*edit, July 20, 2018 – I did eventually get a response (See at the bottom of the post) from Matthew Behrens. I neglected to keep the email (which came after a long stretch, Matthews explanation being, as I recall, that he found it in his trash) and can’t recall its contents. I may have received a response from Roger Annis, but I don’t recall. Roger, however, has kindly responded to me a few times, unlike some progressives (Michel Chossudovsky comes to mind). I’ve only emailed him a few times. Those are busy people, I realize. As for Barbara, She by no means treats me shabbily, even if she seemed to in this instance. I have gone on to visit her useful sites a number of times – even though she seemed to assist the awful Sibel Edmonds in her attack on Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett – and have commented on this or that. (I don’t know what Barbara’s position is on the destruction, or self-destruction of Sibel’s organization, but I hope that she understands that Sibel’s attack on real progressives was awful and unsupportable.) Barbara has even upvoted comments I’ve made on her site. She’s also visited my site and upvoted me. I have by no means given up on her.
There is no solidarity on the real Left. That’s been apparent to me for a long time. My latest experience with an antsy blogger reminded me of that fact. After reading Barbara McKenzie’s lengthy post about leftists who are not quite Left, and commenting, I was subjected to hostility for asking why the author sees no reason to believe rendition victim Maher Arar’s story. I am left to figure out why all by myself, because when I asked Barbara for a reason for her dismissal of Arar’s story, she accused me of putting words in her mouth and closed the discussion, possibly in an act of collective punishment if you factor in the inability of others to offer comments, perhaps conveying useful information. Well, I certainly didn’t put words in her mouth, as you can see below. I used enough words to be clear about what I was saying. Barbara did the same thing with her appropriately lengthy two-part post, but not in her comments to me. Without communication between Barbara and myself, I can’t know exactly what the problem is.
But I can analyze information that I do have access to, namely the two-part essay she wrote and the little she did say to me in her responses to my responses. It hurts to be disappeared by those who you look to for guidance. Then again, It’s relative. I look to other progressives who are also academics, activists who do serious research, bloggers who do serious research and bloggers who are also activists, to guide me, but not always and not in all matters.
A few thoughts about and quibbles with with parts 1 & 2 of Barbara McKenzie’s blog post “The Rebranding Of The Anti-Syria Left”:
1. from part 1: “For more than five years the anti-Syria movement has relentlessly vilified the Syrian president with an incontinent flow of accusations, making full use of language favoured by the most hard-line interventionists: Assad ‘the butcher’, ‘the brutal tyrant’ has been accused of deliberately conducting a reign of terror, of bombing, starving, raping, gassing his own people, deliberately targeting hospitals, blood-banks, schools, bakeries, children and even kittens.” Therefore, it seems, anyone who says ‘anything’ bad about Assad is automatically suspicious in Barbara’s view.
2. from part 1: “US support for the ‘Assad regime was a favourite theme of Ben Norton, who explored this thesis in an article US Government Essentially Sides with Assad.” This is iffy. The US can support you one minute and turn on you the next. We all know that. It can even pretend to support you while it’s making plans to crush you. Howard Zinn looks at the Platt and Teller Amendments on pages 304 & 311 of “A People’s History Of The United States – 1492-2001.” Cuba, and many Americans, thought that Cuba was safe from American aggression because the US had, in effect, enshrined that protection in law. Ha!
“…Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the “open door” as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary…
“The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States “the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty…” It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points.
“The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans – and Cubans – to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal.”
Zinn (on page 312) quotes General Leonard Wood, “who wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: “There is, of course, little or no independence left in Cuba under the Platt Amendment.””
