The truth isn’t useful

The important thing about truth is the underlying sentiment, which is its only utility. If any given truth gets in the way of a grander one, it may, in keeping with best praxis, be overlooked, contested or outright denied.

Take the April 2017 chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. “I suppose the sarin attacks could be real,” wrote Paste Magazine’s Shane Ryan of the attacks, the guilt of the Syrian regime since confirmed by the United Nations, but it wouldn’t be useful, in terms of agitating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s airstrike on empty airbase that was launched in response.

So the article never delved into what we actually knew, based on eyewitness testimony and samples tested by chemical weapons experts, but rather speculated on what made “sense.” Testimony and expertise aside, what made sense, at that time, to that writer, was raising the prospect of a “false flag” by rebels hoping, after their 420th allegedly staged production, that “the U.S. would intervene on their behalf.”

When the UN debunked this narrative, squarely placing blame on the regime, the writer for Paste proclaimed innocence: they had, after all, been seeking to stop a drive to war, so even if they were wrong, empirically, one had to admire their motivation, which was superior (these answers were later deleted, because really who cares). Those who were right, by contrast those who believed the MSM accounts that set us on a path to regime change: isn’t that suspect?

One has to wonder why.

The author, accordingly, declined to alert their fans to the existence of the new information undermining what was and is the objectively more admirable posture: not believing the government or the mainstream media.

Similarly, the Democrats would agree to basically neuter their own opposition to Republicans’ health care in exchange for some more sanctions against big bad scary Russia; we know this because the bumbling Democrats lost 1,000 seats and always prefer foreign wars to fighting for the working class. Hillary Clinton would argue against breaking up the banks by saying it won’t end racism; we know this because neoliberals exploit identity for capitalism. And she’d regime-change Bashar al-Assad for Israel, because, let’s be real: wouldn’t she?

These are things we know to be true, in general, so again we must ask of the pedants who were right with respect to these specific claims, which were wrong: Do you want to be the kind of person who wouldn’t believe the bad thing?

One, again, has to wonder why.

But serial dishonesty (or chronic intellectual sloth) takes its toll. If yours is the political faction that claims to have the most right answers on all of the issues facing humanity in 2017, that claim will be challenged by those who observe a certain infidelity in the matter of facts. That case against war, which hinges on a dictator who’s killed tens of thousands not being as blithely ruthless as claimed by his victims, will be discarded by those one wishes to persuade is that what we’re doing?  when it’s shown to hinge on a fundamental error.

Little white lies don’t serve grand ends when the means are perceived as an expression of one’s true politics. When delivered with smug flare, they do keep those who aren’t alienated in high spirits, however, and the clicks on news that is fake, left media criticism teaches us, always exceed clicks on the (enemy) analysis that corrects. That ensures a steady stream of digital red meat, misleading content and algorithmic takes garnering more donations to the Patreon in the bio and so on and so forth until we all log off for the very last time.

Many will think these creators of content are sloppy or cynical, but the thing is: they won’t be subscribers. The future is socialism in one social media cluster, sending notifications to your cellphone  forever, bitch.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump’s new war plan is an awful lot like the old one


The Trump administration has a new plan for the war in Syria, Spencer Ackerman reports for The Daily Beast, and it’s the same as the old one: bomb the hell out of the Islamic State and other extremists while not just leaving the greatest purveyor of violence there alone, but treating it as a de facto partner.

This is, for those following along, broadly the same plan that the previous U.S. administration pursued. Despite the Assad regime crossing President Barack Obama’s self-imposed “red line” in 2013, it wasn’t until a year later that the U.S. bombs began falling on the Islamic State and other extremists. The hereditary dictator and his forces were spared, and not for a lack of humanitarian justification, but because U.S. foreign policy elites had long before decided that a change in regime posed the greatest threat to perceived U.S. interests.

Leftists who embraced realists’ perverted version of anti-imperialism — support for dictators in the name of stability, not just when threatened by Western invasions but in the face of popular uprisings overlooked this thematically inconvenient war on terror and the new president’s repeated desire to escalate it. As late as last fall left-liberal pundits were continuing to gravely warn of a coming war, portraying better informed critics of the regime-change storyline as the warmongers even as they ignored the thousands of U.S. airstrikes those purported warmongers decried. The latter’s crime was decrying Syrian and Russian airstrikes, too, which is well established as the road to World War III.

