Press Action

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Harsher and Dreader Realities: Enough Double Talk on the Left

By Nate Collins

Read full article...

Posted 02/15 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

True radical solidarity dictates that the critique of seemingly all-powerful US Imperialism takes absolute precedence over any mention of the “backwardness”? of the oppressed.
Here! Here!! Nate cuts clear through that venomous fog which masks all villains who would court vindication by blaming their victims.

Posted by Steve Cone from 4 Corners (National Sacrifice Area) USA on 02/16 at 08:18 AM

Nate, I really like what you say. I had the same reaction to the Jensen article as you did. Many people are afraid to speak out in support of Churchill and many others have their own agendas. If we cannot stand in solidarity when one of us is under attack, what does that say about us. Churchill had the courage to say the things that are unpopular. Most of us do not have the strength of character to do that, so when one amongst us, rises up and speaks so clearly, the least that we can do is to give 1000% support. Thanks for your article. On Sunday, I offered an agenda item at a meeting of Chapter 88, Veterans for Peace. The item was in support of Churchill and it passed unanimously. Keep on writing, Nate. And also, we should be planning some actions in support of Churchill.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/16 at 08:57 AM

The word ‘solidarity’ has become a ringing Pavlov bell. Good Lord. Give me a break. Talk about clueless. Give Ward Churchill a break, too. Let him speak his mind without falling all over yourselves.

Solidarity Schmolidarity. I know a person who is 100 percent Norwegian who has sundanced. It takes a great deal of commitment and determination to do such a thing. Something that probably would never even be considered by a ‘rock ribbed’ so-called ‘leftist’. The colors of the left are beginning to look rather bleached.

It’s looking pretty bleak for the left. I’ll continue to give the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore than that.

I have a redman friend who has loaned me 300 dollars to lend me a helping hand when I needed it most. When he needed a helping hand, he got it from me, too. That’s the way things are here in America.

I’ll continue a bit more, but the agenda driven antics of the left are beginning to look bleaker with each passing day. You’ve got a lot to learn. Quit acting like buffoons and idiots. jeesh.

Have a nice day.

Posted by MDPB from here on 02/16 at 09:56 AM

There’s nothing insidiousness about Jensen’s piece. He’s in solidarity with Churchill’s basic premise. He’s got Ward’s back. He just disagrees with some of the over-the-top rhetoric Churchill makes in “Some People Push Back.” What’s wrong with that? There’s no talk of the backwardness of the oppressed in Jensen’s essay. Where did that come from? Jensen writes: “Churchill is angry. He is harsh. And in the central themes of the 9/11 essay and his life’s work, Ward Churchill is right.” Sounds like an endorsement to me. And it sounds like Collins needs a little lesson on the value of debate in building solidarity among as large a segment of the population as we can.

Posted by Jack Bauer from on 02/16 at 10:12 AM

Come on people! We need to do a better job of conforming to the intellectual identity we’ve created for ourselves. Stop this self-criticism and self-reflection and analysis! Ward is a hero and should be supported—or else you’re a traitor. Geez. We’re behaving as though we’ve not been indoctrinated.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/16 at 11:05 AM

Knock me over with a feather. I relapsed for a moment there.

I’ll fall back into my stupor of comatose indoctrinated lemmingness. “Must not think for myself… must not think for myself… must not think for myself.” Ok, good, I’m there, not here.

It’ll be off to the cyber gulag… abandoned in the cyberian taiga.

Posted by MDPB from here on 02/16 at 11:39 AM

Interesting article. It reminds me of how much easier it is to create one form of public “solidarity” over another one.

If I were engaged in bringing light to a condition that was thriving in the dark, I would rather have you add your own personal wattage and join your light with mine on the subject that needs to be it… than to simply herald that I have a right to be doing what I am doing.

But I guess solidarity, like other things, means different things to different people.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/16 at 12:39 PM

Nate is one of my favorite people...in addition to my solidarity with him respecting this article...which I am very happy to see posted here. I think it calls for readers getting off of the “no commitment” train represented by Nader Raider’s entry above...reducing all efforts to “one half a dozen 6 of the other” mentality, and acknowledging that whether or not people are working together in any direct fashion...we call can all follow Churchill’s lead in demanding that the U.S. honor its own laws. All stay away from allowing others to make this a free speech issue exclusively, and not sleep through this all being swept under the filthy U.S. carpetbombing of others.

