Apparently, it was liberals who started the Iraq war and conservatives who questioned it. Apparently, it was liberals who supported the Vietnam war all the way and conservatives who filled the Washington Mall with protest marchers. Apparently, it was liberals who sponsored covert wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador only to be stymied by conservatives who supported the Boland amendment. Apparently, Allen Dulles, Jim Angleton and Richard Helms were liberals, while Frank Church, Daniel Ellsberg and Phil Agee were conservatives. Apparently, Curtis LeMay, Charles Willoughby and Douglas MacArthur were liberals while Claiborne Pell, George McGovern and Ted Kennedy were conservatives. Apparently, John C. Calhoun was a liberal and Abraham Lincoln was a conservative. Apparently, George Wallace was a liberal and Martin Luther King was a conservative. Apparently, it was a liberal who said "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," and it was a conservative who said "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
Of course, we all know that Hitler was a liberal. Just ask Glenn Beck.
Is that really how you people think? Has America become a nation of crackpots? Are you all addicted to sophistry and the automatic gainsaying of common sense? If so, this blog is pointless. Why should any writer continue to address a repellent audience? Why try to speak rationally to an ignorant, ill-read generation brainwashed to accept such absurd ideas about history?
I came here to speak truth to power. I now find myself trying to speak sense to surrealism.
49 comments:
Don't let the inane comments from conservatives and "libertarians"(most of whom are just conservatives who don't like calling themselves conservative) get you down. The whole "libs are the real racists" schtick is just a political version of the juvenile "I know you are but what am I" playground routine, but it's about all the right can resort to when confronted with its history of racism and warmongering. I for one appreciate you blogging and would urge you to stick around. I'd also caution against getting too down on this generation- sure its got its fair share of idiots, but its also got pockets of political idealism reminiscent of the Kennedy and McGovern days; its this idealism that's helped fuel the rise of Bernie Sanders, and I hope and believe it will continue to manifest itself long after the 2016 election.
The only thing I could suggest is to put yourself and your readers on a comment diet - that is, only allow comments on relatively non-controversial topics. Freaks and sh*t-flingers are looking for a place where they can fling sh*t all the time. If they come here enough and are disappointed enough, maybe at least some of them will stop coming here.
PhilK
Joe,
Please don't stop -- that's just what they want!!!
We get a lot out of the (sane) comments but would gladly forego them if you're finding the (deliberate?) nutcakes too much.
But we'd sure miss your voice.
@PhilK
"put your readers on a comment diet - that is, only allow comments on relatively non-controversial topics."
lol. Your advocating practicing censorship, that's priceless! Cannonfire, quick hyperventilate like Penny over at MoA, cover your ears and eyes, hold your breath and put your head in the sand! lol
I think the problem is in the belief in an ideological purity of the liberal class and the deafening silence of the true left struggles coming from socialist, communist, socialist traditions. Syrian Girl was on point regarding liberal interventionism in Syria and Ukraine. If you look back, at first, the pseudo left were ALL supportive to ally themselves with the state department and these interventions, when it was discovered Victoria Nuland was behind the curtain and the blood and blame placed in their political rivals hands, they latched on to those scapegoats and have been hitching a ride ever since.
In my opinion the purpose of blogging itself is at least the ones that allow for comments carry the invitation for oddballs. If some of those disagree considerably with the host they usually get deleted. I understand that the host feels it's like his house he doesn't have to tolerate a guest who doesn't respect him, on the other hand different takes on a subject may (or not) add to the richness of the discussion. I myself gained knowledge for what is going on the comments. But it never changed my mind on my core beliefs. It shed lights on others minds, and in my opinion also is a pluss. But of course it's your house .
What shadow nine said.
I feel that you criticize liberals in an intelligent passionate way, just like you do conservatives. But at the end of the day, liberals good, conservatives bad. Well, when your party is running a ton (I've lost count) of wars, one wonders about the reality of the situation ........ And they come here. And sorry, but I H8 all the pc group think of the left (what's "left" of it). I'll never be a black transgendered man with disabilities, so I guess I don't count. Most democrats seem to be best at rolling over and playing dead these days. Of course, having the average age of your leaders being 75 may account for some of that.