This was all very strange because, even before Trump, the Obama administration was desperately seeking an arrangement with Russia in Syria whereby both imperial powers would not just bomb the same country, but do it together, as allies, a plan welcomed by the Syrian regime. That put some in an awkward place for they had already agreed that Damascus had a right to accept such military assistance, the product not of principled anti-imperialist thinking, obviously, but of a degenerated segment of the left seeking to rationalize extensive Russian and Iranian intervention.

Trump and his new, old plan expose the pitfalls of left-wing rationalizations for imperialism that rely on a reactionary argument that a state, no matter how undemocratic, has the right to kill whom it chooses within its imperialist-drawn borders. The plan is: handing off never-ending peace talks to Russia while jointly administering “safe zones” in Syria that would be safe primarily, in theory, because both would agree not to bomb them. Though The Daily Beast implies this is new clarity in the wake of a confused Syria policy from the administration, it’s really not if one considers Trump’s airstrike on an empty airbase to have been the product of his lust for one-upping Obama; this far into the U.S. regime’s tenure, one can’t deny the power of ego, within the limits imposed by the generals to whom war-making power has largely been ceded.

A senior official speaking to The Daily Beast argued as much, saying the new-old plan reflected continuity and would simply build off existing U.S.-Russia cooperation, the logical progression of the war on terror that expanded to Syria under Obama, who himself ended his term in office seeking such an arrangement. The lethal potential of imperialist collusion, unleashed, is one thing critics of what’s come to be known as This Russia Stuff have missed: that Louise Mensch starting World War III between these two major powers has always been dramatically less likely than those two powers agreeing to collude, for the sake of peace, in a war on those who have neither nuclear weapons nor an air force.

As for the regime, as long as it’s willing to support the U.S.-Russia war on terror then the Trump administration echoing non-interventionists like Henry Kissinger — is willing to let past and sometimes present rhetoric remain just that. “Of course that’s our policy,” a White House official told The Daily Beast. “I don’t see how you could follow what we’ve done and not come away with [that] conclusion.”

Perhaps it’s time those who concluded otherwise to consider that they concluded wrong. Point-scoring and owns are all good and zesty fun yes, I told you so, but it’s no big deal the aim of intra-left criticism is achieving better left-wing politics. A dumb liberal may believe that Putin and Trump are lovers, but what ought matter to a leftist is that they are reactionaries working in concert to impose an imperialist peace through war on Syria. If we can agree that all right-wing authoritarians should keep their hands off the Middle East, there’s no reason leftists can’t join hand in hand at the antiwar march from the Russian embassy to the White House.

Posted in Imperialism, Syria, Uncategorized, War, War Crimes | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protesting Deportations and Trump and Downtown LA

The Sunday afternoon rally against Trump in downtown LA was a safe and orderly affair, well organized and maintained by groups broadly defined as the city’s center-left: the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, various SEIU chapters, a UNITE HERE local, and the teachers’ union. There were speakers, who spoke of not letting the next president roll back the gains California’s millions of immigrants have made over the years, and there was a march.


The angriest person the whole day was a man, the picture of bourgeois decadence, shouting at about two thousand people, their offense: blocking his exit from the parking garage, his wife watching from the front passenger seat as he explained this, mortified.

“No, no, no. Get the fuck back in the car,” this dweeb yelled at his teen, who’d gotten out of the backseat with a face full of mirth, gripping a cell phone in landscape, and possessing an admirably bold intention of filming his father’s this could go viral outburst.

The march itself was led by the usual libs banal if unobjectionable appeals to stopping the hate and standing together, mixed with the eye-rollingly problematic, like stating cops becoming arms of immigration enforcement would go against their benevolent nature but having been abroad the last year and change I appreciated it for what it was, which was ultimately a protest that could have been a multi-cultural street fair, which is cool, for now. There was even fresh-squeezed orange juice and bacon-wrapped hotdogs.