3. from part 1: There’s a link to Ben Norton’s article, titled “US Government Officially Sides With Assad,” in Barbara’s post that includes another link to another Norton article (titled “The “Anti-Imperialist” Nations of Iran, Syria, and Libya Participated in the CIA Torture Program”) with a link to an Open Society Report titled “Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition.” I checked that Open Society report (and would ordinarily avoid anything Soros-connected) just to see whether it includes Syria in its list of rendition sites, which it does. I am loathe to look at anything that originates with or is funded by George Soros, Mr Regime change himself. Alternet (which Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton are attached to), which is partly funded by George Soros, is truly in the toilet here. Score one (on top of many scores) for Barbara. But, Would even an Open Society Foundation report lie about CIA rendition sites?
From that OSF report:
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION…
Syria detained, interrogated, and tortured extraordinarily rendered individuals. It
was one of the “most common destinations for rendered suspects.” 1496 The CIA extraordinarily rendered at least nine individuals to Syria between December 2001 and October 2002. 1497 The case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian who was transferred to Syria from New York by the CIA in 2002, is one of the most well-known cases of extraordinary rendition involving Syria. 1498 See the detainee list
in Section IV. Individuals extraordinarily rendered to Syria include Arar, Abdul Halim Dalak, Noor al-Deen, Omar Ghramesh, Bahaa Mustafa Jaghel, Barah Abdul Latif, Mustafa Setmariam Nassar (Abu Musab al-Suri), Yasser Tinawi, and Mohammed Haydar Zammar. See the detainee list in Section IV. Known detention facilities where extraordinary rendition victims were held in Syria include the Palestine Branch/Far Falastin Prison (in western Damascus) where detainees were held in communal cells and also in an area called “the Grave,” which consisted of individual cells that were roughly the size of coffins.
1499 Detainees report incidents of torture involving a chair frame used to stretch the spine (the
“German chair”) and beatings. 1500 There have been no known judicial cases or investigations in Syria relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations.
4. from part 1: Barbara fails to use quotation marks for quotations, which leaves the reader wondering whether she’s paraphrasing or not. Would she want others to paraphrase her every time they refer to something she’s said or written?
5. from part 2: “For people taking a serious interest in the conflict the concept of the ‘civil war’ has been long debunked – instead the war has been seen for what it is, a proxy war initiated and fuelled from without, both camouflaged and justified through an extraordinary propaganda campaign.” If the Syrian regime isn’t perfect, then it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some who must live under it to protest, if they are able to. I’m completely willing to accept that outside forces stirred things up in Syria, urging those who had grievances to get loud, but is it fair to dismiss all of those who had grievances, even if they were later swept aside to make room for “revolutionaries”?
6. Also, Too many authoritative sources accept Maher Arar’s story for us to reject it on the basis of one blogger’s ‘suspicion’. No less an authority than Alfred W. McCoy accepts it (page 173 of “A Question of Torture – CIA Interrogation, From The Cold War To The War On Terror”), but refers to New York Times reportage, by Bob Hebert, about it, which is problematic. Regarding Syria specifically, McCoy writes: “The agency’s global gulag was inextricably interwoven with secret-police prisons across Asia and the Middle East. In June 2004, the respected newspaper The Observer estimated that three thousand terror suspects were being held both in CIA centers and allied prisons throughout the Middle East – a figure also claimed by the CIA’s counterterrorism chief at Langley, Cofer Black. In this same period, the CIA, under President Bush’s direct orders, engaged in the extraordinary rendition of some 150 Al Qaeda suspects, sending them to nations whose secret police were, in the view of the State Department, synonymous with torture – Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan.”
The Rendition Project certainly accepts Maher Arar’s story.
Roger Annis, who I have the highest regard for (despite his failure to respond to me after I emailed him) accepts it.
And on and on.
7. On the other hand, Maher Arar’s article “Myth And Reality In The Struggle For Syria,” reveals that he is indeed, either a tool of the Corporatocracy or simply ignorant. But it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t tortured in Syria. The following excerpts were taken from Arar’s article reprinted on Roger Annis’s website. The original was on a website (Prism) that no longer exists.
