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.