The profound, world-in-a-county diversity that makes LA what it is (and it isn’t Hollywood) was on display and that was fun if not revolutionary: Filipino and Korean and Mexican immigrant groups marching with their banners, some with drums and others without drums. I stayed about an hour.


It’s nice to be back in Los Angeles, and it was pleasant and nice watching the polite center-left do its permitted thing. There will be much more interesting resistance to Donald Trump’s administration when he takes power next year, and the radical end of the U.S. left’s diversity of tactics will be on full view in the country’s second largest city, where speaking Spanish at home is many times more common than having voted for the guy who promised to deport the city’s working class.

Flickr gallery of all my photos from yesterday’s march.


kr gallery

Posted in Donald Trump, Los Angeles, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s Militarism in 400 Words


President-elect Donald J. Trump was often vague on the campaign trail, but he was clear about this: as commander-in-chief he would get back to the basics of the War on Terror, foregoing liberal projects like “nation-building” in favor of just “bombing the hell out of” the Islamic State in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. And he suggested he would do this with the help of Vladimir Putin, a man some in his own party consider a threat. “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got together with Russia,” Trump said over the summer, “and knocked the hell out of ISIS?“

His supporters cheered while pundits scoffed at this budding friendship between right-wing nationalists. But despite the unusually public nature of the affair, the groundwork for such a US-Russia alliance against ISIS was already being laid by President Barack Obama. While Trump was campaigning, U.S. diplomats were meeting with their Russian counterparts to hammer out a deal to share intelligence and jointly conduct bombing raids against ISIS and other extremists in Syria. That deal was strongly by leading Republicans like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, falling apart not because of their opposition, though, but because Russian forces reportedly bombed an aid convoy on its way to Aleppo, making a partnership unseemly.

Trump is more likely to overlook humanitarian concerns, but he’ll face the same opposition Obama did if he tries to link up with Putin. General Michael Flynn, his top national security advisor, shares his outlook on Russia and terrorism, even being paid to speak at a party in Moscow hosted by RT, the Russian government’s propaganda arm. But Trump’s administration also includes the likes of Congressman Mike Pompeo, a hard-liner on Russia who will be leading the Central Intelligence Agency. There are no doves in his cabinet, but there will be disagreements on how far to take any alignment with Moscow, which will amplified by a Congress that can still play politics with the money Trump will need for any airstrikes.

Trump, however, inherits not just a proposed alliance with Russia, but the unilateral ability to deploy U.S. military power wherever he chooses. The upside is there’s no ambiguity: few expect him to earn a Nobel Peace Prize. And that’s an advantage for those who don’t think a war on terror can be won with more of the extreme violence that breeds terrorism: they can start organizing now against what they know is coming.

Posted in Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What I Saw on Oprius 10 (You’re Being Lied To)


I just got back from this “barbaric alien slave planet” and what I found was shocking: we’re not being told the truth.

Children as young as 14 hours are ripped from their mother’s tentacles and forced to work 37 cycles straight in underground Calbazarite mines until their tiny withered bodies, still bound together by Gregorothian emotion-stabilizing mobilityrays, are shoveled out by the kiloton and tossed in unmarked disposal modules that are fired into the suns. Meanwhile, we’re told, Leader Rahsab’s personal envoy dines at 7-star restaurants, his harem of Alphanian gendermorphs injecting him with the galaxy’s finest proteins while, beneath the soil, his army of Mechatrons blasts away so-called “moderate” resistance caves.

We’ve all heard these stories, just like we all heard the story about Itarkian security forces devouring humanoid offspring as they slept in their interdimensional space-time inhibitors. Only after the New Alliance of Coequal Aliens removed their Supreme Being did we learn that was a total lie, manufactured by a public relations planet enslaved the Kuwangians who — you probably didn’t hear — had been trying and failing to build a warp portal through Itarkian space.

First, let me be clear: I don’t believe Leader Rahsab is infallible. I, personally, believe this mild-mannered gaseous cloud has made mistakes. Destroying Oprius 7, the famed artist colony, was not ideal, in my opinion, only aiding the interplanetary campaign of defamation which, of course, never addressed what “peaceful” gammachord players were doing with Kuwangian shape-shifting technology. But I also understand why, amid a NACA-backed insurgency attracting mercenaries from around the cosmos, he felt the need to send a message. NACA would have done the same thing.

And what I really know for sure? That the last thing the Oreckians need is a change in Eternal Hierarchy imposed by a solar system 90 million light years away and sold on the basis of a corrupt, Earth-based opposition’s lies and the tales of Oprian “refugees” who claim they escaped the mineral deposits but, curiously, display none of the signs of Calbazarite Syndrome. That’s why I decided to accept Leader Rahsab’s invitation to spend five cycles touring Oprius 10. What I can say now You’re being lied to.

I expected the outrageous smears the moment I agreed to hear the perspective of a “brutal confederation,” but one doesn’t go into journalism expecting pleasantries and generous fiber rations. I wanted to hear their side; clearly, whether . Surely if dissatisfaction were as high as claimed by the mainstream news algorithms I would see it and those famed (but always conveniently “disappeared”) dissidents during my visit.

What I saw in the Historic Quadrant of Damackulous Y was instead, normal — disappointingly so for those believing NACA’s planted newsbytes about all that (manufactured) dissent. Intelligent lifeforms wore clothes that they bought on Amazon. Local injection labs had all the brands and flavors I knew from back home. Most of the people I saw were rather shy, seeking to shift the conversation away from politics and back to my drink order, but Oreckian system tribes are known for their wariness of strangers.

At an Irish pub, I heard from an Oprian female about how her husband had been tricked into fighting for confederation change, believing the same lies we Talangs have been told about the attractiveness of Northern sector-style “liberties” — to anti-socially fret over what to do with one’s consciousness, instead of having that rationally decided for you — and the unilateral consensus process laid out in the Leader’s Chartreuse Communication. Through a reconciliation deal offered by the confederation’s social justice minister, he agreed to be cremated in exchange for a small stipend off which she now lives. Yes, life can be hard, she confided, but — glancing nervously at my state-provided translator to make sure he was getting every word — life in the mines had given her and her children the structure they sorely lacked in “liberated” zones, where she wasn’t even allowed to work, much less required to.

While I would like to have seen more, after a drugged Orian male shrieked at me to take his identity chip without authorization — he was neutralized by security forces after a reading of his right — it was decided on my behalf that I should go. And that’s the Oreckian way: Capable superiors decide things like this for you, leaving more time for life. The Oreckians, like any other people, should be allowed to decide their system of governance, and Leader Rahasab has made that decision for them. We may not always understand their ways, but that doesn’t mean we should try to impose ours on them.

Remember Itark?

Charles Davis is a reporterbot from the Talang system. Their work is presented in 400 billion minds.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Syria and The Intercept: The Case for Editorial Intervention


The online publication launched by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar recently published what it billed as a major scoop: “Internal United Nations assessments obtained by The Intercept reveal that U.S. and European sanctions are punishing ordinary Syrians and crippling aid work during the largest humanitarian emergency since World War II.” These sanctions were likened by author Rania Khalek to the siege the U.S. imposed on Iraq, which a U.N. report in 1999 said had doubled child mortality in the country, leading to “the death of 500,000 children.”

Khalek’s piece was well received by others who prefer to omit the words “barrel bombs,” “cruise missiles” and “starvation sieges” from their coverage of Syria’s humanitarian crisis, which has seen roughly 500,000 people killed since 2011, the majority, according to the U.N., killed at the hands of the Syrian regime and its allies. Russia’s RT and the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency both amplified the story’s conflation of targeted sanctions against Bashar al-Assad and his top officials with an all-encompassing economic embargo. “US and EU economic sanctions on Syria are causing huge suffering among ordinary Syrians and preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid, according to a leaked UN internal report,” wrote The Independent’s Patrick Cockburn.

The problem for The Intercept and those who reported on its claim is the oft-unwelcome truth among those committed to blaming someone other than Bashar al-Assad for the bulk of the suffering in Syria: The only hint of truth in Khalek’s lede is that Syrians are suffering through the worst war the world has seen since Adolf Hitler’s self-inflicted demise in a bunker underneath Berlin.

To start: What is billed as “Internal United Nations assessments” is but one report that wasn’t internal and, explicitly, does not reflect the view of the United Nations. The Intercept has since acknowledged this in one of the corrections issued at the end of Khalek’s piece: “The report referenced was prepared for the U.N. and does not reflect the U.N.’s official position.”


The latter clause is perhaps intentionally suggestive: “official,” if you know what I mean. What is not explicitly stated is that the report that was “obtained” was a report available freely online at least four months earlier, authored not by a U.N. official or agency but by an official, Justine Walker, at the British Bankers’ Association, an organization institutionally inclined to favor Western trade with literally whomever, capital and those who possess it not troubled by grave violations of human rights.

Capture4.PNGThat this is not a “U.N. report,” as The Intercept states in its headline, or a “United Nations” assessment, as Khalek states in her lede, is buried all the way back on page three of this banker’s assessment: “The views expressed are entirely those of the author and should not be considered to constitute any official statement.”


Attributing one view solicited by an organization to the organization as a whole is like suggesting an OpEd from the foreign minister of Iran reflects the institutional take of The New York Times, which after all commissioned it. And yet: The headline, and the lede, persist, admitting a fatal mistake as hard for some as admitting who is chiefly to blame for punishing ordinary Syrians.

Posted in Journalism Watch, Syria, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Russia, Trump and the New ‘McCarthyism in Reverse’


Soviet propaganda: “Money, Nuclear Weapons and the KKK” (source:

It is U.S. election season, 2016, and the extremely dumb baseline for presidential-year rhetoric has already been exceeded with gusto thanks to a fake-tanned reality TV blowhard now leading a white nationalist movement as the Republican Party’s nominee. “Could it get even more dangerously silly, though — the discourse?” asks a visitor from a planet yet to be discovered by terrestrial science. Well, this is America, my little green partner: you’re damned right it will.

The how, however, in “how this election will increase the urgency of our desire for an early demise” has come out of far left field. The banal idiocy of the liberal, centrist, and now alt-right debate has been answered by contrarian-left columnists and their invocation of the Cold War witch hunt against allegedly-traitorous alleged communists, except this time it is not right-wing anti-communists being called out for baiting anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy as a red. No, the Soviet Union having collapsed 25 years ago, the roles of left and right have been inverted, and so it is the left-of-center critics of a proto-fascist who risk being outed as rank McCarthyites for criticizing a billionaire’s ties to and fondness for a right-wing authoritarian (one on the verge of a formal partnership with the U.S. war machine).

And with that, the alien craft exits the solar system.

Donald J. Trump, the candidate citing the Cold War as the basis for a new, “ideological screening test” to be imposed on immigrants: a victim of anti-communism? The mere thought of the argument may dull the senses, but it’s an argument that, unlike the USSR, just will not die in the alt-reality of punditry. That matters, not just because bad arguments are bad (certainly they are, but not all are worth rebutting), but because world peace literally depends on it. If the left’s so singularly focused on the worst claim a liberal personality has to offer that it spends more time rebutting than proposing—explaining that Vladimir Putin is not the head of the Illuminati—we’ll never get around to building a genuinely internationalist movement that rejects conspiracy for a consistent opposition to greedy capitalists and vicious imperialists wherever they may be.

In the meantime; instead: “Democrats Are Redbaiting Like It’s 1956,” informs the online magazine Current Affairs, for example, the article to which the headline is attached arguing that 2016 Democrats “have revived a long-dormant practice: accusing those to their left of being Kremlin operatives, and discrediting their political opponents with allegations of grand KGB conspiracies.”

But Russia isn’t red and neither is the Republican nominee for president. Still, though, we persist as if the KGB still exists, not because those engaging in the discourse are dumb, necessarily, but rather: we’re distracted by the dumbest arguments of the moment, and opposing them, to the point that we’re not making better arguments of our own. To wit: By suggesting, for instance, that Russian hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee and leaked unflattering emails to harm a candidate the Russian government has reason to hate — conflated, for purposes of knocking a straw-argument out the park, with the decidedly less common belief that Trump is literally a Russian secret agent — liberal Democrats are “conspiratorially positing that those who disagree with them are either intentionally or unintentionally serving the interests of the Kremlin.”