Posted by Richard Oxman from Ward's Realm on 02/16 at 01:39 PM

Nader,

I guess the question is, where does solidarity end and conformity begin? Is it enough to question others and serve as mere cheerleaders for our own “cause” or “identity”? Is Ward beyond reproach—or anyone for that matter? If so, who reaches this conclusion and what are the consequences of this conclusion?

Ox,

The problem with questioning Ward, it appears, stems from an emotional rather than intellectual inclination. This, of course, contradicts intellectual integrity and creates other questions that contradict the motives/value of the Left. For my part, its strange that ideas cannot be discussed without first looking over one’s shoulder to see if it supports an identity. It explains why the lives of 1.2 million Iraqis and millions who live under totalitarianism are ignored. What are the poor, ignorant American masses to think at the selectivity of your compassion? What about the selectivity of advocating free speech/thoughts? Which value or belief or commitment is able to survive under the weight of this identity? Excellent! This thread demonstrates how Leftist ideology naturally deginerates into a “herd mentality” and, eventually, totalitarianism.

Throwing in the “filthy carpet bombing” was a great finish! Yes, a superficial outburst of moral authority was just what was needed. At that point, I imagined you throwing your head back and stomping out the room. Awesome!

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/16 at 02:10 PM

To answer your question, CY, I have to first reveal a particular bias of mine. And that bias is… I make an effort to not equate a man’s ideas with the man.

If you or WC offer up an idea that attracts my attention, I will juxtapose it next to my own perception of the subject matter, to see how my perception is affected by yours. Your idea, therefore, becomes a welcome litmus test to see how strong my idea’s foundational legs are.

That is how I maximize the power of ideas in my life, by taking pains to not personalize ideas in the process.

And that is why I give WC’s ideas so much value. Because they have a very potent litmus test affect on my own ideas.

So my feelings about a man’s ideas have little to do with my feelings about the man. Intentionally so. It’s how I get the maximum benfit from justoposing his ideas with mine.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/16 at 02:35 PM

Nader Rider,

Damn it! I had developed a comfortable defensiveness-- and you ruined my mood by inspiring respect for what you’ve said. Now, all I can find to say is thank you and best wishes to you.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/16 at 02:42 PM

Ditto. On every count too. What else is there worth knowing more than… yourself?

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/16 at 02:46 PM

Wait a minute. I don’t understand some of these comments. Are you saying that “solidarity” is NOT a good thing? I never suggested that we “conform”, or march in lock step or give up our own global views. All I am saying is that when one of us is under attack, all of us are under attack. Maybe the other side always wins because we spend too much time criticizing one another. A little empathy for Churchill would help. He is one of the few who has had the guts to put his own safety on the line. Believe me, it’s not easy to do that. Try it sometime!

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/16 at 02:58 PM

rosemarie,

“Are you saying that “solidarity” is NOT a good thing?”

Great thinkers might even view criticism as solidarity. It pushes them to better develop their views.

“All I am saying is that when one of us is under attack, all of us are under attack.”

Yes, the herd mentality...What if the values and credibility of your herd is threatened by Ward Churchill? Perhaps, pushing folks toward genocide (consequence of his ideology, in my view), while condemning genocide threatens the relevance of the Left (as well as the lives of Leftists). What not explore where Wards ideas lead rather than just react with convulsive approval.

“ Maybe the other side always wins because we spend too much time criticizing one another.”

Or maybe you don’t spend enough time with self-criticism and self-reflection.

“A little empathy for Churchill would help.”

Yes, an upper-middle class white man who’s main accomplishment has been creating upper-middle class, adolescent groupies-- desperately needs empathy. OK, fine.

“ He is one of the few who has had the guts to put his own safety on the line. Believe me, it’s not easy to do that. Try it sometime! “

You could say the same for Right-wingers like O’Reilly and Rush and David Duke. They too receive death threats and endanger their safety because of their views. Now, if Ward went to Saudi Arabia and started protesting gays murdered or women oppressed in Mecca, that would demonstrate courage. To do so under a system that serves to protect his ability to speak (as well as the ability of Right-wingers) is not courageous in itself. As someone who’s served his country, I know what putting one’s safety on the line is all about.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/16 at 03:22 PM

“Are you saying that “solidarity” is NOT a good thing?”

Your past actions, Rosemarie, reveal that it matters little to you what others may feel about what is right or wrong for you to do.