Here's a suggestion to blow your mind. I've always wished you'd have something like a "conspiracy weekend shakedown". Fast and rapid. I ask, " what about the moon landings" and you say, "get lost". Next person says "what about the underground tunnels", you say, "they exist, but they aren't tunnels they're an old form of irrigation, geez". And so on.
You still have so much to give, don't stop now.
Perhaps the problem is that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" both ceased to have any real meaning decades ago. Both terms have been bent and twisted into such odd shapes that any real usefulness has disappeared. Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama liberals? Together they destroyed Libya, formerly the most prosperous country in North Africa, and created millions of additional refugees, not to mention creating the possibility of stealing shiploads of weapons to be sent to other theatres of the Middle East conflagration. Obama has killed several times more people with drones than George W. Bush did and has also maintained Bush's policies on torture, Guantanamo, unbridled defense spending etc. How liberal is that?
Was G.W. Bush a conservative? Then why did he piss trillions of dollars away on stupid, illegal, and unnecessary "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of it borrowed from the future? What is conservative about bankrupting your own nation and creating tens of millions of new enemies to fight in future wars? What is left to "conserve" after the nation's infrastructure collapses from want of maintenance and replacement? Perhaps your blog needs a ban on the words liberal and conservative, but that's just me.
Hitler was a "liberal" because the Nazi acronym has the word "socialist" in it.
The world has gone completely and totally batshit crazy.
It does get extremely frustrating to try and knock sense into people.
Sounds like you were targeted by a bunch of organized kooks. Please don't let them stop you from blogging--those of us who are sane need and appreciate you and your talent for getting right to the core of any issue. I can understand, though, how it could become way too much for you, but I, and I'm sure many, many other "constant readers" will miss your voice a great deal if you should stop blogging.
Jerome
My guess is since you have a popular opinion site, you have become the target of the DOD sock-puppet psy-op program. Recall the program where hundreds of enlisted psy-op specialists troll the web and cause trouble...
Can you go to your statcounter and see how many DOD-type IP addresses are checking in?
-J
joseph, i think you're losing it.. turning every fucking conversation into a black and white, liberal verses conservative breakdown seems inane.. but go for it if it helps you feel good about what a clusterfuck the usa has become.. as i said in the previous thread where all the posts were erased - they both belong to the perpetual war party that has come to define the usa..
I read your blog almost everyday, and consider it essential even though I often quietly disagree with you. My only major complaint: I wish you'd dive back into the kind of obscure stories that Hopsicker covers. I wanna get more about shady aviation firms and shell companies and strange elite connections. You're at your best when you're plumbing conspiracy theories but in a reasoned way.
Well, you are a great writer. No doubt about that. It would be a shame if you quit blogging but I would certainly understand. I don't always agree with you on some issues but that is to be expected; however, this country has become infected with something that is really difficult to rationally explain. Unfortunately, the only way to defeat terrible ideas and ignorance is to try and educate those who can't be educated by putting out your enlightened opinions on a daily basis. To do otherwise would be to give in and let those with ill intentions win. I am not sure when things changed in this country but there was a time when someone who lied to us would never be taken seriously again. Now deception, lies and willful ignorance is mainstream. Just unfortunate really. When we need people to use critical thinking skills, be tuned in and work hard to keep our government in line most people have done the opposite. It is very sad that our populace is so ignorant but things can and will change.
No, Joseph. Please. I'm begging. We're out here in a wasteland of stupidity and lies, reliant on you to reassure us that the war is not lost. Your insights and historical memory are too valuable to be silenced. Please stay in the game. There are too many of us here who care that you do.
And as for Infowars and Glenn Beck...you'll never convince them of anything so let them go.
Cheers and please keep blogging.
