Well, I’ve yanked the Mother Jones magazine link from my blog. No damn way will I keep that. I could put it in the ‘mainstream media’ category I suppose. But I’d rather kick MJ out of my home right now. And it’s sad. MJ has been a source of progressive views for me for many years. My first exposure to alternative media included Mother Jones. In the early years after discovering alternative media, I was aware of only a handful of sources. As the years went on, my list of sources grew and visits to MJ were fewer. I might even have come to doubt MJ’s status as a progressive org (which I certainly have done in the case of the pro Democratic Party ‘The Nation’ magazine), but I was never so bothered by MJ as I am now. Here it is disappearing ‘all’ of my comments. It turns out it has blocked me. The last things I commented on had to do with John Oliver’s (unusually) pathetic Brexit show. Hmmm.
Remember Brexit? For those who don’t (but should) know what Brexit means, it refers to Britain’s exit from the European Union. The UK, at former PM James Cameron’s instigation, decided on putting it to the people in a June 23 referendum whether they should stay in the European Union or get out of it. His reasons were cynical. He thought he could use the proposal for a referendum to placate the Eurosceptics (Conservatives who wanted out of the European Union) in his Party and thereby ensure his position as it’s head. He didn’t want a Brexit and didn’t see one coming, but he had to propose a referendum to keep his Party from undergoing a civil war and thereby strengthening the Labour Party (which doesn’t make much difference to the people). But he lost control of the ploy and it took on a life of it’s own.
The bosses and rich people wanted to remain in the EU. They saw Brexit as something that would hurt them financially. The workers and progressives who identified with Europe’s economic victims, which victims are guaranteed in large numbers wherever neoliberal capitalism prevails (which is everywhere now), saw no merit in staying within a barbaric European Union where the stronger countries, and bankers, simply ate the weaker ones. Austerity, or going without, only happens to those who aren’t well off within a neoliberal social economic system. Of course, There were those on the Right who wanted to leave too, for wrong reasons. (The corporate owned media gave their voices much more play time than the Left argument for leaving.) They are the anti-other anti-immigrants, susceptible to the rants of the fascists who whip up a negative nationalism. The establishment, corporate-owned media went into overdrive (and even influenced the alternative media, but not all) to paint ‘all’ those who voted for Brexit as fascists. Fascists tend to do that. They get a kick out of calling others fascists. The pro Brexit camp win in the referendum happened and now the task is for the Left to be as quick and energetic as the Right in taking advantage of the shock to the system. It’s not looking good. The people everywhere are outgunned in this dark world.
Note that while Disqus has enabled me to identify my disappeared posts, they are often chopped. It looks like it depends on the size of the post. None of the posts looked at here were crazy long. I don’t know why Disqus would do that. There’s an alternative. The text can be hidden after so many words, accessible by a simple ‘show more’ button. In any case, I’m not a fan of (data mining) Disqus, but it’s forced on us. The text in the second last image, above, taken from the Mother Jones site is a bit hard to discern, so I’ve typed it out (below). Also, I scrolled a little further on Disqus and found another disappearned MJ post (namely the image immediately above). That’s four of my posts that the ‘progressive’ Mother Jones website has recently disappeared.
I noted, after perusing my Disqus comments, that the supposedly progressive Mother Jones has been disappearing all of my comments. I didn’t support the Remain camp in the recent UK referendum to decide on membership in the barbaric EU. Maybe that had something to do with it. But I’m not rightwing. I’m never foul mouthed and every post I’ve done here recently has been disappeared. I noticed three right away. Two were here. I thought John Oliver’s rant was awful, as did others (http://bit.ly/29KURYX). I am not an owner of a television (a propaganda device) and don’t watch much John Oliver. I’ve come across mention of him here and there and have followed the links sometimes to one of his potty-mouthed shows, which I enjoyed. I thought his politics were pretty decent. Now I wonder.
But Mother Jones? I’m on to you. It’s interesting how, when you disappear comments, you do it silently. No one else can see it. There’s no marker. No indication. How many ‘wrong’ political views do you off in a given discussion?