As it should be.

I believe that your own actions answer your own question.

As they should.

Your courage comes from following your own conscience, and not the approving or dissaproving views of others.

And it serves as a role model for how to act accordingly.

More than an eloquent sequencing of words can ever do.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/16 at 03:36 PM

CY...I hardly know where to begin with your comments...I agree that most of the time criticism is good but maybe timing is important. I would never kick a brother when he is down. Churchill is NOT down but he is under attack. As far as O’Reilly and Rush, I didn’t know that they had “views”. I thought that they just worked for ratings. About Churchill being an upper-middle class white man...that is totally irrelevant. Your comment is in the ad hominem catagory. I judge only by what someone says and more importantly what he does. To NR, thanks for your comment about following my conscience. Seems that you have gotten to know me. PS, do you all know that there is a petition online in support of Churchill? It only takes a minute to sign it.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/16 at 07:50 PM

Cannon-

Who are the “1.2 million Iraqis” you are referring to?

“Totalitarianism” is a buzz word. The way you are using it means nothing more than “official enemy of Washington.” So who is being a herd animal? (hint: you are)

There have been quite a range of “Left” ideas expressed at Press Action about Churchill, not all of them fawningly supportive, as you erroneously conclude.

Saudi Arabia is a U.S. client state. The ruling family wouldn’t last three weeks without Washington’s support. So why assume the main problem is in Saudi Arabia?

On Churchill . . . If he hadn’t used the ill-advised “little Eichmanns” remark, he could be doing a joint book tour with Pat Buchanan, who agrees completely that 911 was the fruit of U.S. Empire. If we could all be a little less herdlike, Left and Right could line up together against the National Security State - in the name of self-defense.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/16 at 07:56 PM

On Feb. 15, 399 BC, Socrates was executed.

It has some relevance to Ward’s dilemma.

Posted by MDPB from here on 02/16 at 08:14 PM

Hi Michael,

I believe Cannon is referring to deaths by sanctions.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/16 at 09:05 PM

Let me simplify my thesis for all of you wonderfully complicated people.
Liberalism has been harnessed as a weapon to be used against the victims of US Imperialism.

Posted by Nate C. from berkeley,ca on 02/16 at 09:54 PM

“Who are the “1.2 million Iraqis” you are referring to? “

Those killed by Saddam as the Leftist said nothing, offered no protest or provided no solution. Kurds, Marsh Arab, Shiites mainly. Ward was too busy writing a manifesto that abstracted, negated and trivialized life—rather than seeking to save any of those lives...along with other Leftist. That’s because human life only has value for the radical Left when it serves to make a rhetorical point. Ask 80% of Iraqis or the relatives of those murdered raped and tortured. Perhaps, they will be comforted by your moral relativism or lack of knowledge of their suffering. The same could be said by the people of the Sudan

“ “Totalitarianism” is a buzz word. The way you are using it means nothing more than “official enemy of Washington.” So who is being a herd animal? (hint: you are)”

Alright, read Hannah Arendt’s “Origins of Totalitarianism” or the Amnesty International report on Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iraq (during Saddam) to understand what I mean by this term.

“Saudi Arabia is a U.S. client state. “

Yes, we order them to teach their children to hate us, along with Jews, Christians, Shiites, etc...and to spread this cult throughout the world. Interesting. You would think we’d ask our puppet state to do more helpful things.

“ The ruling family wouldn’t last three weeks without Washington’s support. So why assume the main problem is in Saudi Arabia? “

I agree that pressure needs to be placed on Saudi Arabia. I have spoken out about the human rights and educational system of Saudi Arabia with others in an organized way. The efforts of those who share this view have so far only resulted in Bush mentioning the Saudi’s in the State of the Union and a few local elections (via US pressure). I have dear friends in Saudi Arabia and I understand how US/Saudi relations work and want to change them to favor the people of this nation. Sure, it would be nice if the radical Left could organize protests on behalf of gays, women and other Left leaning oppressed people in Saudi Arabia. My guess is that there has been no rhetorical point to be made—or the “Why America is an Evil Empire” rally helps validate an identity more than actually making a difference or offering hope.

On Ward

For me, the “wanting the US off the map” thing and the utter mediocrity of his analytical and critical thinking is why I won’t become his groupie. Of course, loving my country more than the fawning of undergrad adolescents and the ability to sound witty at a coffee house-- is also why I can’t conform and surrender to Ward.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/16 at 10:31 PM

Go suck on an egg!

Posted by Nate C. from berkeley,ca on 02/16 at 10:39 PM

“Liberalism has been harnessed as a weapon to be used against the victims of US Imperialism. “

I thought the message was that the radical Left has decided to abandon critical thinking and dialogue with other perspectives-- because you’ve established an identity that claims moral and intellectual superiority. Liberals just can’t properly conform to your worldview...so they must be aligned with other enemies you’ve invented for yourself. Now is the time for cheerleading and pretending that America’s repulsion for Leftist ideology has not not made you irrelevant. It is not the time for analysis and questioning and understanding. No. It is the time to rally around an identity that is more important than adding value, intellectual integrity and problem-solving.

Wow! This has been fascinating for me folks! Its like a laboratory experiment of Marxism evolving into Stalinism.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/16 at 10:53 PM

. . . . loving my country . . . . --C. Yonts
This “loving” of yours is a curious (if not uncommon) notion. Would you care to elaborate on the object of your adoration? Is yours a conditional “love” in any sense of the word, or one of those unqualified, my-country-right-or-wrong commitments susceptible to the overzealotry of a blind and misguided faith? How much more good ole American nationalism can the rest of the planet tolerate, do you think?

Posted by Steve Cone from 4 Corners (National Sacrifice Area) USA on 02/16 at 11:38 PM

Cannon -
Here’s the dictionary definition of “totalitarian”: “of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy.” This definition means a corporation is a totalitarian institution. Yet, you sing their praises. That makes you a hypocrite, I believe.

It’s not true that the Left “said nothing” when Saddam killed his (allegedly) 1.2 million victims (this figure has to include a lot of war deaths, not the same as political murders). The Left has criticized Washington’s network of client states quite consistently, and Saddam Hussein was a client, remember? When he gassed the Iranians he was using information from U.S. satellites to make sure he hit his targets. Try and find a Leftist who said this was a good idea.

Please provide evidence that “we” order Saudi Arabia to teach their children to hate “us.” Never heard this idiocy before. And I don’t think we should have puppet states at all, as you obviously do. So much for your belief in democracy.

I offered a constructive example of what we on the Left could do: align with Pat Buchanan on his anti-Empire stance. So it’s just not true that the Left is not into “critical thinking and dialogue with other perspectives.” It’s right here in this thread and you are so consumed by dogma you apparently didn’t even notice it.

You don’t love your country; you love the national security state. That’s sick.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/17 at 01:43 AM

To all,

Regarding Cannon Yonts’s closing comment, I think it instructive to remember that in a previous exchange here on PA, Jordy Cummings was forced to point out Cannon Yont’s inability to differentiate Stalinism from Marxism. (Cf. Reza Fiyouzat, ‘A Question of Intent’, comment 55.)

One of Cannon’s transparently ineffective rhetorical tropes is to try and employ the terminology, arguments and wording others have used to crush him in previous argument. Our engaging his inferior eristic technique has consistently revealed him to be a bumbling interlocutor: a scribbler of the lowest caliber.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/17 at 08:23 AM

Michael,

1. I never mentioned corporations—only oppressors, crimes and lives the Left ignores. So how could I sing their praises.

2. Leftist wanted Saddam to continue murdering, raping and torturing. No mass protests from 1978 - 2003 to support the lives of millions who were at war with Saddam. Why didn’t you protest this war? Oh yeah, couldn’t make quality anti-American rhetoric or support your identity. That’s why you have no moral authority and intellectual integrity. Only an identity rejected by enough Americans to make you completely irrelevant.

3. I was using sarcasm to imply that if the Saudi royals are the puppets of the US then we need to force them to do more helpful things—things in our interest. Their support for hate and terrorism were not in our interest.

4. I was referring to the sychophancy concerning Ward, not your fantasy of aligning with Buchanan—who is certain to find the radical Left repulsive. Ask him...David Dukes also agrees with certain tenets of the radical left (anti-Zionism for starters). Why not align with him and double your support from 3% to 5%?

“You don’t love your country; you love the national security state. That’s sick. “

See, this is why your identity, your ideas, your intellectual ineptitude make you irrelevant and repulsive. Your racist-like rhetoric. The Republicans and those on the Right owe you a great debt—since you’ve helped to assure them a huge majority for the next 20 years. On love of my country, I align myself with the spirit of Whitman—who would find the radical Left of today repulsive and unworthy of this great nation-- and its radical tradition. Read Whitman to understand where I’m coming from.