-- Fred
Speaking of "ill read", your basic problem is confining liberalism to "american history". Liberalism is one of three western ideologies that won following the french revolution (until 1968, that is), and on a global scale, all the horrors the world has had inflicted upon since the 19th century (when liberalism triumphed) have been directly the result of liberalism in action.
Your cute little american history vignettes are nothing but footnotes in the history of liberalism, which, for a time, directly absorbed and disabled both conservatives and radicals - until it collapsed.
I'd be pretty indifferent if you stop blogging - I started following your blog with great interest almost a year ago, but gradually became aware that you might have too many windbag tendencies, combined with too many gaps in historical/geopolitical knowledge - or maybe not gaps, but a strange combination of occasional decent insight, accompanied by naive, grade-school level bullshit about history. So, not much will be lost, but I suppose at least don't hurt the people who still find you useful. Even a thousand bloggers are inferior to a single good book. But pride comes before the fall, so if I were you, I'd tone that shit down, at least temporarily.
Btw, I'm glad you mentioned Allan Dulles - he is the one who once said that it is very easy to confuse people with facts, but it is not easy to confuse them if they understand the broad tendencies.
Over the last several days it has become very clear to me that you guys here are stuck at the level of trivial facts, and in the undeserved pride of getting a more accurate story than CNN. Good job, but even so, if your view of contemporary history and the current world crisis is based on the juvenile notion that it is somehow explained by the epic battle between the evil conservatives and the good liberals, you have already entirely missed the boat on understanding what's going on, and the likely futures available to us. Why do you insist being stuck in the first half of the 19th century?
As someone who has read the liberals, the conservatives, and the radicals, I feel justified in judging that the liberals are the most unappealing of the bunch. This would be a matter of idle intellectual interest only, if the crisis of the liberal state as such - and its desperate attempts to deny it - were not in large part the cause of both innumerable 20th century disasters, as well as the reason for the resurgence of a particularly vicious from of conservatism since the 1970s (which would hot have happened, had liberalism been a viable ideology to begin with).
Wow! You got some rays of sunshine and good vibes up in here today, huh Joseph! What a wonderful collection of thoughts, considerations and suggestions. Good for you. It would probably cheer you up more with financial support from your readers, huh? Do you have a PO Box or alternative way for a wandering traveler to bypass the paypal mafia?
I apologize for the poor grammar and not proof reading my previous comment. It looks ugly. Having said that, I won't bother correcting the obvious mistakes and would like to make one single change to "socialist, communist, socialist traditions." which in fact, I meant to say "socialist, communist, anarchist traditions."
Cheers!
I'd like to comment on the ageism issue. I'm nearly 70 but I still stick cones of molten lava up dumbass pieholes. Yeah, there's a bunch of Cons who are my age, but I'll pretty much guarantee you they were the same way in high school. I was defriended by several of my classmates from '65 because they are tender. Tuff shit. Some people still wear letterman jackets and their veteran regalia every day. Then there are those of us who grew past it. Or were never in the cool kid club. Anyway, the most disappointing people to me right now are in their 20s and 30s because they blame the entire condition of the world on "baby boomers." Hey, we inherited a shitty mess too. Watch any A-bomb training film. Being of a particular political bent has little to do with age and more to do with intelligence and empathy. Some people have had both preached out of them. This is your world. Don't whine about it. Fix it. Or die trying. Oh and Joe, stiff upper lip and member, ok?
Ah, Anon...you pretend to be so bright, but you cannot even follow the simple Rules for Comments listed clearly on every page of this blog. But I let your words go through nonetheless, just to make a few points.
First, you exemplify the very point I was making. Saying that liberalism is not a viable ideology does not empower whatever form of Marxism or socialism you may espouse (or pretend to espouse). Quite the opposite: It empowers reaction.
And this is the great lesson we learn from European history. Take, to cite the most obvious example, the case of Weimar Germany. Back in the late 1920s, German lefties like Niekisch and those towering intellectuals who were behind the KPD (yes, I HAVE done my reading: My former library on "Nazi stuff" was literally floor to ceiling) decided that the Weimar system was so insufferably corrupt as to be unsupportable.
Result: Adolf.
Which is, of course, exactly the result that assholes like you are apparently trying to bring about in THIS country. I'm not saying that you are being paid to do this job. But you OUGHT to be. Why work for free?
That is the real reason why jerks like you spew irrelevant and nonsensical pseudo-scholarship in order to discredit the fine work done by the liberals listed in my main post.
About being a windbag: Yup! So are all bloggers. What else drives anyone to write an essay every day? I'm quite taciturn in my daily life, so any communication I do gets done here.
(There's also the time factor. As Oscar Wilde once said: "I can write a ten-page letter in one hour or a one-page letter in ten hours." The short posts take longer.)
Are books always superior to any blog? Look, I've probably read more books than you have. Since high school (before you were born, kid), I've spent most of my "fun time" in university libraries. And when visiting a new city, my first duty is to scope out the used book stores. So count me as a bibliophile.
That said...
Well, take the election of 2008. I was very engaged in every hemi-demi-semiquaver of that battle, and so were a number of other bloggers. They piled up a whole lot of verbiage. Much of it was a superficial venting of opinion, but much of it included little-known factual material and genuinely fascinating insights. Now compare that cyber-record to the way the events of 2008 have since been covered in books. If you stick to "book larnin'", you'll get a very trite and wrongheaded idea of what really happened.
Books do NOT offer the most in-depth treatment of any given topic. If you are only "book deep" in any given area of study, you probably haven't gone very deep at all. Frankly, that was case even before the advent of the internet. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who ever tried to WRITE a book. What the internet allows is an easier and less expensive way to gather up the raw materials. Blogs are an important part of that.
On the other hand, writers of books are forced to make their argument fit into an overall structure. This remains the great virtue of the traditional book: FORM. Blogworld, by contrast, is wild, chaotic and formless -- like life itself.
A further word about my "Result: Adolf" example -- can anyone cite a single example in which the discrediting of liberalism turned out well for a country?
One example. Just one. That's all I'm asking.
I don't want further abstruse argument: I will not print that.
Give me just ONE historical example.
Liberalism has been around for a while, and so have attempts to discredit it. So if this argument that "liberals are the cause of war and racism" has any validity, you really should be able to cite one (1) single example in which the liberals were attacked and silenced and everything was peachy-keen as a direct result.
Me, I'm wondering what the people in Central America would have experienced if there had been no liberals in America during the Reagan years. And I'm sure that Dr. King went to his grave thinking: "You know, this job would be a lot easier if it weren't for all of those goddamned LIBERALS."
Hey, I don't want you thinking that my "Results: Adolf" argument is the sole argument I could muster up. If you're annoyed by argumentum ad Hitlerum, howzabouts....oh, say, the Spanish Civil War? Seems to me that the ultra-left and anarchist wackadoodles who commandeered the Republican fight were nothing more than recruitment tools for Franco. They CREATED Franco.
Want me to bring it closer to home? The 2000 American election. As I've noted before:
Number of people who voted for "purist" candidate Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421
"Official" difference between the Bush vote and the Gore vote in 2000: 537.
The argument against Gore back then is that he was supposedly the epitmoe of sell-out liberalism. Al Gore, bringer of war and racism.
Of course, if Al had won, there would have been no Iraq war. We'd be a lot richer and a lot of dead Iraqis would still be alive. Plus, no ISIS.
Worst of all, the Bush victory caused an Overton window shift so massive that soon Al Gore was seen as an Evil Bolshevik throughout much of the nation.
If you're happy with the way things turned out in 2000 -- BOY HOWDY did you pick the wrong blog to visit!
There is not a single historical instance you can cite when the disparagement of liberalism helped anyone.
Keep swinging joe, ya' know america is lost in the wilderness. Paid trolls abound, ta' hell with em'.