“When I was detained at the Sednaya prison in 2003, a 60-year-old man told me of a conversation that took place between him and a general in the Political Security Directorate. The old man was trying to have a rational dialogue with the general during the interrogation, by advising him that the regime must treat people like human beings if it wanted to rightly earn the respect of the Syrian people.
“The general responded: “We want to rule people by our shoes.” This is a famous Syrian expression akin to: “We want to rule people with an iron fist, humiliating them.” This example sheds some light on the type of mentality that dominates the inner circles of the Assad regime even today. Understanding this point in particular is crucial to understanding the violent response that the regime showed towards the protesters since day one.”
He also wrote:
“For instance, the main point of contention between a newly spun group led by longtime dissident Haitham al-Maleh and the SNC was the issue of how best to respond to the regime’s growing brutality. Al-Maleh believed that the priority was to arm what is called the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group that was mostly formed, reportedly, from army defectors. It seems that al-Maleh was responding to the popular will of the people inside Syria who had lost hope in peaceful means to bring down the regime. It also seems that revolutionaries inside Syria had also lost hope that sanctions, which the SNC heavily lobbied Western countries for, would have any meaningful effect on the regime. People also came to realise that outside military intervention would never happen.
“It is worth highlighting that, despite its name, the FSA is composed of hundreds of independent groups. Their emergence is a miracle, considering that the regime has become known for taking revenge upon the families of defectors. It is also worth mentioning that Syrian conscripts are usually assigned to detachments that are hundreds of miles away from their home town (another regime tactic which makes it more likely that soldiers will obey orders to kill.)”
The FSA is a miracle?!!! Re-attaching heads to bodies and making those people live again might be considered a miracle. But chopping off those heads? Not so much.
And if you’re still not sure that Arar is out to lunch, this:
“While the CIA may be present near the Syrian-Turkish border, all evidence points to the fact that the U.S. is not very keen to arm the rebels, out of fear the arms would eventually fall in the hands of al-Qaeda and like-minded groups.”
8. “How America Armed Terrorists in Syria” by Gareth Porter
If bloggers like Barbara think that it’s okay when they can talk at me, endlessly, and hear from me only when I agree with them or applaud them, then they are so wrong. And when they disappear (online on their own websites) those like myself, who, with good intentions, question or challenge them, then they are no different, in important respects, than the rightwing journalists and organizations that are now shutting down voices that don’t agree with them. There’s a tsunami of gate closings happening right now, precisely because gatekeeper journalists who have sold their souls for gain are instructed by their paymasters to block the people’s (and their champions’) voices, and they are happy to obey because they themselves have been publicly exposed for being the poor journalists and evil tools that they are and they now welcome not being reminded. What are the excuses of progressives for behaving like those rightwing journalists and organizations that close channels of communication between the audiences they talk at and themselves?
This is darkness. Some of it is darker than the rest, just as the Right is not a moral equivalent of the (real) Left, but is evil. (And that is something that those who earn a living writing have a hard time with, and I have sympathy for those who have to face such difficulty. How do you walk the talk of democracy by starting out in your conversation – and dialog is what we want rather than force – with, “We have nothing to talk about. You’re evil.”) Therefore, Journalists whose organizations are willing appendages of the US-led Corporatocracy and who have shut down commenting on their online articles or have taken up the practice of censoring comments in order to filter out facts – which they call filtering out fake news – are helping to spread darkness. Journalists who might speak truth to power and who tell us facts about abuses by the powerful, often at great risk to themselves, but who don’t want to be challenged in any way, also practice darkness. The former represents unambiguous darkness, or evil. The latter, which isn’t good, is, depending (on the confession of guilt level), forgivable imperfection. And we are all imperfect.
Barbara splits up her long post into two parts and she has sections that she labels. One is “Controlling the narrative.” Ironically. Maybe Barbara feels that she’s on the side of righteousness and those who disagree with her are, automatically, evil. (In which case, She needs to distinguish between those who totally disagree with her and those who disagree with some of what she writes.) And maybe she takes that position because it’s handy, for purposes of controlling the narrative and ‘winning’ the debate. Maybe she’s aware of the irony and maybe she isn’t. Maybe she’s aware of the irony of disappearing me the way she did and figures that no one will notice. Is there solidarity here if some progressives disappear others and can afterward say, “See, Everyone agrees with everyone?” Those who you’ve disappeared may not be visible because you’ve banished them from your presence, but they’re still there. In other words, If you divide up the real Left into camps, including one in which everyone agrees with you and vice versa, and other camps whose members disagree with some of what you write, and then pretend that only the part of the real Left that you’re in exists, Is that solidarity on the real Left?
I fired off 3 or 4 emails to people who I thought might be able to give me some assurance that I’m not overreatcting to Barbara’s behavior. Here’s some samples:
To Roger Annis:
Hello. I really like your work, firstly. I tell everyone about The New Cold War.
I recently had an unpleasant experience (on top of similar unpleasant experiences with assorted progressives), where I was commenting on a lengthy article about progressives (focussing on Max Blumenthal, who, until this, I had nothing but admiration for), including in one of those comments a mention of Syria’s treatment of Maher Arar and was, kind of, challenged by the article’s author on that position. When I asked Barbara McKenzie if she had a reason for doubting Arar’s story, she soon after simply killed our back and forth. In her view, there’s zero reason to accept Maher’s position. In my view, she is the one who needs to come up with a reason for doubting, especially when everyone, Left, Right and in between, has ‘not’ doubted Maher Arar’s story. (True, Just because the whole world believes something, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. But then give me your reason for doubting.) Is it just me or is this person sending me on a wild goose chase to find some way of corroborating Maher’s story, which for me – I have no ability or time to do this sort of investigation – means finding someone in the world who indeed doubts, for a ‘reason’, Maher Arar’s story?
I guess that’s one question. Related to it would be: Do you personally know of anyone in the world who doubts, for a ‘reason’, Maher Arar’s story?
[my name] / My blog is “A Yappy Trade Barrier.” My phone number is: 647-828-3632
To Matthew Behrens:
Hello. I’ve hunted around for a contact email for Matthew, to no avail. Unless this is it. I’d be happy to phone him if there’s a number for him. I am [my name]. My blog is “A Yappy Trade Barrier.” My cell is: 647-828-3236
I simply want to ask him, or anyone (and I’m working on that), if there’s any reason for anyone to doubt Maher Arar’s story. I myself don’t. But when another progressive (Barbara McKenzie at barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com) replied to my mention of Bashar Assad signing off on torturing Arar, she said that she sees zero reason to ‘not’ doubt Arar’s story. I was floored. And I feel like the answer I should be giving her – which is hard, when she’s the one giving me guidance – is that absolutely no one, Right or Left and in between, is doubting Arar’s story. It looks to me like I touched a nerve. It also looks to me like a lack of humility. She has possibly put herself into a trap of her own making with her narrative about the demonization of Syria’s leader (for purposes that are obvious to progressives), but hanging the success of that narrative too much on the goodness of Assad. The sad thing here is that that is 1. unnecessary for the integrity of her narrative and 2. unreasonable.
No one has yet to respond to any of the email queries I’ve sent regarding my silencing on Barbara’s blog.
Bloggers like Barbara may be right, in one way, in assuming that by closing their gates when I show up, they’ve made me disappear. (Sometimes journos respond to my email queries and sometimes they respond without responding. Most recently, that was my experience with Stephen Lendman and Wahid Azal. See below. I’ve emailed Stephen a few times and he responded a few times. I don’t recall him not responding every time I’ve emailed him, but it’s possible that it’s happened.) I’m obviously invisible on her blog, at least in relation to my apparently annoying question about Maher Arar, and my own blog gets very little attention. But I don’t write solely for attention, which we all need. And I’m principled. I’m not perfect, but I’m fair and I hope that I would not shut people up who disagree with me just because I had the power to. (However, If you’re evil and if you’re doing evil at my expense, don’t expect me to assist you.) And I will win my arguments with reason and facts, as best as I can. In the end, I’m one imperfect human being and I will not save the world (of imperfect, loyal to God humans). Which means that I will not be ‘forced’ to take up the Devil’s weapons in order to fight the Devil. God is going to save the world. And by world, I do not mean this system of things. I do not mean this wild, vicious, devouring wild beast of Corporatocracy and the sick societies – full of worshippers of the wild beast – it creates. So, I have no problem with losing a debate in one sense. I won’t be compromising my integrity before God in order to win a debate. That would make me a loser.
Do you see the traps? They include false pride and negativity. False pride means ego, essentially. I’m imperfect and would never claim that I have no egotistical desire to win or to be recognized for achievement. But my ego is kept in check by my principles and my knowledge of right and wrong and by my choice, which we all possess, to be as good a person as I can be. I am not willing to lie, for example. And I have no wish to please man rather than God (which is a position I can take because I also possess faith and believe, fully, that there is a God). When faced with a tryannical leader, namely a boss or president or someone in a position of authority over me, I will feel fear like anyone. That’s because I have no special protection – at this time – from the awful things that tyrants might do to me if they are free to do awful things to me and choose to. I understand that.
As a Bible student (no longer studying), I know that God has to allow this system of things to run its course, so that all can see, as our first human parents wrongly desired that we all should see, that independence from the Source of life doesn’t work. They desired to learn that lesson, unnecessarily, the hard way. (Then, when the issue of universal sovereignty is settled, God can, in full righteousness, destroy this anti-God world.) Their actions raised the issue of universal sovereignty that, like any issue, has taken time to settle. (Humankind has lived with Satanic influence for a long time now, creating cultures and nation states and technology – which has taken us where?) If God was to interrupt that lesson in order to miraculously protect his loyal servants from tyrants and terrorists, that would abort the issue (or lesson) of universal sovereignty, which Satan and our first human parents caused to be raised by their rebellion. The issue would never get settled and we couldn’t move on. The Issue is: Is God’s rule of love good and the best that there is or is Satan’s rule of ‘riches for the strongest’ an equal alternative or even a better alternative? Only once that issue has been settled can we move on and can God finish saving imperfect, but loyal, servants.
Those who choose to believe that imperfect humankind is God put themselves into a very bad trap. Having no faith in a higher power, they turn, out of necessity, to imperfect human saviors. They have no choice (once they’ve made that other choice). So you get the sorry spectacle of people’s champions, like Noam Chomsky, urging people to vote for the lesser evil in each election in the United States. Seymour Hersh, who I wouldn’t call a people’s champion exactly, voted for drone murderer slash deporter-in-chief slash defender of banksters Barack Obama, twice. And he knows what Obama is all about.
What do I mean by negativity? There’s a negativity that has a moral quality to it and a negativity that is morally neutral. If I give you bad, but factual, news, and don’t do so in order to distress you with it, that can be called negative. But it’s not bad behavior. If I automatically disagree with you because you disagree with, or do not agree with, me, then that’s negative and it does have a moral quality to it. That would make my behavior bad. I might behave that way if I lack humility. If you lack humility, false pride takes its place.
An online site I visit often is The Real News Network, whose main officer is Paul Jay. I recently watched an episode of TRNN in which Aaron Mate interviewed the irascible Seymour Hersh, who folks often refer to as Sy. They were discussing Sy’s recent article in which he looks at how President Donald Trump ignored intelligence showing that there was no evidence that the Syrian government used poison gas in its April 4 attack in Idlib province, at Khan Sheikhun, and, taking the position that Assad had launched a chemical weapon attack, Trump ordered the bombing of the Shayrat Air Base in central Syria, on April 6, as retaliation. (April 6 or 7, depending on what time zone you look at it from, I guess. Reportedly, only 23 of the expensive missiles hit their target. It’s happy times for the defense contractors! And the Saker has an interesting theory on that, which looks at possible Russian tech that can re-program in-flight cruise missiles.). I’ve read a couple of Sy’s books. They were very interesting, especially his “Dark Side Of Camelot” which takes a close look at John F Kennedy. The picture Sy paints isn’t pretty. But even a titan in the world of journalism can’t, it seems, put a dent in the myth of Camelot, namely the idea that JFK was a shining white knight fighting evil. Why create the myth of Camelot? It’s marketing. JFK was good looking, sexy and a partyer extraordinaire. He was therefore destined to become the face of the wild beast of Corporatocracy who some of its members believed could sell it best. (In what I consider to be, possibly, a bit of a failure [to have the courage of your convictions] on Sy’s part, he discusses that book at “Politics & Prose” bookstore and talks about some of Kennedy’s positives, including his ability to shake off huge problems when going from a discussion of one them to another that has nothing to do with it. But he also makes the point – his whole book is taken up with that task – that JFK was reckless. Does he not see a connection? In other words, Is Sy making a point or isn’t he?)
JFK was a good choice as an enduring ad for the Corporatocracy. Once you look closely, you’ll see that the venereal disease-ridden, self-absorbed, reckless womanizer, John Kennedy, wasn’t fit to be president of a hotdog stand, let alone a nation. In the Christian Bible, the United States is given special attention. In one place, it’s depicted as a lamb with the mouth of a dragon (a word that means ‘swallower down’, I believe). Indeed, The United States holds itself up as a champion of democracy and a defender of the downtrodden, like the lamb that is Jesus Christ in the Bible. But with its mouth and by its actions, which come from its stated policies and instructions (offers others can’t refuse), it shows itself to be an all-devouring, beastly, anti-god, anti-life nation. (There are no godly nations and they are all, quite literally, living on borrowed time.)
For an establishment journo – and Sy, for all of his speaking truth to power, is still pro establishment – Sy’s journalism can be pretty useful to progressives who are trying to make the case that those with power shouldn’t have it. As I noted in my comments attached to that Real News interview, above, Imagine how good Sy would be if he was ‘not’ establishment. And Barbara McKenzie’s blog post, which I read before watching the above interview, in which Sy discusses his latest article (in which he outlines how Trump ignored intelligence informing him that the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in its attack of April 4), gave me a good idea what that better Sy could look like. And when I noted in one of my comments that, like Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, Sy failed to give any credit to hardworking journalists who have been following events in the region from the beginning (muttering about the White Helmets that “There’s been reports about them being supported by us and the United Kingdom, but they’re certainly there in the rebel territories” rather than explicitly condemning them and giving credit to the on the ground journos who brought us those reports), I elicited one strong reaction from another commenter. Either that was a person who can’t handle being challenged to think critically, which requires skepticism, or he (or…) was a troll. I was asked “How is this even relevant to what Hersh was reporting?” Of course, that was not a thoughtful response, anymore than Barbara’s anger with me for asking her for a reason for her distrust of Arar Maher’s story was thoughtful. The irony here is that I got kicked by Barbara for, apparently, threatening her control of the narrative about Syria and Bashar al-Assad (under whose watch Maher Arar and others were tortured) and then I got kicked again for failing to show the proper deference to saint Hersh when I used Barbara’s information to question’s Sy’s dedication to the truth.
And there’s lessons in all of this for those on the Left. They can be summed up as: Look out for traps. And the way you do that is simple: Be better people. The reason there isn’t solidarity on the Left is that so many leftists are stuck in traps that they don’t have to be stuck in. (It’s not because we criticize each other or disagree here and there about some things.) Those are moral (but not necessarily fatal) failings, not ploys by rightwingers. But it’s a free universe, which, note, does not mean a universe free of consequences.
Email exchanges in which I was left, more or less, hanging:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Arrbyy wrote:
In your CounterPunch article about Alexander Dugin, you mention, without qualification, Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Is it your position that that ‘annexation’ was criminal?