Finally, if Americans are ultimately given the choice between their children’s future and those defended by the Left (Islamic totalitarians, terrorists and anti-Americans)—they will choose their children every time. You know this to be true (as does Ward) or you lack intellectual honesty. The question is, why are you encouraging those you claim to support to take the path of annihilation? Also, if the US were evil as you claim, Ward would have had a bullet in his head long ago. His ability to speak and to cultivate hate for the US is itself a contradiction of his message. Just as your ability to do the same is a contradiction.

Anyhow, I leave you all to your identity. I’m certain you will accomplish nothing, save no one and improve nothing-- because that’s not your objective. For myself, I must go and add value to real men and women, not validate an abstraction. I have waundering in the fog of nihlism too long.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 08:52 AM

Theo,

Jordy made an arguement that Marxism is not Stalinism—and he may be correct. My point is that Stalinism is an inevitable result of Marxism—its what this abstraction evolves to.

“One of Cannon’s transparently ineffective rhetorical tropes is to try and employ the terminology, arguments and wording others have used to crush him in previous argument. Our engaging his inferior eristic technique has consistently revealed him to be a bumbling interlocutor: a scribbler of the lowest caliber. “

Stalin himself could not have constructed a more oppressive arguement. Theo, did you know I’m disappointed at you. Honestly, I think your smart enough to make effective points and develop potent ideas, but you can’t distinguish intellectual growth from some adolescent competition. It is not. Keeping points and attempting to appeal to popular sentiments is beneath you. It projects lack of courage, immaturity and serves as a distraction from the purpose of developing and refining real ideas. I think you can offer all of us something profound if you aspired to doing so.

I wish you the best. Perhaps, I’ve caught you in a bad mood. At any rate, the next time I return—maybe your mood will have improved and we can discuss things as two brothers within humanity-- rather than as different species.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 09:22 AM

“America isolated I sing;
I say that works made here in the spirit of other lands, are so much poison in The States.

(How dare such insects as we see assume to write poems for America?
For our victorious armies, and the offspring following the armies?)

Piety and conformity to them that like!
Peace, obesity, allegiance, to them that like!
I am he who tauntingly compels men, women, nations,
Crying, Leap from your seats, and contend for your lives!

I am he who walks the States with a barb’d tongue, questioning every one I meet;
Who are you, that wanted only to be told what you knew before?
Who are you, that wanted only a book to join you in your nonsense? “

Posted by Ghost of Walt from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 12:25 PM

What is this you bring my America?
Is it uniform with my country?
Is it not something that has been better told or done before?
Have you not imported this, or the spirit of it, in some ship?
Is it not a mere tale? a rhyme? a prettiness? is the good old cause in it?
Has it not dangled long at the heels of the poets, politicians, literats, of enemies’ lands?
Does it not assume that what is notoriously gone is still here?
Does it answer universal needs? will it improve manners?
Does it sound, with trumpet-voice, the proud victory of the Union, in that secession war?
Can your performance face the open fields and the seaside?
Will it absorb into me as I absorb food, air - to appear again in my strength, gait, face?
Have real employments contributed to it? original makers’ not mere amanuenses?
Does it meet modern discoveries, calibers, facts face to face?
What does it mean to me? to American persons, progresses, cities? Chicago, Kanada, Arkansas? the planter, Yankee, Georgian, native, immigrant, sailors, squatters, old States, new States?
Does it encompass all The States, and the unexceptional rights of all the men and women of the earth? (the genital impulse of These States;)
Does it see behind the apparent custodians, the real custodians, standing, menacing, silent mechanics, Manhattanese, western men, southerners, significant alike in their apathy, and in the promptness of their love?
Does it see what finally befalls, and has always finally befallen, each temporizer, patcher, outsider, partialist, alarmist, infidel, who has ever ask’d anything of America?
What mocking and scornful negligence?
The track strew’d with the dust of skeletons;
By the roadside others disdainfully toss’d.

Posted by Ghost of Walt from Opposed to Churchill on 02/17 at 12:33 PM

Cannon:

I think what’s bothering a lot of the contributors to this forum is that you are not defining what you call “the left”, “radical leftists”, etc.

You mention that, “Any definition I offer on the radical Left? is a matter of subjective interpretation. Admittedly, it encompasses a large hodgepodge of ideological assumptions and viewpoints.”

If this is the case, why do you use the term “the left, etc.” so often implying a specific group of identifiable people?

Posted by elches1917 from on 02/17 at 12:39 PM

To Canon Yonts or Daniel Yonts or whatever your name is:

Please use one name when posting comments on this website. Pick either “Ghost of Walt” or “Canon Yonts” and stick with it.

Thanks.

Mark Hand

Posted by Mark Hand from on 02/17 at 12:43 PM

CY:

On another thread, you admonished another poster with with these words:

“You create labels for those whom you disagree and banter about rhetorical abstractions that you’ve accepted as truth."�

You can probably make more headway if you refrained from doing the same and modeled the kind of communication that you say you want to participate in.

People are more capable of being pursuaded by how we say something, versus what we say, don’t you think?

Your mentor, WW, would probably want you to consider the following words of his too:

“Be curious, not judgmental.”

Not for nothing, of course.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/17 at 12:59 PM

elches1917,

When I say the radical left I imply a form of nihlism—nihlism as the common theme. The radical right also possesses nihlistic tendencies, but of a different nature. The radical Right wants to overpower and oppress minorities and outsiders as an expression of its nihlistic conclusions. The radical Left views the mainstream as the enemy, which in a democratic society amounts to political nihlism—ie, inability/unwillingness to affect policy, change or provide social solutions through government and the subsequent hatred of government. I hope you will accept this as my definition-- though you need not accept the definition.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 01:03 PM

Cannon:

Is “the left” and the “radical left” the same?

If all of these terms and others like it mean the same thing, than understanding your writng is much easier.

It seems you’re saying that the enviromentalists, communists, socialists, animal rights activists, anarchists, existentialists, etc. are nihilists.

With that in mind, shouldn’t you refer to “the left” as left nihilists or maybe just nihilists instead of “the left”?

Posted by elches1917 from on 02/17 at 02:05 PM

Cannon
(1) You sing the praises of the market, which is dominated by corporations, clearly totalitarian by the dictionary definition. If you are prepared to oppose corporations as the anti-market institutions they are, I’ll retract the hypocrite charge.

(2) You’re wrong again. Plenty of “anti-American” criticism could be leveled against the crimes of Saddam during his client state years. Anyone who protests U.S. Empire protests all client state arrangements. It’s impossible to protest every particular abuse of every single U.S. supported autocrat. The Left has no apologies to make here.

(3) Wrong again. We have no legitimate authority to force the leaders of Saudi Arabia to do anything.

(4) Wrong again. Buchanan has considerable praise for Ralph Nader and was in the streets of Seattle for the anti-WTO protests in 1999. I suspect the Left’s repugnance for Buchanan is more the problem than the reverse. Agreed we could ally with David Duke on anti-free trade stuff.

(5) Nothing racist in what I’ve said about your Dittohead rhetoric. You love the national security state and the American people do not.
As for your delusion that U.S. children can be protected by slaughtering Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. that’s hilarious.

On Republican majorities . . . another laugh. Bush got roughly 30% of the electorate. 6% of that 30% supports his view on the issues. That’s a majority?

“I chant the new Empire.”
-----Walt Whitman

The hell with that!

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/17 at 08:23 PM

Clarification. The whole idea of U.S. citizens protesting Saddam is absurd. Washington bred the Iranian revolution by overthrowing Iranian democracy (1953) and installing the Shah, provided arms to the Mullahs at the same time as Brzezinski was encouraging Saddam to attack Iran, gave Saddam everything he needed throughout the Iran-Iraq war and in the internal war against the Iraqi people etc. etc. So the protest needed is the protest against U.S. foreign policy, not Saddam.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/17 at 08:56 PM

“(1) You sing the praises of the market, which is dominated by corporations, “

Actually small business provides many more jobs and innovations in the US than large corporations. Of course, any company can get incorporated and become a corporation. But I’ll assume you mean multi-national corporations-- and confess their not my favorite business model.

“clearly totalitarian by the dictionary definition. If you are prepared to oppose corporations as the anti-market institutions they are, I’ll retract the hypocrite charge. “

I oppose corporations that have no accountability to shareholders or their nation or those they serve.

“ Anyone who protests U.S. Empire protests all client state arrangements. It’s impossible to protest every particular abuse of every single U.S. supported autocrat. The Left has no apologies to make here. “

That’s for each Leftist and the Iraqis to decide between themselves.

“(3) Wrong again. We have no legitimate authority to force the leaders of Saudi Arabia to do anything. “

Selective morality is a convenience the Left seems to enjoy. This logic doesn’t apply to Israel—which is a beckon of human rights and freedom compared with Saudi Arabia. But hey, who needs moral authority anyhow?

(4)Perhaps, your right. I see an amusing 3rd party here.

“(5) Nothing racist in what I’ve said about your Dittohead rhetoric.”

I find Rush to be in the same intellectual class as Ward.

“ You love the national security state and the American people do not. “

Well those mythical Americans whom you imagine agreeing with you need to vote.

“As for your delusion that U.S. children can be protected by slaughtering Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. that’s hilarious. “

The American people will take whatever means necessary to protect their children and their future. So far, they have taken rather cautious and compassionate steps within the range of potentiality. My point is that folks like Ward tend to ignore the consequences to which their conclusions lead. Terrorists share this logical fallacy. If America wanted to slaughter those whom you’ve mentioned, they would not exist today, given the reality of our capabilities. Indeed, we can slaughter in much more efficient ways if that were our intent.

“On Republican majorities . . . another laugh. Bush got roughly 30% of the electorate. 6% of that 30% supports his view on the issues. That’s a majority? “

He received 51% of the vote and the Republicans won a majority in the House and Congress from those who voted. Democracy doesn’t attempt to devine the intentions of those who didn’t vote.

““I chant the new Empire.”
-----Walt Whitman

The hell with that! “

You know, a scholar could probably make a compelling arguement that Walt is one of the original voices of American Imperialism-- one of its intellectual architects. Perhaps one has. Just a thought.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 09:59 PM

There are already several “scholars” who are calling Whitman a compelling voice for cultural nationalism.

A complimentary term for some, but not for others.

It makes sense for a romantic nationalist to swoon over him.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/17 at 11:07 PM

(1) Agreed on large corporations.
(2) On Saddam, the U.S. govt. put him in power and sustained him, so there’s no basis for conceiving him as the ultimate problem. It’s Washington.
(3) No selective morality supplied from me. Israel is basically an offshore U.S. military base. We should withdraw all support for its disgusting apartheid. That’s not arm-twisting, that’s withdrawal.
(4) Limbaugh is in your ideological corner, not Ward’s.
(5) The American people do not determine U.S. foreign policy. It is a fact that Washington is directly or indirectly slaughtering Palestinians and Iraqis, while threatening Syria and Iran. The fact that it has refrained from annihilating every last one of these nationalities is not a humanitarian achievement, as you assume. On that idiotic premise, we would have to conclude that Hitler was humane, since he was willing to trade Jews for trucks as late as 1944 and left one-third of European Jewry alive.
(6) No mythical Americans involved in my view, just actual ones. When Americans are informed, they reject the national security state, as per the overwhelming majority that still sees the Vietnam war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.”
(7) Stalin was elected too, so I guess he’s a democratic leader in your book. In fact, the incumbency return rate in the U.S. Congress is higher than it was in the Politburo during the pre-Gorbachev era, so I guess the former USSR was a better democracy than the U.S. is today. The fact is divinations are not needed, poll results show that only a tiny minority of the electorate supported either Kerry or Bush on the issues. The general public recognizes elections have been reduced to a PR charade. Too bad you don’t.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/17 at 11:16 PM

Here’s a link to Walt’s primary work, if anyone’s interested.

http://www.bartleby.com/142/index2.html

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 11:16 PM

“(2) On Saddam, the U.S. govt. put him in power and sustained him, so there’s no basis for conceiving him as the ultimate problem. It’s Washington. “

Like I said that’s a subjective, moral jusgement between you and the Marsh Arabs, Kurds and Shiites.

“(3) No selective morality supplied from me. Israel is basically an offshore U.S. military base. We should withdraw all support for its disgusting apartheid. That’s not arm-twisting, that’s withdrawal. “

Ask a Christian in Saudi Arabia or a Shiite under Saddam (or other Arab nations) or women, etc-- if aparthied systems exist outside Israel. That fact that you don’t use these systems to make a rhetorical point does not minimize the tragedy or free you of moral obligation.

“(4) Limbaugh is in your ideological corner, not Ward’s. “

If you say so.

“(5) The American people do not determine U.S. foreign policy. It is a fact that Washington is directly or indirectly slaughtering Palestinians and Iraqis, while threatening Syria and Iran. “

It is also a fact that Arab nations perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinians conflict-- because were it to end, they would lose power. They use proxy wars with Israel as a distraction from their totalitarian wastelands. When 100 million people produce less than Sweden—you need a Jewish boogie man. As for the Iraqis, we will allow them to formally condemn us with the strength of a free people for whatever injustice they feel we’ve brought them. Free people will offer judgement—not those who are the enemies of free people. As for Iran and Syria, free people will always exist as a threat to them.

Survival is not a humanitarian achievement.

(6) Get those folks to the polls.

“(7)The general public recognizes elections have been reduced to a PR charade. Too bad you don’t.”

So you’re saying an “informed” majority that agree’s with your agenda does not vote to change things because of the PR machine, which—I assume—they can’t filter from their decision-making. Wow! I guess you can be informed yet not know to vote in order to realize your agenda. Interesting.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/17 at 11:47 PM

No subjective judgment required here vis-a-vis Marsh Arabs, Kurds, and Shiites. The Baathists were set on a path to power by a JFK-supported coup in 1963. The CIA helped provide the lists of those Saddam killed once he became president. Obviously, the direct victims have a grievance with Saddam, but the line of responsibility runs back to Washington. Not to mention that U.S. protestors pay taxes to the U.S. government, not Saddam.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Saddam, and Israel, are all U.S. client states, so we bear responsibility for all their crimes. You are playing games by imagining Americans can set one group of crimes against the other. We are responsible for the crimes of ALL U.S. client states.

Palestine is perpetually aflame because of conflicting nationalisms in a single land, not because of the poor behavior of the Arab states. Jews are no mere boogie man, but rather, a racist settler state. The Arab states suck, but they can hardly be held responsible for the consequences of declaring Jewish sovereignty over Arab land.

It’s hilarious to call occupied Iraqis a “free” people. A dozen permanent U.S. military bases shows how soon we intend to let Iraqis be free.

“Survival” is another buzz word. The U.S. has no unique right to murder and destroy in the name of “survival.” In any case, U.S. national survival is not at stake in Iraq, nor did 911 pose a threat to the continued existence of the U.S. You’re hallucinating.

On non voters . . . the lower half of the wealth pyramid stays home regularly because there is no one for them to vote FOR. These folks, plus another twenty-five percent who do vote, tell pollsters that elections are basically a PR game. Let’s build a labor party, a real working class party, and give them something to come out for. Just denouncing them for lack of civic mindedness (definitely not the problem) advertises our own obtuseness.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/18 at 07:45 PM

Michael,

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Best wishes to you from your Southern brethren. Here’s a link to consider that someone posted here.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/18 at 09:03 PM

Cannon-

OK. Our differences seem to boil down to an internationalist vs. nationalist perspective. I think an authentic Left has to be internationalist, which does not mean one can’t at the same time love one’s own culture more than any other (one rarely knows another culture as intimately as one’s own in any case). However, imposing it on others in the name of “survival” or any other shibboleth, is unacceptable.

Nate -
If you’re still there, nice article. Agreed that Jensen’s comments on Al Qaeda are entirely irrelevant, given the far greater problem of U.S. foreign policy, which gave birth to Al Qaeda in the first place. Not sure what “full solidarity” with Ward means, though. I think the Eichmann analogy is not accurate, not least because our conception of the Nazis has been reduced to absolute caricature by Hollywood and the Holocaust Industry. To play into that demonized fantasy is not the thing to do.

Posted by Michael from San Francisco on 02/19 at 09:32 PM

I don’t believe that any ideology (pick one from the right, or pick one from the left) is the Rx for what ills us.

When a particular ideology is the master of our choices and our actions, the value of human beings gets reduced to the value of that ideology.

“The point of being an ideologue...is that new information does not disturb one’s worldview.” - Daphne Patal, Heterophobia

I believe that this is true for both left-leaning and right-leaning idealogues too.

I more wary of idealogues thah I am of the direction that they tilt towards.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/19 at 10:23 PM

Next entry: Disinformation: A Crime Against Humanity and a Crime Against Peace

Previous entry: DiscoverTheNetwork: David Horowitz's Smear Portal

[ads]

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Harsher and Dreader Realities: Enough Double Talk on the Left

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate