Joseph McCarthy now in Mother Jones
Sabrina Salvati brought this to my attention:
I guess the most interesting thing about the Mother Jones piece is the brazenness with which the Republican propaganda notion of "far left" now appears in something sponsored by Mother Jones. Corn doesn't hide who he is: he's one of the primary propagandists of Russiagate and thus an advocate of that great effort at dishonesty which future historians will label neoconservative liberalism. "We're liberals, but our foreign policy ideas are neoconservative," they cry with one voice. Of course, back in the day, the Russian presence in the US was at its greatest extent small potatoes when compared with that of Israel, which none of the Russiagaters seem to have noticed. Corn, of course, appears on MSNBC.
Corn's thesis is stated tightly at the conclusion:
The current line-up for this forum places West in the company of radicals, Chinese apologists, and chums of Russia’s propaganda machine.
The timing of this piece is revealed at the beginning:
West is currently scheduled to headline a Washington, DC, forum on October 3 that aims to spur opposition to the Biden administration’s support of the Ukrainian government’s fight against the Russian invasion. Part of a “global mobilization” of self-described peace groups, the event is being co-sponsored by an outfit long tied to communist organizations, and West will share the stage with speakers from the farthest side of the left, including some who have worked for Russian state media.
It might be added that there were doubtless a number of protests, rallies, and meetings sponsored by ANSWER back in the day which were once things David Corn endorsed, except that in those instances the events in question targeted Presidents with an (R) next to their names.
So this is all guilt by association and ad hominem argument. Corn can't be bothered by the particulars of (for instance) CODE PINK's call for peace -- he's too busy discussing those who are sitting next to the CODE PINK people, as if that mattered. An honest argument would say outright that "a disastrous war in Ukraine which killed off 310,000 Ukrainians and which runs cover for a set of scams is good and worthy of indefinite funding because Russia or something like that." But who would accept such an honest argument? It's easiest, then, to appeal to those who believe, wrongly, that truth is only true when it is spoken by the Establishment-certified.
Anyone here going to the Washington forum tomorrow?
Oh, and don't donate to Mother Jones.
Comments
This stuff is of old pedigree.
From 1966:
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Sadly Mother Jones rolls over in her grave due to the fact
that the organization named after her has devolved to its present day form.
Think that's bad...
you may not have checked out the Zinn Education Project
Presumably upholding Howard Zinn's dedication to 2nd graders having a full understanding of white guilt and anal sex...
When Mother Jones tells you someone is too far left
It might be time to do a sobriety check.
At one time people were so ideological they supported tanks being sent into Hungary, ahem ahem.
Pol Pot, Mao.
Everything left isn't necessarily good. Some say things are a horseshoe, I think it's a circle and the point where things touch is authoritarianism.
The BS Left/Right Paradigm
Tradition Left/Right paradigm is vague and contradictory this (From 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy')
is far more practical (and the book well worth the read):
"I got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger."
- Muhammed Ali 1966
"I got no quarrel with them Russians. No Russian ever called me deplorable."
- Me 2023
You might have missed it --
but the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991.
I'm not going to debate the morality of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The Russians quite clearly felt they had a right to certain portions of Ukraine, and presumably there was some sort of vote and some Minsk Agreements to approve, so go ahead and debate it with the Russians, if the State Department will let you.
I do, however, feel I am on the high ground as regards the WISDOM (actually, the lack thereof) of neoconservative liberalism. In the name of "democracy" the neoconservative liberals claim to support a regime in Ukraine which has banned all of its country's left-wing political parties. Their idea of "support" is a scenario where the State Department, with the help of a few Banderite guns pointed at Zelensky's head, goads the Armed Forces of Ukraine into summer-long "counter-offensives" which sent 310,000 Ukrainians on their last rides as opposed to about 50,000 dead Russians (about what the US lost in Vietnam). Meanwhile the embargoes and confiscations (supposedly justified by sanctions) discourage international business from investing in the EU (and, eventually, in the US). BRICS gets stronger as the collective West gets weaker, with Ukraine being the engine for the latter trend. Oh and how about that Nord Stream Pipeline? I'm sure it profited US natural gas companies, but the IMF did report the Russian economy as overtaking the German economy last year.
What would have been wise would have been peace. But at the present time peace is contingent upon whether or not the Russians are willing to trust the US, the EU, NATO, and so on. Right now they don't. The West might also have considered providing some actual air cover for the "counter-offensives" it goaded Ukraine into, though doing so would have risked World War III in a big way.
Of course, we ordinary plebes don't really have much of a choice in what the political class does. I doubt the Canadian plebes had a lot of choice as regards the behavior of its Parliament in cheering on an old Waffen SS partisan. But we can, you know, be wise, and ask for peace.
Okay? Okay.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Ah yess, Pol Pot, the peoples reaction to Lon Nol. The Khmer
Rouge weren't able to recruit but handfuls of people until the US orchestrated the replacement of the legitimate government with the fascist rat bastard Lon Nol, at which point hordes of people flocked to join the KR. A familiar pattern repeated ove and over and over.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
@enhydra lutris I think it was more Lon
I think it was more Lon Nol's acquiescence to carpet bombing eastern Cambodia that did it. People have no idea who the leaders of their country are and care much less. The bombed towns of E Cambodia provided lots of homeless KR recruits.
My point though is that the KR were horrific, and not someone to support. Yet some on the left did, the same type as celebrated the murder of Jews most recently.