Your voice is important. I hope you don't quit--though I totally understand that dealing with morons can be depressing.
Maybe just get rid of the comments entirely?
so now Moderates are really neo cons in disguise? Yet were I to go to a neo con site they would state that Moderates are really progressives in disguise. That modus operandi by both the Progressives and the Neo Cons are what keeps the Moderates from being recognized as the true majority in the U.S.
Alessandro, your comment is the single wisest thing anyone has placed on the internet all year.
Joseph, you are under no obligation to keep blogging if you find it burdensome. But I look at your blog at least once a day, and find it interesting and usually informative.
Whatever you do, let it be your own decision and not a reaction to fools.
What if that's the audience, Phil?
Conservatives like Obama have been waging war behind liberal ideals for a long time. It's not surprising that people are confused. - ANON 999
Please don't quit blogging. I have been a daily reader since the Anthony Weiner scandal in June 2011. For those libertarians and conservatives who comment on liberalism, they should first read the Wikipedia article on liberalism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).
Don't give up. Never give up. Maybe a fluffy comic tidbit will soothe you. I know you're into the intel ties of comic strip men. While reading 'Who Paid the Piper', I came across the murder of one Colette Joubert, bound, gagged and sexually assaulted in her upper Eastside apartment. $18,000 in 20s were found in her safe deposit box. This was 1963. The late Ms. Joubert was the ex-wife of Michael Josselson, a fixer for in the Congress for Cultural Freedom, CIA-front for anti-communist propaganda and uglier activities. Well, a 'Colette Joubert' turns up murdered in the comics some 15 years later, in an edition of Marvel's 'Dr. Strange', I believe. Killed by? Asrael (with an 'a') angel of death. Ha.
->
Let's go back to basics:
"Goldberg had several online personas: an Islamic radical who was popular in ISIS social media; a white supremacist on hate site Daily Stormer; a feminist on Daily Kos; a radical free-speech advocate on Q&A site Ask.fm, and a sympathizer with GamerGate. Goldberg is also accused of being behind a Times of Israel blog post that called Palestinians “subhuman.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/unmasking-a-troll-aussie-jihadist-australi-witness-a-20yearold-american-nerd-20150909-gjil47
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3komj2/redditor_european88_is_arrested_by_the_fbi_for/
->
I think I see what you're getting at, Anon. (Although please don't be Anon next time.) Yeah, there are a lot of people out there playing all sorts of funny little games.
But here's something that's quite real: You know that stupid Bush-Crowley post thing I wrote back on April 1, 2006? It STILL gets more page views (on some days) than does the new material. An ancient April 1 post is more popular than the stuff I really believe in.
That's just one indication that our entire culture seems to have gone cuckoo. You can probably cite a zillion more examples from your own perspective.
Maybe the best thing is to forget about combatting all the craziness. Maybe it's time to grab some cheap vodka, sit by the railroad tracks, and mutter the words: "President Trump. It has finally come to this. PRESIDENT Donald fucking Trump." (Long swig.) "Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!"
I hope you will turn some of your replies above into blog posts.
But Bush/Crowley "would" explain a lot.
Sorry.
I believe people ARE ready for the wild card, Trump. Who knows what the hell he would do. And yes, I think the majority of Americans, whether they be democrats, republicans or librarians will make that choice.
So get that vodka ready!
News you can use: Fatal plane crash in Tom Cruise-as-Barry Seal biopic "Mena" has Twilight Zone overtones. Hopsicker tweets that producers "are fucking me" and "they're scum. i'm suing them." Promises forthcoming article.
You'll have to make up your own mind, obviously, but I would hate to see you stop blogging. I don't always agree with you 100%, but you have helped me realize over the years that both parties, while similar in many respects, are not the same. The Dems still have a few actual liberals trying to do what's best for the country. They tend to get drowned our by the neo-con's and right wingers, but they are there. Plus, the Dems have to at least cater their base a little bit here and there, unlike the Republicans, who actually have their supporters cheering on ideas that will make them poorer, give them less say in their government, and make them far less free. The nation as a whole has veered so far to the right, it's not terribly surprising that people are confused about what is liberal and what is conservative. Conservative leaning liberals were once called moderates. Now they are called commie socialist pinko's. What I find hard to believe is that there are so many people who think going even farther to the right will fix things somehow. Craziness. Anyway, this is my first blog I look at every day, usually more than once. It can be hard going against the grain like you do, but just remember that some of us are right there with you (more or less) and truly appreciate what you do.
Longtime reader here. Don't let the paid trolls get to you. You already know that social media are the new battlefront of manufacturing consent. This is your, so there's no reason to waste time on commenters whose main purpose is to distract from your postings.
If the bush-crowley thing is still so popular, maybe throw those folks some more red meat? Play it sort of like stephen colbert, ironically pretending to agree with them and see how far into absurdity you can lead them.
Make a psuedonym and have them write "guest" posts so you dont have to put your name on the posts. Your real readers will figure it out.
Look at it as therapy... get them to believe the craziest things in the hopes they'll reach a "moment of clarity" that they've gone off the deep end and need a reality check. Alternately, string them along for a while, gain their trust, then spring it on them: you've been satirizing them all along, it was all BS, and they couldnt tell the difference.
However it played out it would be an interesting social experiment.
I dont comment much anymore but ive always been here. I think i found you in "04 via xymphora - which is kinda funny in himdsight, xymphora went bugfuck nuts on the jew-hate. I'll miss you if you quit.
Short version: dont let the trolls get you down - use them (and abuse them) for your own purposes or amusement. If you let the trolls win... i will be very disappointed in you. Thought you were made of stronger stuff.
It's discouraging a lot of the time, I know, because the pig headed don't have any interest at all in actually LEARNING anything.
But I hop you don't quit.
Not my first comment and I've prolly read your every post since bulgegate. But don't get so angry at the idiots in the comment section. I credit you with disabusing me of some of the conspiratard stuff you complain of back then - well before the Crowley post, which is why I've kept reading you all these years..
viowacity
Please come back....
Hey Joseph,
You can see that you have lots of fans. I am one too and have been for a long time. We don't always comment regularly but we visit you regularly.
You are my favorite Blogger. You are not my favorite because I always agree with you, or you have the most traffic, or you cover all the news. You are my favorite because you don't cover silly stories or have 100 silly comments on each thread. You cover what's important in a way that no one else does and the comments add to the thread.
In other words, you are real and smart and way better than most Bloggers and you have a "loyal" following.
So, keep writing. I will be lost if you stopped.
Margie
Joseph previously said..."Alessandro, your comment is the single wisest thing anyone has placed on the internet all year". end quote.
posted by Joseph : 5:40 AM
Joseph, now you have me worried because I swear I have three ideas that would ice the presidential race for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and in my vision one or the other pays me 2 million dollars for the ideas which are so good not only do they win the presidency, they actually accomplish something of merit as well by implementing the ideas.
" This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings."
->
https://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine
Case closed.
->
"If we agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary." -Jack Mabley
If you are only interested in hearing from people who agree with you, stop blogging and start a cult. A real blog should be a forum for ideas. The Jeffersonian concept of free speech is that good ideas will conquer bad ones. I have found that listening to many ideas, good and bad, helps me grow. A good blogger should be smarter because of the ideas and knowledge shared with him by his readers. Ideas and knowledge should not just flow one way.
Is it time to stop blogging?
Nah.
Keep it up.
I actually feel fortunate that so few people ever read my blog. What you have slog through would be exhausting. I guess you have to ask yourself what the difference between debate and harassment is for you and put a line between those two. Every artist knows that the first paint stroke not only changes the rest but eliminates others. Your brain filters your good from bad and you can't help it.
It you try to take it all, you are allowing yourself to be abused. Really, you know what reasonable dissent is.
"If we agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary." -Jack Mabley
Awesome saying, Joseph.
Post a Comment