Why is Counterpunch vile?
I just noticed Bill Weinberg's answer to the above question, and thought it worth extracting here.
Excuse me, running "journalism" by the Holocaust-denier (and apparent collaborationist with the Lukashenko dictatorship) Israel Shamir is not vile? Making a cause celebre of fellow Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel is not vile? Providing a soapbox for Bosnia genocide denial is not vile? Cheering on Ahmadinejad's electoral fraud is not vile? Cheering on the mass-murdering jihadis in Iraq is not vile? Engaging in vulgar Jew-baiting of public officials is not vile? Xenophobic talk about how Washington is "occupied" by Israel is not vile? Running fraudulent interviews without bothering to check them out first is not vile? How about denying climate change? Is that vile enough for you?That's a lot more concise than the post I once wrote about Alexander Cockburn and Counterpunch!
Previous: Conspiracy theories.
Keywords: Counterpunch, Israel Shamir, Wikileaks.
Comments
http://www.counterpunch.org/philpot05152004.html
Incidentally, regarding your earlier post on Claud Cockburn, I was interested to read a whinge by Patrick about how MI5 hounded his father. Funnily enough he had nothing to say about daddy's stint in Spain, not to mention his collaboration with the NKVD:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-the-virtue-of-speaking-truth-to-power-2171018.html
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2008/06/alexander-cockburn-and-counterpunch.html
Why ask a rhetorical question
But it is a fine post!
The Oil Lobby.
Further, we would have to ask who does it comprise, in mainland America and abroad.
etc etc
What exactly is the difference between Counterpunch and these two websites for example?
If an article appears in a vile website which has been proven to promote lies and distortions of realities, which exhibit at the very least a stalker's obsession with one people, one nation, one country, is there any reason whatsoever to remove it from the rest of the vile content and endow it with certain veracity and legitimacy just because you really like what that article says? What does it say about skidders here that he accepts that "Some of the things Counterpunch does may be indefensible" yet is non too uncomfortable trying to cleanse the sheretz by pointing to one article in which HE thinks they are doing commendable work?
In a legal procedure when a witness is caught in a lie, among a series of facts he has been testifying to, the judge instructs the jury that if they find the witness has lied in one part of his testimony, they should consider the witness' entire testimony as worthless and possibly a lie. I think there is a principle here that could be extracted and applied to such sources of information and analysis such as the three websites mentioned in this comment.
The USA still does not officially recoginze the Armenian Genocide of 1915.
Even back in the 1930s, the Turkish Lobby was able to apply pressure on Hollywood and the State Department to start the movie version of the Forty Days of Musa Dagh.
Incidentally, regarding your earlier post on Claud Cockburn, I was interested to read a whinge by Patrick about how MI5 hounded his father. Funnily enough he had nothing to say about daddy's stint in Spain, not to mention his collaboration with the NKVD:-
I'd hazard an educated guess that MI5 weren't against Cockburn because they supported the POUM/CNT, mind you. That's not to justify Stalinist scum in any way. Merely to point out that MI5 are scum as well.
@ Skidmarx
Some of the things Counterpunch does may be indefensible (the first couple of things Weinberg mentioned among them)
Yeah, in which case, everything is irrelevant. I don't care if David Icke occasionally stumbles on something that isn't mad and/or antisemitic. He's still David Icke and should be rejected on that basis.
@ Mod
Or, indeed, the international lobbying efforts of the International Monetary Fund, which actually has a real effect on global politics. Sadly, to go down that route, people would need a class analysis, which rules Counterpunch out entirely...
(The most effective 'lobby' in the UK are the CBI. srsly.)
Incidentally, skidmark, you still haven't shown the guts to answer my earlier question. Is Christian Davenport right or wrong about Rwanda?
I'm not surprised to see you making excuses for 'Counterpunch'. It's just the kind of rag that suits your hemorrhoid brand of politics.
Well, yes. *Puts on the pedantry hat.* If it has sound internal logic and robust empiricism. Sure, if one source pumps out enough trash we might justly assumes it's not worth hangin' around and waiting for it to produce a diamond but that doesn't mean it can't.
"Some of the things Daily Mail does may be indefensible, however...
That's the level of the argumentation.
That I can look at a Curate's Egg and not only see the bad parts?
If you are going to attack someone for talking about "occupied" Washington, the implication of the quote marks is that that is the word they actually used. The grown-up response would be to agree that an error has been made, but instead unsurprisingly the response is the same sort of blind defence of someone you agree with that the Left is often accused of.
modernity - false analogy.
Contentious Centrist - I've caught a couple of people who've commented on this thread in lies before now, and it doesn't appear to have had much effect on their behaviour. I expect the two websites you refer to are generally offensive (as that would be the point of you referring to them). I'm sure there are many other websites that attack the power of the Israel lobby where the word "occupied" is not found, are we to condemn them all out of hand (I think I know that the close-minded approach of most here would be "yes")?
Of course if you're of the my political persuasion right or wrong mindset, all this is irrelevant. Note though that it only takes a couple of clicks to see the flaws in most of what Weinberg says (and I haven't even checked the bits where I think he probably have a point), if you discuss this stuff with anyone not already committed to the way you think it will be fairly easy to point out the holes.
Can I am make a rather simple point?
In all the time that you have had an exchange with skidmarx has he conceded the bleeding obvious ONCE?
My bet is no.
There is NO common ground for any discussion with him.
He's an Oxbridge educated ex-SWPer, very smart, etc but as a consequence impervious to reason and has probably learnt all that he will ever learn.
As shown elsewhere, he'll gladly cloudy the issues when it comes to Gilad Atzmon's anti-Jewish racism, and anyone who does that isn't fit to have an exchange with.
If you wouldn't waste your time arguing with a dense neo-fascist then *why* even attempt it with skidmarx, when he shown himself to be so conspicuously uninterested in argumentation or ideas that run counter to his prior indoctrination.
Er, no.
In all the time that you have had an exchange with skidmarx has he conceded the bleeding obvious ONCE?
Er,yes.[Maybe not with sackcloth & ashes, who seems to specialise in bleedin' obvious untruths, as well as being a wannabe bully and a regurgitant troll,but certainly with others, and this thread isn't supposed to be about him so why don't you stop trying to ruin it and get back to discussing Counterpunch and/or Weinberg, perhaps with more consideration than your first post which praised it without even a superficial examination?]
And when I was considering Contentious Centrist's point about perjurers, I recalled the time on Dave Osler's blog when you called JOHNNO a liar for not being able to find the comment of Jim Denham's on Lenin's Tomb which supported his contention, when you knew damn well that that was the comment referred to. Not for you to admit error when it is bleedin' obvious that you're in the wrong.
Incidentally skidmark, my question still stands. Is Davenport right or wrong about Rwanda?
Tha point I am trying to make is there is no common ground, even on language with people like Skidmarx.
And if there is no common framework then any meaningful discussion is next to impossible.
Skidmarx comes from a political tradition where dialogue is next to non-existent and they don't really care what other people say.
We tried, there's no point of connection, it is not politics, it is basic reasoning skills that are the problem here.
Bob tried, very patiently, to get Skidmarx to understand antisemitism, he dismissed every argument out of hand.
Bob tried to get Skidmarx to see Atzmon's racism, instead Skidmarx was first tempted to defend Atzmon and cloud the issue... then he couldn’t see the racism in Seven Jewish Children, WTF!
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2010/11/mishmash.html
So what purpose is served by even *trying* to engage with him?
You would sooner get a better response if you sang a lullaby to a potato... at least the potato would not try to explain away the racism in the play, Seven Jewish Children….
Please, sack, just ignore him….no argument will work, no reason will penetrate, no evidence will suffice.
Please ignore him, otherwise it ruins otherwise interesting threads.
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2010/11/mishmash.html
I haven't seen "Seven Jewish Children" full stop.
Skidmarx comes from a political tradition where dialogue is next to non-existent
I try and discuss the content of the post, and you hurl abuse. I think any fair-minded observer could see who believes in dialogue and you don't.
I understand that fully, Mod, and that was the main point of an earlier post, in which Bob quoted my comments on bad influences on the left:
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2011/01/ideas-meme-sackcloth-and-ashes.html
Incidentally, skidmark, the question still stands. Was Davenport right or wrong?
We are in agreement, but there is certainly a peculiar psychological aspect when you try to discuss with Oxbridge educated ex-SWPer, isn't there?
By that I mean, a variability in the argumentation, one minute special pleading by him and the next as above, nitpicking and pedantry when it comes to others.
I'm sure, almost positive, that Skidmarx is completely ignorant of Seven Jewish children, I accept his excuse.
What I don't accept is the fact it didn't occur to him to investigate it.
It didn't occur to him to look it up.
It didn't occur to Skidmarx to educate himself on antiracism, and that's where we came in.
It is that truculent inability to see the bleeding obvious that is so annoying.
Even with the aid of the Internet skidmarx is ignorant on these topics, which is a bit strange for an obviously highly intelligent and educated individual.
So as a public service and assuming that he doesn't know how to use Google (seemingly a common affliction amongst SWPers, and ex-SWPers),here are some links, he can VIEW the play or read the script, then give us his "anti-racist" opinion of it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/video/2009/apr/25/seven-jewish-children-caryl-churchill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/feb/26/caryl-churchill-seven-jewish-children-play-gaza
And if Skidmarx can manage it I suggest he looks at Engage's site and the discussions on the play, they might them to decide on the racist nature of play.
See, you'll never get an answer from Skidmarx.
He won't engage with the issues or trouble to make a meaningful comment on examples of anti-Jewish racism, ig. Sevne Jewish Children, etc
You do not want to give a clear and frank answer because you know it would out you as either an ignorant twat, or as someone who supports genocide deniers. Either way, it would out you as the red-brown filth that you are.
I did read this analysis yesterday of "Seven Jewish Children", though I know that the executive summary:"If people don’t agree with you about it – it’s just possible they may not be horrible, stupid or dishonest" isn't going to fit in with your preconceptions (I expect, like Howard Jacobsen, you haven't actually bothered reading or seeing the play). Now why not discuss this post, rather than being an obsessive off-topic troll like sackcloth & ashes?
Then you're not really interested in the answer to the question, you just want to keep asking it to avoid discussing the subject of the thread, or the absence of any enquiring minds noticing that 75% of what Weinberg says is trash.
Modernity - I did link to a post by Sarah AB about "Seven Jewish Children" in a comment that doesn't seem to have made it past the spam filter, but as you seem to think that just including the word Jewish in the title makes it inherently racist you're unlikely to listen to any nuanced argument.
If anyone wants to discuss the post and the failure of Weinberg to back up most of his argument with anything resembling reason, I'd be happy to do so, but if you all want to divert this thread you can go on doing on your own.
See my point?
Skidmarx ducks and dives but he won't make an effort to counter anti-Jewish racism.
His first defence is
"I haven't seen "Seven Jewish Children" full stop.
"
So then I provide links to it and expect him to give his views, but instead he goes off at a tangent again.
Once more, skidmarx could comment on Seven Jewish Children, if he wanted to, but he's not bothered, it is not relevant to his existence,
Thus, all you ever get is his reasons not to engage with the topics, he wastes more energy providing futile excuses than contributing meaningfully.
So, it is not worthwhile even ASKING him anything as you know what the answer will be, another evasion, another deflection, some trivial game, that's all he is capable of..
"If Israel is innocent of organ plundering accusations, or if its culpability is considerably less than Bostrom and others suggest, it should welcome honest investigations that would clear it of wrongdoing. Instead, the government and its advocates are working to suppress all debate and crush those whose questions and conclusions they find threatening."
Much as modernity and his co-thinkers do on every topic involving Israel.The allegations about Israelis in Haiti seem to have been specious, the allegations about the KLA in Kosovo seem to have more substance.Israel's low organ donor rate does provide a reason why such activities might be more likely to involve Israelis, but just as all criticism shouldn't be suppressed because it is politically inconvenient, neither should wild accusations be made if the evidence isn't there to support it.
Now why don't you discuss your blind support for the rest of the Weinberg post?
Suppose, that someone came out with the racist notion that Jews controlled the world, would a socialist retort by saying they " should welcome honest investigations that would clear them of wrongdoing."
No, they would reject it because socialists and anti-racists would see from the outset what a stinking pile of racism it was ..... and not give it any credence.
What you do is equate any fundamental criticism of the Israeli state or mention of the wrongdoing of individual Israelis with such an idea, making you the pensioner who cried wolf.
Your dishonesty in accusing me of ruining the thread when I was discussing the OP while you wish to talk about anything but isn't an attractive quality either.
So, Skid, are you saying that the following is NOT inherently racist and lacking in evidence: that the Jews murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals?
Any chance anyone is going to defend Weinberg's misattribution of the word "occupied", or his assertions without evidence in the other 62.5% of his rant?