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, N.W. Azal wrote:
Greetings, no, that is not my assumption, hence why I deliberately chose not to use the loaded term “invasion” which the MSM uses. Crimea was since Catherine part of the Russian territorial sphere of influence that merely fell out of its grasp due to Khruschev’s decision and then the end of the Cold War with the break up of the USSR. NW
Thanks for your answer. I’ll only point out that some (including myself) would consider an unqualified ‘Russia annexed Crimea’ to be a loaded phrase.
I’m quite interested in something I heard in your interview with Ali Syed, which I watched on Newsbud. I’ve watched, along with normal and attentive people everywhere with horror as fascism has ascended everywhere. I’ve written a few posts on my own blog (A Yappy Trade Barrier) about fascism intensifying globally. It strikes me as incredibly irrational, seeing how, unless people are going to ditch global capitalism and free trade and travel and, in a word, the interconnectedness that has become the norm, fascists, leaning heavily on the ideas of racial purity which lead fascists in each fascist jurisdiction to look down on those who are not of their color and blood, that attitude and orientation can only lead to problems for those fascists, let alone for normal people. Then I heard you talk about ethno-pluralism. Of course, What it is can seen from carefully examining fascism historically. But I now know that it’s a thing. And it’s so genius and stupid at the same time. It’s like dealing with cancer by making all tobacco products free!
Thanks again for your quick response.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 1:16 PM, Arrbyy . wrote:
Hello Stephen. Are you aware of the ‘non’ progressive nature of Antiwar.com? Sibel Edmonds has take a close look at this fake progressive orgaization. Please have a look yourself, if you haven’t already. It’s on the Newsbud website, under the title “Newbud’s Warning on the Fake News Bucket List: Watch out for the Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing.” – http://bit.ly/2nNLAU1
I chopped the vid to look at just the Antiwar.com part. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/ez6nzkDmG98
Take care. Keep the good work!
ps: “firstname.lastname@example.org.” is flagged by my (stinking) gmail as being improperly formed or something.
From: Stephen Lendman
Sent: March 17, 2017 2:54 PM
To: Arrbyy .
Subject: Re: Sibel Edmonds eviscerates Antiwar.com which you recommed-?
Some well-known self-styled “progressive” sites are AWOL on the most sensitive issues like 9/11, America’s war on Syria, other aggression, plus other issues. Some disgracefully support the undemocratic Democrat party. They won’t post for me because I go where they won’t dare.
email@example.com Mar 17 to Stephen
Stephen: As wonderful as it is to hear from you, You completely avoided the substance of my email, namely Antiwar.com’s pseudo status. Why?
I agree completely with your statement (in your email to me), but it doesn’t address the issue I raised, at all. Are you telling me that Newsbud avoids you? I find Newsbud to be quite solid and Sibel has good things to say about Global Research, which I’ve checked in on for years now. I just happened to pop in the other day and yours was one of the top of page posted articles. I’ve always enjoyed your articles and think that one of the most important articles you’ve written have to do with the UN blue helmets. (Hopefully the corporatocracy hasn’t decided to go through all the colors.)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
And those are by no means the only ‘no shows’ among progressives who I’ve contacted with simple questions or comments. Noam Chomsky was an exception. When I wrote to him (the first time), and mentioned the problem I had with getting comments from establishment sources, he wrote me back (Dec 16, 1993) to say:
“Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful letter. I’m sorry, but not too surprised, to hear that you don’t get many responses, or at least useful ones. I’m afraid I’ve got to apologize too. I’m absolutely inundated with mail, try to at least acknowledge everything, but couldn’t possibly keep up seriously in a 24-hour day, even if I devoted full time to it.” He then went on to respond to every point I raised with him in my ‘long’ letter to him! He was apologizing because it took him a long time – months – to reply to me.
Now, Relax and listen to a great old tune by Ringo Starr: