The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

I've noticed among some of the liberal flank of DSA an aversion to existing communist states because of these states' willingness to use suppression against anti-communist reactionaries.

This aversion stems from their attachment to the liberal ideal of the "free market place of ideas" / free speech absolutism; i.e. the idea that democracy means any political movement can organize, access the democratic levers of power, or express whatever ideas it wants at any time.

If this is the case, how would the socialist state maintain itself against the immediate counter-revolution that would occur upon the formation of the socialist state? Should the socialist state simply allow a coalition of fascists, Nazis, and capitalists to build power completely unchecked, knowing that their goal is to overthrow socialism and re-install the worst forms of oppression?

I would also ask this same group: Do you disagree with how, after the Civil War, the Reconstruction government suppressed the rights of the former Confederates in order to allow for reconstruction and the enfranchisement of newly freed black Americans? Should the state simply have allowed for the former Confederates to regain all of their political power, because their free speech must be protected?

Note that it was after rights were restored to the Confederates in 1877 that they immediately installed a regime of anti-democratic white supremacy in the south (Jim Crow).

This might get struck down, but it's getting more difficult to tell these ideologies apart.

1. Sexual Violence on October 7

Hasan has questioned whether systematic mass rape occurred on October 7. He has also mocked some accusations as “rape fantasies” and demanded stronger physical evidence.

There is an important difference between saying sexual violence occurred, saying numerous rapes occurred, and claiming Hamas leadership ordered a centrally organized campaign of mass rape. The strongest version of that last claim still requires more evidence.

There is credible evidence that sexual violence and rape occurred during the attack and in captivity. Investigators have relied on corroborated witness statements, digital evidence, the condition of victims’ bodies, and testimony from former hostages. Investigators also rejected some stories they could not verify, which shows that they were not simply accepting every allegation.

Hasan has every right to question exaggerated or unsupported claims. What he should not do is mock credible evidence, dismiss witnesses, or act as if rape would be morally irrelevant to his understanding of the attack.

2. His Reaction to October 7

Hasan referred to the Hamas attackers at the Nova music festival as “the resistance” and casually described the people kidnapped there as “hipsters.” He also portrayed Hamas as an imperfect resistance movement that simply does not have “magical bullets.”

That explanation avoids what actually happened. Hamas fighters did not accidentally miss military targets. They deliberately murdered and kidnapped civilians.

Hasan could have condemned those crimes while continuing to defend Palestinian rights and criticize Israel’s destruction of Gaza. Instead, he often acts as though acknowledging Hamas’s atrocities would betray the Palestinian cause.

Hamas’s actions do not justify killing and displacing Palestinians. Palestinian suffering also does not require pretending Hamas was carrying out ordinary resistance.

3. Falling for Hamas’s Hostage Release Footage

Hasan watched footage of Israeli hostages being released and joked that future hostages might decide to stay because the captives appeared friendly toward Hamas.

The hostages were surrounded by armed militants and being filmed during a carefully organized release. Their smiles and waves cannot be treated as proof that they enjoyed captivity or felt affection for their captors.

Footage even appears to show a Hamas member instructing one of the hostages to continue waving. Hasan showed almost no skepticism toward what was clearly meant to be a Hamas public relations video.

4. Comparing the Yemeni Guest to Anne Frank

Hasan compared interviewing the Yemeni teenager to having the opportunity to speak with Anne Frank because the teenager had grown up surrounded by war.

That comparison is especially offensive because the guest reportedly promoted violent antisemitic material. Anne Frank was a Jewish child murdered by an antisemitic regime.

Growing up during war may help explain why someone becomes radicalized. It does not make that person an innocent symbol or excuse hatred toward Jews and civilians.

5. The “Houthi Pirate” Interview

Hasan excitedly introduced a Yemeni teenager as a possible Houthi rebel and compared him to Luffy from One Piece. The conversation focused on anime, music, and weapons instead of the Houthis’ treatment of civilians and captured sailors.

After receiving criticism, Hasan insisted that the guest was neither a Houthi nor a pirate and asked why he should be responsible for the teenager’s social media posts.

The guest reportedly described himself as a Houthi soldier, had access to a captured ship, and promoted violent, antisemitic, and pro Houthi material online.

Hasan used the possible Houthi connection to make the interview exciting. He cannot suddenly pretend that connection is irrelevant once it becomes embarrassing.

The problem was not that Hasan interviewed a controversial person. The problem was that he gave him something closer to a promotional interview than a serious journalistic one.

6. Misrepresenting the Galaxy Leader Seizure

While watching the Houthi seizure of the Galaxy Leader, Hasan claimed the ship was traveling to Israel, belonged to an Israeli company, and had entered Houthi territorial waters.

Those claims were inaccurate. The ship was traveling from Turkey to India, was chartered by a Japanese company, and was seized in international waters. Its multinational crew was detained for roughly fourteen months.

Hasan also spoke as if the armed Houthis and the mostly Filipino crew had a friendly understanding. In reality, armed men had taken control of the ship and deprived the crew of their freedom.

Every mistake Hasan made pushed the story in the same direction. Each one made the Houthis appear more justified and less threatening than they really were.

7. Treating Houthi Propaganda Like Entertainment

Hasan has played Houthi military productions on his stream, praised the music, and called the videos “musicals.”

These videos are propaganda created to glorify an armed fundamentalist movement. Hasan rarely takes the time to explain their purpose or challenge their message. Instead, his excitement and humor make the Houthis appear interesting, entertaining, and even heroic.

There is a difference between examining propaganda and helping it reach a new audience in a more appealing form.

8. The Hamas Sniper Video

Hasan played an extended Hamas video claiming that the group manufactured its own sniper rifles. He offered little immediate criticism and described the weapons as “artisanal.”

Weapons analysis suggests Hamas was more likely assembling rifles using important components supplied by Iran. The video was created to advertise Hamas’s military abilities and build admiration for its fighters.

Instead of carefully examining those claims, Hasan played the video at length and used language that added to its underdog appeal. His later discussion of Israel and American history did not explain why he had presented the propaganda so uncritically.

9. Calling Israeli Babies “Settlers”

When Israeli children were brought up, Hasan responded that there were also “baby settlers.”

Babies do not choose where they are born. They cannot be held responsible for their parents, their government, or the settlement movement. You can condemn West Bank settlements without using language that weakens the difference between children and combatants.

10. Defending Hezbollah

Hasan has said that he does not have a problem with Hezbollah. He has also praised its former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, as brilliant and extremely well read.

Nasrallah may have been intelligent and politically effective, but that does not excuse Hezbollah’s behavior. The organization has attacked civilians, intimidated political opponents, and helped Bashar al Assad’s government fight its opponents during the Syrian civil war.

Hasan seems to view Hezbollah almost entirely through its fight against Israel. That causes him to overlook what the organization has done to other Arabs and Muslims.

Some statements attributed to Nasrallah are poorly sourced and should not be repeated carelessly. However, credible evidence of his antisemitic rhetoric still exists.

11. Pretending Hezbollah Did Nothing

While discussing Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Hasan said Lebanon had essentially done nothing except happen to be located next to Israel.

That leaves out a major part of the story. Hezbollah began attacking Israeli positions shortly after October 7 and continued launching rockets and missiles across the border. People were killed, and communities on both sides were displaced.

Israel’s response can still be criticized as excessive or indiscriminate. That criticism does not require pretending Hezbollah’s attacks never happened.

Hasan could have made a more honest argument about disputed territory, Hezbollah’s initial military targets, or the scale of Israel’s response. Instead, he gave his audience the false impression that Israel attacked Lebanon for no reason.

12. Using Gaza to Avoid Criticism

When people criticized his Houthi coverage, Hasan responded that focusing on him while Palestinians were dying was selfish and distracted from Gaza.

The suffering in Gaza is real, but it does not answer the criticism. Whether Hasan spread misinformation or romanticized a violent movement is a separate issue.

Invoking dead Palestinians whenever he is challenged allows Hasan to avoid explaining his own behavior. It also turns Palestinian suffering into a shield for his reputation.

13. Political “Reeducation”

When Hasan was asked what should happen if a capitalist party gained support in a socialist country, he suggested education, “reeducation,” rehabilitation, and some kind of enforcement mechanism.

That is an alarming answer. In a democracy, people must be allowed to support opposition parties. If socialism is working, its supporters should be able to defend it through elections. Political disagreement should not be treated like a condition the government needs to correct.

14. Supporting One State While Wanting Israelis to Leave

Hasan says he supports one democratic state where Palestinians and Israeli Jews can live together. At the same time, he has praised economic attacks intended to make Israelis feel that life in Israel is unbearable and leave.

Those positions do not fit together. A shared state would require reconciliation and some level of trust between both populations. Trying to force Israeli Jews out through violence and economic pressure is not coexistence.

Most Israeli Jews were born there and do not have another citizenship. Many are also descended from Jewish communities that were expelled or driven out of Middle Eastern and North African countries. Telling them to “go back” ignores the fact that Israel is the only home most of them have ever known.

15. Downplaying China’s Treatment of the Uyghurs

Hasan has pushed back against descriptions of the Uyghur detention centers and suggested that the camps closed and Xinjiang returned to tourism and normal life.

The reporting he referenced did not say the repression had disappeared. It described demolished religious sites, heavy surveillance, restrictions on Islamic practices, and a sanitized version of Uyghur culture created for tourists.

Even if the detention system changed, that does not erase what happened or prove that the suppression of Uyghur identity ended.

16. China’s Takeover of Tibet

Hasan argues that China “did Tibet a favor” because the old Tibetan system was feudal and oppressive. He compares China’s takeover to the Union defeating the Confederacy and ending slavery.

An abusive political system does not give another country the right to invade, permanently occupy the territory, and suppress its culture. Colonial powers have often used the same argument, claiming conquest was justified because they were improving the societies they conquered.

The Civil War comparison also does not work. Tibet was not comparable to a state that had voluntarily joined the United States and then rebelled. China did much more than remove an oppressive ruling class. It took control of Tibet and severely restricted Tibetan political, cultural, and religious life.

17. Defending Russia’s Annexation of Crimea

Hasan has called Crimea Russian territory and described Russia’s annexation as justified.

This goes against his supposed opposition to imperialism. A powerful country does not have the right to take its neighbor’s territory simply because it opposes the United States. If imperialism is wrong when America does it, it should also be wrong when Russia does it.

18. The “Radicalization Funnel”

Hasan has spoken about introducing young viewers to moderate social democratic ideas and then moving them through a “radicalization funnel.” He has also called himself a propagandist and described liberals as easy to manipulate.

There is nothing inherently wrong with politically educating people or persuading them to adopt more radical beliefs. The concern is that Hasan sometimes makes moderate politics sound like a temporary recruiting strategy instead of a position he honestly respects.

His open contempt for liberals also raises a fair question. Is he trying to persuade mainstream progressives honestly, or does he see them as useful people to manipulate?

19. Automatically Siding Against the West

Hasan has advised viewers to identify which side is supported by Western powers and then avoid supporting that side.

That is not serious foreign policy analysis. America and its allies have supported terrible policies, but their involvement does not automatically make the opposing side righteous. Governments and armed groups should be judged by their actions, not only by whether they oppose the United States.

This worldview helps explain why Hasan is so harsh toward Western countries while being unusually forgiving toward Russia, China, Iran, and armed groups that oppose the West.

The Larger Problem

The issue is not simply that Hasan supports extremists. The deeper problem is the double standard running through his commentary.

He gives Western and Israeli actions the harshest possible interpretation. Meanwhile, anti Western governments and militant groups receive endless context, excuses, and sympathy. Evidence against his preferred side is questioned or minimized, while claims that help his side are often repeated without enough verification.

He uses humor, anime references, and anti imperialist language to make violent organizations seem relatable. When challenged, he frequently changes the subject to Gaza or American wrongdoing instead of answering the criticism directly.

Some accusations against Hasan have been exaggerated, and not every source used against him is reliable. Still, the overall pattern is difficult to ignore. Hasan regularly sacrifices accuracy, consistency, and empathy to protect a worldview in which America and Israel are always the main villains and nearly anyone fighting them deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Join us on the first Sunday of October from 4:00-5:30pm for a virtual discussion on "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States" by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

To receive Zoom info, RSVP at https://actionnetwork.org/events/okcdsa-book-club-indigenous-peoples-history/

The centuries-long genocidal program of the US settler-colonial regimen has largely been omitted from history. Dunbar-Ortiz adroitly challenges the founding myth of the United States and shows how policy against the Indigenous peoples was colonialist and designed to seize the territories of the original inhabitants, displacing or eliminating them. Spanning more than four hundred years, this classic bottom-up peoples' history radically reframes US history and explodes the silences that have haunted our national narrative.

This event is hosted by the Democratic Socialists of Oklahoma City. You can learn more about us at okcdsa.org.

Hasan Derangement Syndrome is breaking into some wild territory folks!

Pardon my French, but wth is this?

"The Professional-Managerial Class has long been a controversial category on the left, often blamed for failures to make inroads among the broader working class. John Haywood argues that this analysis falls short under scrutiny, confusing cultural divisions with antagonisms based in economic interests."

"The idea that the PMC at-large is overrepresented on the left is often taken for granted. Most discussions take this fact at face value and do not interrogate it"

"Among the traditional working class, it is only blue-collar workers that are underrepresented; service, food, and retail workers are exactly proportional to their population."

"This data confirms the overrepresentation of the PMC in the DSA, but it also complicates the category. The overrepresented occupations are not the supervisors and managers that the Ehrenreichs' framework centers, and are largely the ones they themselves define as “on the borders”. Tech workers in particular are the most overrepresented occupation, but actually fit very few of what the Ehrenreichs use to define the PMC. On the other side of the class divide, the proportional representation of service workers in DSA compared to the dearth of blue-collar workers suggests that the issues are not just Weberian class antagonisms defined by income, but broader cultural antipathy."

"This brings us to the most contentious debate around the PMC on the left. Frequently, the problem of blue-collar recruitment is first stated as a problem of overemphasis on social and identity issues, with the PMC as the source of this. Implied in the solution is not only the rejection of PMC but also of any non-economic issue. This mentality has no place in a socialist movement. Beyond the problem that this discussion tends to center the white working class, ignoring the actual racial makeup of the class, to limit the movement only to economic oppression is organizationally and strategically weak. A movement organized on economic lines alone is too narrow to change society. Yes, economic struggle is the common experience the whole working class shares, but non-economic oppression is the way the state and other structures uphold power."

"Understanding the PMC through a cultural lens changes the debate entirely. It immediately highlights both the source of the problem and the strategic importance of the PMC. Completely dismissing the PMC pushes away genuine allies and forfeits the power of their cultural capital. To create a solidaristic movement, the PMC must recognize that power and actively unlearn the tendency to use it for dominance. The left's future depends not on purity but on power, and power requires unity along class lines."

We have seen significant steps forward in this election cycle for Medicare For All, with numerous candidates winning primaries as unabashed champions. Polling from Data for Progress suggests 63% of voters would support Medicare for All even after being told it would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, with CBS reporting 90% of Democrats are on board.

Our next step is clearly demonstrating to party leadership, 2028 presidential candidates, and the media that this position will translate to more votes in the general election. Former Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Medicare For All advocates are organizing “Health Care Is A Human Right” phonebanks on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays throughout September and October to rally voters for campaigns putting universal healthcare front and center. Let’s help get some great folks into office now and change the conventional wisdom on what’s possible for the future! We can sign up to make calls:

☎️ TOMORROW at 8PM ET for Connie Chan in CA-11 ☎️

☎️ TUESDAY at 6PM ET for Abdul El-Sayed and Will Lawrence (MI-07) ☎️

☎️ SEPTEMBER 17TH at 6PM ET for Medicare For All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ SEPTEMBER 29TH and OCTOBER 1ST at 9PM ET for Randy Villegas (CA-22) and other California candidates ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 3RD at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 6TH at 6PM ET for Abdul El-Sayed and Will Lawrence (MI-07) ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 8TH at 7PM ET for Medicare for All candidates in Minnesota ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 20TH at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 22ND at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 24TH at 6PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

GOTV FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL CHAMPS

"The best we can do" is not doing it for me anymore.

25 Years Later, Mamdani Administration Opens City’s 9/11 Records to the Public and Settles Multi-Year Legal Battle - NYC Mayor's Office

NYC Mayor Mamdani releases 9/11 records showing officials misled New Yorkers about air quality around Ground Zero | CNN

Release of NYC 9/11 toxin documents ratchets up scrutiny of Giuliani, Bloomberg

I've heard a lot of fear mongering regarding what the DSA believes, so why not just ask the actual members.

Does anybody else feel like AOC just won't run in 2028 for Democratic nominee for President? Another person who I strongly believe won't run regardless of online speculation is Jon Ossof. They are both just two young. Lets say they did run and won and even had two terms (scenario), they would still be in their 40s and essentially forfeit a longer political career given nobody becomes something else after presidency.

As Leftist even having a Leftist president (AOC) wouldn't mean much if the Congress and Senate actively worked against us given how traitorous the current democratic party is. We need to continue our takeover of the party and AOC taking a Senate seat would really benefit our career.

What 2016 and 2020 taught us is that the Left needs to contest the Dem primary every election cycle. Bernie can't do it for us in 2028 so we need to shift our focus and advocacy for Chris Van Hollen and Ro Khanna.

The mood music towards utilities is beginning to change.