy made it clear to her that he's not looking for any serious.

If they can build their nukes Deep underground, then how would or did the official inspectors in the US and around the world know whether or not Iran was secretly building their nukes underground when the Iran nuclear deal was in place? Do you think it's naive to ever trust Iran to ever hold up their end of a deal, especially given how primitive they still are and how much they've threatened the US and the rest of the Western world for decades? Also, what about the fact that Khamenei is the leader of a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations, has used proxy warfare to extend its power in the Middle East, and the government he controls has enabled terrorism abroad even though he doesn’t directly lead a terrorist group?

Trumpism never ceases to horrify me. More chaos, more destruction, more grief, more idiocy, more disasters, more failures, more betrayals, more darkness as usual…. God help us if this truly becomes Iraq 2.0.

Part of it is what @GroovyGuru just said especially with the rise of the internet, social media, partisan echo chambers, provocative messaging in this day and age being able to influence and amplify people's anger, frustrations, fear, and other negative emotions more than ever before. It's also because a lot of people are worried about our country possibly getting into another forever war by sending our military troops on the ground like Vietnam or the War on Terror in the Middle East. Not to mention the economic implications that would occur from such a wide regional war in the Middle East.

This is a serious question I’ve been wrestling with for months. It’s not just about Democrats, Trump, or 2028—it’s about the long-term viability of truth, rationality, and consciousness-based governance in a society where the information ecosystem may be too far gone. Leo, you’ve said many things in past posts that opened my eyes to this: In 2020, you warned that “half the country is stuck in a right-wing brainwashing alternative media echo chamber that has rotted their minds.” After the 2024 election, you cited social media epistemic rot, algorithms, and influencer/podcaster populism group-think as one of the two main reasons Trump won. You’ve compared Fox News brainwashing to what you saw growing up under the Soviet regime—and even said it wasn’t much better. That stuck with me. It helped me understand that what we’re dealing with isn’t just political disagreement—it’s epistemic collapse. But here’s where I’m now stuck, and where my deep concern comes from: If reality-based leaders—who oversee a stable economy, restore inflation, and pass progressive policies (like Biden/Harris did)—can still lose to someone like Trump… then how does truth ever win again? Inflation had been normalized for over a year and a half by late 2024. The economy was strong. Unemployment was low. Wages were up. The policy record was one of the most pro-worker agendas since LBJ, if not since FDR/Truman. And still—Democrats lost. Not just because of Kamala Harris being a mediocre candidate (which I get now), and not just because of lingering inflation pain. I believe the deeper problem is this: We now live in a media and emotional environment where truth, performance, and policy don’t determine public perception—narrative does. And the right-wing narrative machine is: Decades ahead Emotionally compelling Identity-reinforcing Constantly evolving through social media, TikTok, AM radio, influencers, podcasts, and outrage-driven YouTube content I used to think the growth of progressive- or Democrat-aligned media was a sign of hope. And yes, there has been some encouraging progress—more podcasts, YouTube channels, independent journalists, and cultural figures who are trying to push back against right-wing dominance. But the more I sit with it—and the more I see how many millions still enthusiastically support Trump or live entirely inside right-wing media bubbles—the more I worry that it may already be too late to catch up. The Left is so far behind in narrative infrastructure, cultural saturation, and emotional media literacy. And it takes years to build trust-based media ecosystems. I’m not sure the timeline of political reality matches the timeline of narrative repair. You’ve often said you can’t control free speech. That it "finds cracks like water." But this isn’t censorship. It’s voluntary informational capture. People are being propagandized not by force, but by choice, habit, and emotionally gratifying identity content. Yes, the Soviet Union was more repressive and top-down and ultimately couldn’t sustain the illusion forever. But what if the American right has created something more durable? More decentralized? More personalized? More emotionally effective? You also said that "without inflation, Kamala might have won." But I can’t help asking: Why did Truman win in 1948 after 20% inflation? Why did Reagan win in 1984 after peak 14% inflation? Why did Bush and Obama win re-election despite weaker economic conditions than Biden? In my view, the answer is that voters in the past were not as poisoned by social media outrage cycles and algorithmically distributed misinformation. They didn’t live in fully fractured, closed-loop info ecosystems. They could feel change more clearly. That’s why I’m so worried about 2028 and beyond. Not because I’m attached to “Team Blue.” But because I fear we’ve crossed into a new phase of mass consciousness where truth simply cannot travel, no matter how well someone governs. So my core question is this: What does a conscious, reality-based movement do when the population it’s trying to lead is living in a fabricated narrative, immunized against performance, and rewarded for tribal rage? How can someone like Newsom win the presidency in this rigged media environment? This feels bigger than politics. It feels existential for truth itself. I’m not looking for a comforting answer. I’m looking for clarity—on whether there's still a strategic path for reality-based movements in this new environment, or if the rules have changed too radically for truth to win again.

Yeah, it was one of the major factors that ruined American politics and destroyed countless lives in our country and around the world.

Oh wow, I didn't realize that you wrote that. That honestly was a very well-written article. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying here. It absolutely is going to take work massive work and devotion for years to stop this monstrosity.

Well, I am glad that Trump's parade turned out to be more pathetic and less scary than I thought it would be. I also applaud all of the people out there who were at the No Kings Protests throughout the country. I wish I could've attended one of them. This gave me some hope.

Yes, technically, it is simple and doable in America. The U.S. is undoubtedly the richest and largest economy in the world and has the resources and infrastructure to make it happen. I wish we had the kind of social safety nets and regulatory systems that countries like yours have. However, there just isn’t enough political will in America to support those changes—largely because of a number of deeply entrenched beliefs that many Americans still hold: Radical individualism over solidarity: America was founded on radical individualism and property rights, not social solidarity. Our “origin story” celebrates self-reliance, not the common good. These values dominated in the 1700s, the 1800s (except during the Civil War), again in the 1920s, and were revived in full force after the conservative resurgence of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Reagan’s 1980 election marked a turning point: with his exceptional charisma, he convinced Americans that Democrats had become extreme leftists trying to take away freedoms and destroy traditional values. His messaging emphasized private ownership and painted government intervention as dangerous overreach. Lack of a labor-based political tradition: The U.S. never had feudalism or a class-based uprising like Europe did. That means we never developed a strong labor party or a lasting socialist tradition. Instead, we’ve been left with two corporate-aligned parties. Throughout U.S. history, business and political leaders have often violently suppressed labor unions, especially during periods of heightened fear of socialism. Both major parties—especially the Democrats—have absorbed and neutralized anti-elite and working-class movements rather than championing them. Race as a wedge issue: America is the most racially diverse developed country in the world, and race has always been used to divide the working class. After the Civil War and into the late 1800s, many—including Republicans—believed they'd done enough for Black Americans. Helping poor people of any race was seen as a threat, because helping the underprivileged meant also helping the newly freed and severely disadvantaged Black population. The 1920s saw another wave of racial and xenophobic backlash. Public support for welfare, housing, and other social programs became deeply racialized starting in the Civil Rights era. Once Jim Crow ended, white resentment—especially in the South—surged. Nixon capitalized on that anger with the Southern Strategy, using “law and order” as a racist dog whistle. Reagan doubled down with coded language like “welfare queens,” fueling racial resentment and cementing the GOP’s shift to the right. Unlike Trump, Reagan even flipped a large number of Democrats into Republicans. Trump then took it further—weaponizing openly racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric in ways no U.S. politician had done before. Money in politics: Big money dominates our political system more than in any other developed country. Campaigns are privately funded, lobbying is barely regulated, and both parties rely on wealthy donors and corporate PACs. Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) made this worse. The financialization of the economy since the 1970s has concentrated wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. Cultural definitions of fairness: Americans tend to define fairness through opportunity, personal effort, and individual freedom, while many other developed countries view fairness more in terms of equity, shared outcomes, and collective responsibility. That’s why phrases like “handouts,” “personal responsibility,” and “I got mine—you get yours” are so common in American political rhetoric. Even working-class Americans often resist welfare—not because they don’t need help, but because they don’t want others “getting something for nothing.” These beliefs date back to the founding era and reappeared strongly in the 1920s under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. They resurfaced again under Reagan, continued into the 1990s and early 2000s, and returned in full force with the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism in the 2010s. Faith in charity over public assistance: Many Americans—especially religious conservatives and moderates—believe that helping the poor should primarily come from private charity, community action, or faith-based groups, not the government. Libertarian and conservative narratives, both secular and religious, reinforce the idea that public social spending is immoral, while private charity is noble. Media polarization and propaganda: Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, media polarization—especially the rise of right-wing propaganda—has widened the trust gap. Millions of Americans now view any effort to expand the welfare state as “communism” or “government tyranny.” This has only gotten worse since the 2010s, with the explosion of conspiracy theories and misinformation. Gridlock Keeps Big Reforms from Happening: Even when there’s strong public support for ideas like universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, paid family leave, and stronger labor protections, Congress often fails to deliver due to partisan deadlock. This leads to widespread frustration and cynicism, reinforcing the belief that government can’t help you—so you’re better off fending for yourself. It feeds into the “you’re on your own” mindset that’s deeply embedded in American culture, rooted in the idea that no one else is coming. Tragically, the U.S. probably experiences the highest level of political dysfunction among developed countries. This stems largely from the institutional design of our system, which was built to restrain government power through checks and balances and separation of powers. That framework, when combined with extreme political polarization, has made effective governance incredibly difficult. The U.S. is also the only democratic country with both the filibuster and supermajority requirements in its legislature. Our winner-take-all electoral system discourages third parties, while divided government—far more common here than in parliamentary systems—often grinds progress to a halt. On top of that, gerrymandering has allowed politicians to entrench themselves in uncompetitive districts, shielding them from accountability and encouraging more extreme partisanship. Media bubbles and the rise of hyper-partisan outlets have created parallel realities, where Americans no longer share the same set of facts. And our calcified two-party system—propped up by outdated rules and private money—makes it nearly impossible for fresh political movements to gain traction or for consensus-driven leaders to rise through the ranks. Taken together, these forces create a political environment where even popular, broadly supported reforms struggle to survive—and where disillusionment with government only continues to deepen. Declining trust in career politicians and the political establishment: This has significantly fueled government dysfunction in the U.S. As more Americans grow cynical about traditional politics, they increasingly elect outsiders and hyper-partisan figures not for their ability to govern, but to “fight the system.” This worsens gridlock, reduces compromise, and leads to repeated crises like government shutdowns and debt ceiling standoffs. Voter disillusionment also lowers turnout, giving more influence to extremist factions and wealthy donors, while further eroding democratic accountability. As populist backlash grows—whether from the right (like Trump) or the left (like Sanders)—anger at the system often leads to deeper polarization rather than meaningful reform. At the same time, declining trust spreads to institutions like Congress, the courts, and even elections, fueling conspiracy theories and authoritarian temptations. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where dysfunction breeds more distrust, making it harder to pass reforms or maintain stable governance, especially in a system like the U.S.’s that already struggles with divided government and built-in checks. So yes, America could and should adopt something closer to the European model—but the political and cultural terrain is far more hostile. Most voters still back either pro-corporate Republicans or moderate Democrats who promise change but are constrained by donors, consultants, and party infrastructure. You’re 100% right that if we made bad jobs optional—by guaranteeing basic economic security—it would empower workers, raise wages, and make society healthier. But getting there in the U.S. feels like trying to hike uphill through centuries of cultural, racial, and corporate fog. That said, change has happened before. We ended slavery after the Civil War. We had the Progressive Era in the early 1900s, the New Deal and the liberal golden age in the mid-1900s, the liberal economic policies under Obama, and the progressive ones under Biden. Gradually, over decades, we’ve moved toward greater economic justice. Young Americans today are more pro-union, more open to socialism, and more skeptical of capitalism than older generations. But we’re still battling deeply embedded narratives about race, merit, and markets. And at this point, the Orwellian media environment—alongside Trumpism—is one of the main things that keeps me up at night.

Thanks Leo. I see what you’re saying—that Newsom could win and might even govern more progressively than Biden. That’s encouraging to consider. But my concern is more foundational than just whether a Democrat can win or even be more progressive. Can a reality-based leader govern effectively in a media environment where performance, reform, and truth don’t matter as much as narrative and identity perception? Even if Newsom wins and pushes further left than Biden, he’ll still be up against: A right-wing media machine that automatically discredits him no matter what he does A digital culture that rewards rage, tribalism, and cynicism over facts or policy outcomes A fractured country where 40–50% of voters live in an entirely different information universe Platforms that algorithmically suppress nuance and amplify outrage And a public that no longer believes in the system itself—only 22% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do the right thing “just about always”, according to Pew On top of that, trust in career politicians and the establishment is also at an all-time low, cutting across party lines You’ve said before: “You can’t win on facts. It’s all about perception.” So my question is: Even if Newsom is competent and more progressive—how can he lead, persuade, or build trust in a country where perception is fully weaponized against him from day one? And if our structural problems are too deep for any one person to fix—as you rightly pointed out—then doesn’t that make the epistemic crisis the real barrier to meaningful reform? This isn’t about left vs right anymore. It’s about whether truth-based governance is still even possible in the age of emotional propaganda, social media brain-rot, and mass distrust. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

Yeah, so? Obama, the Clintons, Biden, and Bernie were all absolutely right. I’m fully in favor of increasing legal pathways to citizenship for foreigners in our country; however, we obviously can’t have open borders. In fact, after the truly historic surge in immigration during most of Biden’s presidency—up until the last six months of his term—and the overwhelming strain that it placed on our country’s infrastructure, it’s become clear to me how important it is for the U.S. to have up-to-date, effective border security and to reasonably penalize those who cross the border illegally.

I just read that 7provtruths substack post and it was good, but I am very worried that there's not going to be enough time to effectively enact those bottom-up strategies that the author is suggesting before it's too late.

The Right since the rise of Trumpism has only presented itself as being more inclusive on the surface through their messaging and media strategy. However, they are fundamentally against diversity and more about cohesion and homogeneity.

Again, why didn't Bush or Trump during his first term ram through an aggressive border security bill through Congress when they each had the government trifecta? In fact, why hasn't Trump worked with Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority leader John Thune to pass their own version of a border security bill when they have the government trifecta right now and would have no problem eliminating the filibuster for it? It's very sad that Trump and the GOP killed that bipartisan border security bill that Democrats tried to pass last year. Trump and the Republicans always like to talk a big game about being tough on illegal immigration, but at the end of the day, all they really care about is just owning the libs whenever it's convenient for them instead of enforcing and upgrading our border's security in a competent manner.

I gotta say, he’s so far coming off as very presidential in his own right. However, if he really wants to win the nomination—let alone the presidency—he needs to present himself as at least as economically populist, pro-working-class, and pro-union as Biden was during his time in office. So far, I haven’t seen that from Newsom. I worry that if Democrats don’t put forward a true “New Deal 2.0” Democrat like FDR, or a real class warrior like Teddy Roosevelt, they could lose again in 2028 and cause even more people to lose faith in the Democratic Party. Even though Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden were great presidents, too many Black, Brown, and working-class people in the U.S. felt like each of them ended up being just another career politician, Washington establishment, tied to Wall Street who let them down. As you know, that disillusionment played a big role in why we got Trump in 2016, and again in 2024—and it’s a major reason why people across the country are becoming increasingly angry and cynical about the entire political system. I also still have several concerns about Newsom running for president, especially the widespread perception that he’s “too liberal” because he’s from California, along with some of the unfortunate things that have happened under his watch. Being from a blue state didn’t used to be a political liability for Democrats, but we’re now more polarized than ever—one of the reasons why California is as blue as it is. Combine that with the rise of the internet, social media, disinformation, and the dominance of right-wing media, and most Americans are now exposed—within seconds—to nonstop propaganda about how “California has become an urban, coastal, far-left woke state” overrun with crime, illegal immigration, unaffordable housing, sky-high living costs, wildfires, socialists, progressives, hippies, Hollywood elites who are out of touch with everyday people, atheists, and condescending, overeducated liberals from secular schools and universities, and so on. Of course, many of these preconceived notions that most Americans have about California are misleading and outright false. But facts don’t carry the weight they used to. As you know, it’s all about perception, vibes, messaging, and having a strong media ecosystem that can push back against disinformation and reach people effectively—without being drowned out by the flood of toxic right-wing media or the “both-sides” talking points pushed by mainstream corporate outlets. So, my question is: how is Newsom going to overcome all of that—without a truly severe recession, or even a full-on economic depression like we haven’t seen in over 80 years, taking place under Trump and the Republican Party and lasting through the end of their administration?

I overlooked that post yesterday, but I agree with it. Also, doing things like that—or burning the American flag on camera—is a really bad look politically for the Left and for many Democrats.

I agree with you on the importance of nationalism. However, during the first six years of his presidency, George W. Bush and the GOP controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. Similarly, Trump and his party held the full government trifecta during the first two years of his term. Now, you might say, “Yeah, but the Republicans in the Senate didn’t have the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster during any of those years.” That’s true—but Republicans tend to use the power they have more aggressively than Democrats do. They could have chosen to eliminate the filibuster or create a carve-out to push through a strong border security bill, including provisions for building the wall, during any of those years. By the way, only a few extreme left-wing members of the House have ever supported the idea of open borders or unlimited illegal immigration. In reality, almost every progressive—and certainly every moderate-to-conservative Democrat in Congress—has said they support improving border security and reducing illegal immigration. Even Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks have acknowledged, since around 2022, that excessive illegal immigration has become a serious issue and that Biden was late in responding with tougher border control. Also, what about the fact that Trump and the Republicans killed that much-needed bipartisan border security bill that Biden and the Democrats tried to pass last year?

What effective border security policies did Bush or Trump (1st term) have during their presidencies to minimize illegal immigration? Moreover, why aren't Trump and his party working on passing a new border security law to update the infrastructure for it?

You're not wrong about how damaged both the Democratic brand and the reputation of establishment Democrats. I honestly am still not sure if Newsom would be the best Democratic candidate for president. AOC right now is arguably the most electrifying Democrat in the country and currently has the strongest and clearest messaging compared to virtually every other Democrat in the country. That being said, I no longer see a woman of color ever becoming president for the foreseeable future. How is AOC going to be able to allay the fears of the majority of Americans that she doesn't believe in Cuban style Socialism/Communism when she's far leftist who already calls herself a Socialist? Moreover, it's still too hard for women and colored people even in modern America to aggressively push for economic populism on a nationwide scale. If a woman president came off as "too aggressive," even for the right reasons, she would likely face a double standard that male leaders are rarely held to. Voters, media, and opponents might say she’s: “Cold,” “harsh,” “shrill,” “Overly ambitious,” “trying too hard to prove herself," “too emotional,” or “unstable.” If a woman of color became president and was perceived as “too aggressive,” the backlash would likely be even more intense and layered than it would be for a white woman — due to the intersection of racial and gender stereotypes. We need an alpha male who's white, has traditional social values, but is a true economic class warrior like TR or FDR.

Of course, the police are supposed to enforce immigration laws, but what Trump is doing is totally unconstitutional. I pray that maybe this cause a major backlash on him and his party one day. Then again, maybe we are getting closer to some kind of real war.

Dude, have you met and talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in the South and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Have you talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in Middle America and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Remember, more than 66% of voters throughout the whole country are middle-aged to senior age, including most black voters, most brown voters, and most white voters in the USA. I bet if you ask most Democratic voters in the South and Middle America what they think about Bernie Sanders, most of them will tell you how crazy or extreme he is because he calls himself a socialist, doesn't seem to believe in God or Judeo-Christian values, can't relate well to them culturally, and doesn't even really visit their areas often like more moderate or center-left Democrats do. Hell, even my parents who are older than 75 years old, have been lifelong Democratic voters, and have only ever voted for Democrats up and down the ballot, have said that they don't like Bernie Sanders.

I just watched Roland Martin call out Bernie supporters for how they talk about Black voters—some of it borderline racist. He made strong points about how progressives often overlook the lived realities of African-American communities. I really respect Roland’s sensible take on politics, especially when it comes to race and power in America. He brings clarity most progressives seem to miss. Curious what others here think—why do you think Bernie never won most Black voters, even with his policies?

Although many women under 24 have bfs or stay in long-term relationships for many years. In any case, unfortunately, younger women, especially younger attractive women, have lost all sense of what it means to be a feminine woman who shows compliance and respect to men, especially to masculine men. That's another reason why most women these days end up settling for beta males. They don't know how to handle a real man who has sex appeal and has traits of Grounded Masculine Energy including integrity, competence, physical and mental resilience, being the leader, being emotionally centered, disciplined with Physical Health & Fitness, etc.

Brad Pitt was an alpha male in his prime. Also, at the height of his sex appeal he looked like a Greek god with a lot of muscle and definition. After I watched the movie with my mom she was like "ohhh...my god...he looked so unbelievably handsome! So gorgeous! He really was so divine!" Henry Cavill, Chris Hemsworth, and other attractive-looking male celebrity actors like them are very muscular and lean and are worldwide sex symbols. That being said, being extremely muscular and ripped like Arnold in his prime or the Rock is really unnecessary. In fact, most women will think that you just look like a steroid freak.

The political system in the USA has really failed. I envy all the other developed countries in the world—each of them has a much better system than the U.S. for filtering out the worst kinds of candidates, both in terms of personality and qualifications. They also appear to experience less political gridlock and dysfunction than the American system.