That argument requires no conspiracy, though: Trump has proposed policies that would serve the interests of the Kremlin — which, like the United States, seeks to promote its interests abroad — just as he and others, like Hillary Clinton, have proposed policies that would serve the interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain and other repressive governments. And, just as the U.S. notices when certain factions abroad are perceived as more amenable to its interests, Russia does as well. This isn’t chemtrails.

‘Red-Baiting’ Apologists for a Reactionary Russia

“It’s totally wrong to explain Trump’s success by externalizing him as a simple instrument of the Kremlin,” Ilya Budraitskis, an activist in Moscow with the opposition Russian Socialist Movement, told me. That’s not the dominant charge, but insofar as there are people making it the irony is it’s essentially the same line Putin and his allies use in Russia, “where the opposition is proclaimed to be ‘foreign agents’ and ‘national traitors.’”

Still, there’s no doubt who the Kremlin favors. “Of course Russia, for the moment, would prefer Trump as the next U.S. president,” he said. “The mainstream media inside our country glorify him as a ‘realistic thinking politician.” So while talk of secret agents is to be discouraged, the mainstream debate on Trump’s connections to and policies toward Russia would seem to be a legitimate one.

But the U.S. and Russia have historically been adversaries, something that those calling out McCarthyism, on the left, highlight as a distinguishing feature.

The history “of linking your political opponents to Russia,” The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald said in a recent interview with Slate, “is a really dangerous and ugly one in the U.S.” In The New York Daily News, columnist Michael Tracey likewise argues that, “business dealings with sketchy Moscow oligarchs” aside, the linking of Trump to Putin “harkens back to the old days when McCarthyite slurs were regularly heaped on anyone who dared deviate from foreign policy orthodoxy.”

But McCarthyite slurs were not “heaped on anyone”: they were heaped on liberals and leftists by conservatives and fascists who believed the foreign policy establishment, not the fringe, was too soft on the Soviets. It was a right-wing movement that carelessly slung baseless charges of disloyalty and likened liberal domestic reforms to what at the time was the least appealing version of “the left” on the international stage, just as conservatives today link any left-of-center agenda to the economic crisis in Venezuela—or, still, democratic socialism with Stalinism.

But Trump does break with the U.S. establishment on foreign policy, and on Russia in particular, yes? Because that’s where the meat of this is supposed to lie: Whether the allegations are true or not that are ostensibly tainted due to the fact Trump is not being attacked due to the factual merits of his ties to Russia, like $12.7 million in secret payments from Ukraine’s deposed pro-Russia ruling party to Trump’s former campaign chief Paul Manafort, according to The New York Times, and Russian elites making up “a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” according to Trump’s son, Donald Jr. No, it’s his alleged break from the “orthodoxy” — his adherence to a “coherent philosophy that is non-interventionist,” as Greenwald told Slate — that sullies the discussion.

Does he really break from the Washington consensus in a meaningful, coherent manner, though? Trump is a critic of his opponent’s foreign policy, as one would expect of an opponent, but he is an avowed interventionist in his own right, calling for stepped up airstrikes in Libya and tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq and Syria. But this is where tackling the dumbest version of an argument from a Clinton surrogate leads: a myopic compulsion to rebut the week’s most inane talking point very often compels absurdity and the hasty abandonment of one argument for the next.

Just over a week after telling Slate that Trump is an unorthodox isolationist, for instance, Greenwald was back with a column that argued the Republican nominee is, actually, in step with Washington’s foreign policy elite. Among other things, Trump has been “attacked by Democrats” over “his desire to cooperate with Putin in Syria,” Greenwald noted, but — and this will make the libs feel silly — “there’s another politician who advocates many of these exact same policies. His name is… Barack Obama.” And Barack Obama, the president of the U.S. empire, “wants to work in cooperation with, not opposition to, Russia, and has proposed a partnership to achieve that.”