I’m a little dense. For a long time, those who promoted the EU would point to the fact that no European country had attacked another. I honestly thought that writers making that statement were just being dishonest. They were, but not in the way I imagined. Obviously there has been war in Europe since the creation of the EU in 1993 (See Wikipedia for a rundown on dates and details, but nothing more. Wikipedia, which anyone who knows how to can edit, just isn’t trustworthy.). There just hasn’t been war between individual members, as if that matters. (If I murder you with a gun, it’s murder. If I murder you with a knife, it’s murder, even if you are a big fan of knives and don’t want to associate anything negative, like an accusation of murder, with them.) There was horrific war in Europe in the late 1990s. (And there’s war right now in Ukraine!) And Europe, following uncle Sam’s lead, allowed it. The fabulous economist (and contributor to the collection of essays in “Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion,” edited by Jeffrey St. Claire and Joshua Frank), Michael Hudson, contradicts those who say that no European country has attacked another. You don’t have to use tanks and missiles in order to be guilty of attacking a country and what Germany and France did to Greece through barbaric EU rules and banks was an attack.
“There is a war going on in Europe but it’s not a military war anymore. They’re now using finance instead of war and they’re using finance to say, we can grab your country. We can put you out of work. We can control you and we don’t have to kill you, we can just make you immigrate by taking away your pensions and taking all your money. There’s a land grab just as if it were an invasion to grab Greece’s ports, to grab Greece’s railroads, and to grab everything else. This is war.” – Michael Hudson, May 22, 2016
My comments about war in Europe were disappeared. I am only now beginning to appreciate the depth of the manipulation by apologists for and boosters of the US-led corporatocracy going on here, with traitorous elements on the Left assisting the manipulators. The fullness of Chomsky’s words in “The New Military Humanism – Lessons From Kosovo” has sunk in. It’s perhaps worth quoting at length from pages 3 & 4 of that small, but powerful book:
On March 24, U.S.-led NATO forces launched cruise missiles and bombs at targets throughout the Federal Repulic of Yugoslavia (FRY), “plunging America into a military conflict that President Clinton said was necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and bring stability to Eastern Europe,” lead stories in the press reported. By bombing the FRY, Clinton informed the nation, “we are upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace.” “We cannot respond to such tragedies everywhere, but when ethnic conflict turns into ethnic cleansing where we can make a difference, we must try, and that is clearly the case in Kosovo.” “Had we faltered” in what the heading of his speech calls “A Just and Necessary War,” “the result would have been a moral and strategic disaster. The Albanian Kosovars would have become a people without a homeland, living in difficult conditions in some of the poorest countries in Europe…,” a fate that the U.S. cannot tolerate for suffering people. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had already sounded the alarm, declaring on February 1 “that this kind of thing cannot stand, that you cannot in 1999 have this kind of barbaric ethnic cleansing. It is ultimately better that democracies stand up against this kind of evil.”
Clinton’s European allies agreed. Under the heading “A New Generation Draws the Line,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that this is a new kind of war in which we are fighting “for values,” for “a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated,” “for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide.” “We are fighting for “a new world where dictators are no long able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples in order to stay in power.” We are entering “a new millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity.” German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer “became an advocate of what Ulrich Beck, a German intellectual, has called ‘NATO’s new military humanism’ – the notion, defended by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that the defense of human rights is a form of mission.”
“The New Interventionism” was hailed by intellectual opinion and legal scholars who proclaimed a new era in world affairs in which the “enlighted states” will at last be able to use force where they “believe it to be just,” discarding “the restrictive old rules” and obeying “modern notions of justice” that they fashion. “The crisis in Kosovo illustrates… America’s new willingness to do what it thinks right – international law not withstanding.” Now freed from the shackles of the Cold War and old-fashioned constraints of world order, the enlightened states can dedicate themselves with full vigor to the mission of upholding human rights and bringing justice and freedom to suffering people everywhere, by force if necessary.
The enlightened states are the United States and its British associate, perhaps also others who enlist in their crusades for justice and human rights. Their mission is resisted only by “the defiant, the indolent, and the miscreant,” the “disorderly” elements of the world.” The rank of enlightenment is apparently conferred by definition. One will search in vain for credible attempts to provide evidence or argument for the critical distinction between enlightened and disorderly, surely not from history. The history is in any event deemed irrelevant by the familiar doctrine of “change of course,” which holds that, Yes, in the past we have erred out of naivete or faulty information, but now we are returning to the traditional path of righteousness. Examination of the record is nothing more than “sound-bites and invectives about Washington’s historically evil foreign policy,” hence, “easy to ignore,” we are instructed by one of the most prominent scholar/advocates of the “emerging norms.” There is, accordingly, no purpose in asking what might be learned from old, musty stories about the past, even though the decision-making structure and its institutional base remain intact and unchanged.
Indeed, In “Rogue States,” Chomsky discussed the good faith principle. It’s what you would expect it to be. In good faith, I’ll trust you to do the right thing because that faith is based upon your past actions. No wonder EU-boosters disappear my comments about war in Europe! However, I’m in good company.