Seth Abramson, among history's oldest and most eloquent infants, exemplifies the purposeful death of the left

That Abramson spreads lies in massive doses is almost secondary to his soy-authoritarianism, which infuses his persona with both comical weakness and dangerous influence

Seth Abramson is among the Internet figures who gained significant prominence on the nominal political left solely as a result of Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to Donald Trump, a contest between the Goldman Sachs Lizard-Queen and the King of Obvious Con-Jobs. A Russiagate conspiracy goon with a swath of advanced degrees and a background in “metajournalism,” Abramson became known in around 2017 for unleashing amazingly long Twitter threads in an era when this practice was unheard of, largely because of the since-doubled 140-character-per-tweet limit.

Abramson is a very talented writer, at least in a structural sense. His political stuff is bombastic on the surface, but undergirded by bland plaintiveness; he often wanders toward firm-ish conclusions before ultimately drowning his own claims in dolorous, hand-wringing hypotheticals.

Whatever his innermost catalysts are, this is boilerplate flash-philosophizing from Abramson:

Absent competing motivations, it doesn’t take long to figure out that from the start, Abramson has been expelling massive clouds of fact-free literary smog, cloud after billowing cloud of impressively baroque piffle riding gamely on a warm front of laughable nonsense. He’s a slope-shouldered little cask of 191-proof bullshit, a slurry he’s managed to distill over time into an even more concentrated syrup form owing to the eclectic nature of his genius. He’s probably responsible for over 500,000 cases of late-stage Trump Derangement Syndrome by himself. And as a high-profile libtard, he’s almost certainly taking gobs of money from undisclosed sources. But that’s moot, as he seems organically motivated by genuine paranoia.

Someone with an IQ of 150 who exists in a continual state of paranoia might as well be below average in objective intelligence. This is why we* need to be careful when we seek out foils to the mainstream-media propaganda-machine; it’s easy to find oneself taking emotional satisfaction in those who most loudly slam the establishment without vetting them properly.

For example, MAGA conservative (as he happily calls himself) Benny Johnson makes YouTube videos that can be entertaining and, because the mainstream media ignore or lie about everything of public importance, informative. But I could never become a fan of someone with a history of stealing others’ work, especially when he makes excuses for it (“there is a culture of ‘get this piece out, get this out now’”).

Abramson’s paranoia is more reflective of catastrophic emotional immaturity than any of the known adult-onset neurocognitive afflictions. He is technically a Gen Xer, like me, but possesses and rabidly flaunts all of the worst character afflictions attributed to older Millennials: They tend to be formally educated but clueless about life, they were force-fed a massive series of shit-sandwiches by Boomers, and, even more than older generations, and the socioeconomically privileged ones treat experiencing negative emotional states as the equivalent of ingesting radioactive waste. (Take heart, thirty-somethings: Gen Z is poised to supplant your losing efforts on all of these society-torching fronts.)

Abramson, not satisfied with the success of his grifting histrionics (griftrionics?) elsewhere, joined Substack at some point and decided to complain about all of the horrible people allowed to publish on the platform.

First, it’s not hard to discern why Abramson is the person he is. Physiognomy matters, and Abramson is the classic pussy. He could, according to Internet estimates, be physically bested by proximately 85 percent of twelve-year-old American (natal) boys and at least a third of tween (natal!) girls. He requires unconditional shielding from horrors great and small, because the world can only be said to be operating safely if bug-boys with hyperfragile exoskeletons like Abramson are experiencing no personal unpleasantness in their communications with mature humans.

There would be no shame attached to this—he can’t help how he’s fundamentally built any more than 7’ 1”, 1:58.3 half-miler Wilt Chamberlain could—were Abramson to eager to compensate by trying to eradicate people he doesn’t like from visibility. He’s an online Nazi, which in this psychotic information climate makes it unsurprising he’s also Jewish and vehemently so. On Monday, The New York Times formally set about doing what we* knew was coming erelong and attempting to normalize the swastika, modern human civilization’s archetypal icon of pure, unapologetic hatred.

Furthering the interests of the international security-state military/wealth-management/CIA apparatus is more important to NYT publisher (and heir) A.G. Sulzberger than his own membership in the Jewry, and this applies to virtually all Jews in high government right now, just as it applies to everyone else in high government with regard to their own identity-based principles.

A few weeks ago, Abramson wrote a Substack note complaining that, although he can easily block whatever input he wants from people whose ideas he dislikes—i.e., practically everyone who isn’t a soyboy, Jewish, or profoundly libtarded—he can’t actually have them killed. At least that’s what his id clearly craves, even if the rest of him is too pudgy and emasculated to commit violence personally.

Abramson’s supreme arrogance typifies the bullhorns of today’s post-liberal, identitarian left. Despite being wrong about virtually everything, he demands total submissiveness from anyone who dares to interact with him and his and morally pure coterie of wise acolytes. And even those who start out polite, Abramson warns, have a habit of revealing themselves as disgusting; as people to be avoided altogether as a category based on ickiness arising reactive stereotypes. Not very original, actually.

Abramson’s thermonuclear-level condescension and paranoia both blossom as he gets further into his authoritarian groove.

I used to wonder how people like Abramson fail to see themselves as bigots. After all, everyone else can see that his comments about well-delineated out-groups reflect angry, closed-minded ignorance. But people who operate solely from emotional reasoning—a trait sometimes hard to detect amid persistent grandiloquence—don’t see this merely because they view themselves as absolutely correct. Abramson believes that his psychosocial positions are as factually unimpeachable as C = πD. (Since Abramson talks in circles, he might appreciate that one.)

This tendency manifests strongly in the older white women in distance running who attach themselves to “You’re 100 percent with us or a mortal enemy” stances on transgender-athlete participation, ad hoc gender identities, racialist lenses, “fatphobia,” and more. The common bond is emotional immaturity. For example, if you unconditionally trust your feelings, and your feelings in response to a distasteful idea are causing you great pain, then the person expressing the idea must be actively sadistic.

If this isn’t how Abramson and other post-liberal identitarian leftists think, then what’s the explanation for this behavior?

Notice here that Abramson and his acolytes are not content to receive input on its surface merits. If a comment appears that even looks like an idea that might have come from someone with anything besides untrammeled warm feelings toward the things these superannuated toddlers know are inarguably true, the proper response is to see whom that person follows and determine if any of them are bad. Like Nazis rolling through Europe in the 1930s scouring the place for people who needed to be exterminated wholesale because they were weak and contributed nothing to the advancement of human knowledge and thus the betterment of human civilizations in any useful discipline. (Fun trivia: I have sat and dined at the same Boulder dinner table as Paul Dirac. Or at least in the same kitchen.)

Also, I’d be leery of voting for someone who finds ways around rules requiring them to be open to communication from their constituents, like Ellen L. Wright.

I wonder what Abramson would think of the exchange on The Hill: Rising between The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and DNC operative Joel Rubin. I found Blumenthal’s closing comments almost as interesting as Rubin’s apparently legitimate ignorance about Pink Floyd’s The Wall.

American Jews as a rule are extraordinarily successful by traditional metrics. Groups with high median IQs, a strong sense of family and community, and a relentless work ethic (see also: Americans of East Asian, South Asian, and Middle Eastern descent) than groups characterized by absentee “parenting,” ten hours a day of video games, excessive substance use, or a strict “fuck the man” ethos, though no one can possibly imagine why. This alone assures Jews a certain level of spite from the less-successful. And because of the particular banalities forming the basis of standard anti-Jewish tropes, it’s vital to remember the fact that a startling number of sociopathic Jews currently occupy critical government roles is no more indicative of far-flung Jewish immorality than Karine Jean-Pierre being the White House Press Secretary implies that black people dissemble helplessly whenever they’re conscious and speaking.

At the same time, I react very poorly to successful lobbying to suppress accurate speech, as Blumenthal—who would have Seth Abramson in tears within seconds if Abramson were forced to debate him—notes the U.S. pro-Israel lobby consistently does. People who are rabidly anti-speech in one area are usually hiding something, and “but the Nazis” has, for multiple reasons, worn thin at this point as a means of deflecting every criticism of Israel and questionable act by Jewish people.

And part of me is admittedly envious. If the U.S. government manage to ruin life completely for everyday Americans, which appears to be a genuine aim of neoliberal politics, then at least the neoliberal Jews standing beside the wreckage holding battle-weary sledgehammers hammers in their hands have a different country to go to. And on top of that, despite being white for all practical purposes, some of them have somehow managed to board the “systemic racism” train, often by parachuting elegantly onto its roof it from a $15-million privately owned plane.

I have no idea what the solution to the Gaza Strip is. It sure does sound like it’s full of real antisemites, though, including members of Hamas trained from early childhood to regard Jews as vermin. Also, innocent people. But if it’s time to simply clear the trash from the area—it’s technically a huge homeless camp—then why not put the whole show on television? Americans hate antisemites and love watching wars from thousands or even quadrillions of miles away. Surely they would tune in by the tens of millions to watch Israel fire American-made missiles into the West Bank.

If Israel wants to make it a crime for its own citizens to even suggest its policies and its treatment of certain humans are imperfect, it can and does do so. That’s not how it works in the United States, though. And when a typical charge of “antisemitism” clearly means “I’m [insert identity label], shut up” and comes from a wealthy politician or media figure, my gut reaction is to blurt out something extraordinarily unkind, untrue, and unhelpful. My preferred reaction, however, is to simply ask, “Okay, but why can’t this see the light of day? Explain the special pleading.”

This post being mostly kind, entirely true, and uniquely helpful, I’m going to link it to Abramson’s note and see how long it survives. My guess is that he won’t get through more than two paragraphs. Though morbidly fascinated with how people see them, soy-authoritarians like him absolutely cannot tolerate what their brains reluctantly inform them is focused, coherent, and meaningful criticism.