A remarkable own, but of who? I venture: The Discourse just owned the columnist. Instead of writing a piece condemning a U.S. plan to escalate its air war in Syria — 5,000 airstrikes and 1,000 dead civilians — by sharing intelligence with and bombing Syria alongside Russia in a formal war partnership, Greenwald and other lefty anti-imperialists are preoccupied with scoring debate points in the game we call “the hegemonic binary discourse.” Escalating a war is accepted as mere “cooperation,” with opposition to that escalation confined to an aside on social media, if that — a distraction from the main point, which is: Trump is a victim of liberal McCarthyism because he breaks from the militarist status quo of the new Cold Warriors, but, also, he advocates the exact same policies being actively pursued by the most powerful people in the world.

An Allergy to Complexity

But vertigo-inducing Trump contrarianism is a symptom of a broader problem on the left, particularly its name-brand pundits. Rather than challenge the consensus on what the debate is with an independent, left-wing perspective, the parameters of debate are abided by those who think they’re breaking down walls by pointing out the room has four of them, not only two.

Instead of pointing out, front and center, that dropping bombs alongside Russia and dropping bombs on it are both undesirable, it accepts, for purposes of the discourse, a logic that an Intercept writer might well call Orwellian, with going to war billed as the opposite of going to war. Covered in the filth of the media trenches, the pundit slays talking points with talking points until the connection to reality is almost completely severed.

This speaks to the lack of a real, left-wing vision. On foreign policy, which is what the “McCarthyism” debate is all about, there is only reaction, with ahistorical references to anti-communist hysteria acting as what libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin described as “a form of McCarthyism in reverse”; a means of shutting down an intelligent conversation about U.S. policy and the left’s stance toward Russia. This leads to stasis: Talking points haven’t been updated since 2006, popular uprisings are conflated with externally imposed regime change and ongoing U.S. interventions — including ones planned with Russia — are omitted in favor of a Simplified Anti-Imperialism for the choir that hits all the familiar notes.

Adam Johnson uses his platform at The Nation, for instance, to slam the liberal media’s warmongering on Syria. Some ugly souls want to “do something” about kids being slaughtered there—they want another Libya!—and this media analyst is here to check the media’s push for a “humanitarian” war. Curiously, or not, two years of U.S. airstrikes, or the war that is actually happening, make it through the column without even passing condemnation. It is the threat of Nicholas Kristof that preoccupies, and usefully so: a year before Johnson was warning of “radical, medieval wahhabists” taking over the country, adopting the rhetoric of the neoconservative right in order to score a debate point against the do-something liberals. Thousands of U.S. airstrikes later and it might be awkward to acknowledge the target is actually the “wahhabists,” not the regime whose viral victims Johnson suggests could help escalate a war.

That the actual escalation with a chance of happening is being mapped out by John Kerry and Russia’s Sergey Lavrov, and has nothing to do with saving the victims of the latter and its Syrian ally? If it’s not described as “cooperation,” it’s not described at all. The narrative insists. The media war demands.

This is a problem. A left that doesn’t wish to confront the hard questions posed by reality retreats to lazy “media analysis” and the comfort of its tried and true talking points, winning social media debates in the eyes of the like-minded while losing the war for hearts and minds outside the internet subculture. Incapable or unwilling to provide an alternative to a dichotomy — neoconservativism or isolationism; Russia as a partner in war or the target of one — it rebuts arguments made of straw for purposes of self-satisfaction, not social change.

In an age of right-wing revanchism, left-wing pundits are providing too few answers to real world questions, preferring the smarmy certainty of stale cliches to developing a genuine alternative to dumbed-down binaries, with war framed as peace — or the framing at least accepted for purposes of the all-important argumentation — while actually existing airstrikes are omitted in arguments against war. If this is all the left has to offer, less and less people are going to sign up for its lectures and the genuinely left, genuinely antiwar movement we need to upend 21st century capitalist imperialism will continue to be an afterthought, on the left and among those in power.

Posted in Elections, Journalism Watch, Syria, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment