tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post2741818680109412912..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: Alexander Cockburn and CounterPunchbobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-27635892581688165912016-06-01T10:59:11.456+01:002016-06-01T10:59:11.456+01:00Orwell delivered communists to the british. Search...Orwell delivered communists to the british. Search "Orwell list": Orwell also was pro-British. He wrote "the Lion and the Unicorn", a british nationalist justification. He wasn't actually a socialist more than "Labor party". Orwell was a bureaucrat working for the British ministery of Propaganda; virurently anti-communist and reactionary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-39221366384562474112013-04-14T05:38:49.817+01:002013-04-14T05:38:49.817+01:00i had little use for cockburn either, and enjoyed ...i had little use for cockburn either, and enjoyed this article until i read:<br /><br />"Cockburn has a regular column for Antiwar.com, the far right paleo-libertarian website run by Justin Raimondo, which appears to be leftist but is, on closer examination, largely fascist."<br /><br />antiwar does not appear to be leftist, and to claim an atistate if capitalist as fascist marks you out as an ignoramus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-76939037209788290692012-07-24T20:14:41.628+01:002012-07-24T20:14:41.628+01:00Dreary defender of modern antisemitism, you yourse...Dreary defender of modern antisemitism, you yourself have neither shame nor brain!Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-10804882067150869362011-01-26T21:52:05.441+00:002011-01-26T21:52:05.441+00:00'Dreary defender of Israeli genocide, have you...'Dreary defender of Israeli genocide, have you no shame?'<br /><br />Vile defender of anti-Semitism masquerading as 'anti-Zionism', have you no brains?sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-41756203585031916492010-08-31T14:17:58.827+01:002010-08-31T14:17:58.827+01:00Alexander Cockburn is a great editor ,he has a dip...Alexander Cockburn is a great editor ,he has a diplomatic family that works in Berkhamstead College School.<br /><a href="http://www.xlpharmacy.com/viagra/buy.php" rel="nofollow">Buy Viagra</a> <a href="http://www.xlpharmacy.com/viagra/" rel="nofollow">Viagra</a>Generic Viagrahttp://www.xlpharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-77457239099262042402009-11-25T07:58:45.018+00:002009-11-25T07:58:45.018+00:00Dreary defender of Israeli genocide, have you no s...Dreary defender of Israeli genocide, have you no shame?Alan Cabalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-46517347813209654572008-07-22T11:24:00.000+01:002008-07-22T11:24:00.000+01:00I don't think connecting AC with his father can be...I don't think <EM>connecting</EM> AC with his father can be called unfair - I mean, he did bring him up, and his connections did help him get his early jobs. In fact, AC's Counterpunch published Claud's Spanish reportage - full of lies - as recently as 2006, alongside George Galloway taking a very Claud-esque Stalinist line. <BR/><BR/>Yes, you are right, though, that AC/Counterpunch should be judged on their own (de)merits. I think that AC being soft on Stalinism is enough of a point against him. His pro-nuclear stance and his anti-Zionist conspiracy theories also count against him for me. <BR/><BR/>It is true that Counterpunch is more varied than this. Alongside antisemites and fascist fellow travellers like Atzmon/Rizzo, Cabal and MacGowan, it does publish some good stuff. (In this post http://brockley.blogspot.com/2008/06/wednesday-miscellany-law-and-disorder.html I acknowledge that, and link to a couple of examples, including even an article by Cockburn which I agree with.)<BR/><BR/>I am no fan of Al Gore, so don't want to defend him. I also don't know enough about the science to really weigh in. But I think that Cockburn's position on climate change, whether adopted out of contrarianness, Gore-hate or good faith, is potentially a very dangerous one. The fact he has drawn on dodgy pseudo-experts like the Larouche-ite Zbigniew Jaworowski makes me think that good faith is the least likely explanation.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-36180346227549710542008-07-22T00:55:00.000+01:002008-07-22T00:55:00.000+01:00Connecting Alex C. with his father seems a bit unf...Connecting Alex C. with his father seems a bit unfair (and somewhat stalinist itself); judge AC (and Counterpunch) on his own merits, or dismerits. <BR/><BR/>While I would agree AC does at times seem a bit friendly to fascism (tho' of a somewhat romantic sort) and "anti-zionist", the site does feature a fairly wide selection of writers (including Nader). I find the sentimental Sally Fields-like tone of Counterpunch writers a bit offensive at times, but then read say Hitchens: CH's cold, cynical justifications for Bush and the IWE are hardly models of western progressivism. Even if some action was needed (and assuming Bushco did not, uh, lie their asses off re WMDs), HitchensSpeak often reminds one of like Michael Palin's torturer-doctor in Brazil cracking jokes as he washes the blood off his hands..... <BR/><BR/>Cockburn's criticism of Gore and AGW was not so poor--Al Gore is hardly qualified to speak on scientific matters (and he has been anti-union, and on the Occi. payroll for years) , and other writers and scientists have pointed out the problems with Gore's data, and the "man-made CO2 as culprit" theme. No, AC's no Einstein either, but he did point to some fairly impressive AGW skeptics.........Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-29968651938794767352008-06-16T17:35:00.000+01:002008-06-16T17:35:00.000+01:00Thanks S&A. More detail on that issue in the comme...Thanks S&A. More detail on that issue in the <A HREF="http://brockley.blogspot.com/2007/08/hidden-histories-of-stalinism-fascism.html#comment-c6368844877440212341" REL="nofollow">comment thread here</A>.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-17009447216968581822008-06-16T11:47:00.000+01:002008-06-16T11:47:00.000+01:00The Galloway smear against Orwell also needs expla...The Galloway smear against Orwell also needs explaining.<BR/><BR/>Orwell was contacted in 1949 by Celia Kirwan, who worked for the newly-established Information Research Department of the Foreign Office (not 'British intelligence'). The IRD was not an intelligence agency, but a propaganda one set up to counter Soviet ideology. Kirwan wanted to know who she could recruit to help IRD, and Orwell gave her a list of 37 names of Communist and pro-Soviet journalists, writers etc who he recommended should not be approached.<BR/><BR/>None of these people were blacklisted, or hounded out of public life. Kirwan just asked for some reliable anti-Stalinists who would help combat Soviet propaganda, and Orwell said 'Don't ask these people because they won't help you'. End of story.<BR/><BR/>But then as we all know, Galloway knows that if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. Particularly if your target is dead, and unable to defend himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-21245481529856622342008-06-16T10:54:00.000+01:002008-06-16T10:54:00.000+01:00Re CC on fathers and sons - fascinating point. I s...Re CC on fathers and sons - fascinating point. I should come out and say that my grandfather was a Stalinist, and believed the CP line on Spain (and therefore hated Orwell and loathed Ken Loach's film) until his dying day, although I like to think that he would have been at least embarassed to share a view with George Galloway on that... <BR/><BR/>Just/Jason - I'll correct that later today!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-32145941588562027492008-06-13T19:11:00.000+01:002008-06-13T19:11:00.000+01:00I'm wondering about this father-to-son legacy. It ...I'm wondering about this father-to-son legacy. It seems like a very conservative notion, for the son to follow his father in ideology and politics. Isn't it almost a natural impulse for children to question their parents' traditions and ideas? That is, those who are given a liberal education as in: think for yourself?<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking about Mel Gibson claiming that "my father never lied to me" in the context of Holocaust denial. It creates some very strange incoherent thinking, to have this kind of filial faith in your father's truths, and still pretend that you are you own person. To me it suggests rigidity, insufficient curiosity, conformism, and even laziness.The Contentious Centristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370528817706233156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-46795244042346328992008-06-13T14:15:00.000+01:002008-06-13T14:15:00.000+01:00Excellent post. (It's Justin Raimondo, btw, not Ja...Excellent post. (It's Justin Raimondo, btw, not Jason.)<BR/>-jeremyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-5298729247607404642008-06-13T13:03:00.000+01:002008-06-13T13:03:00.000+01:00Myself, I don't think that those who oppose interv...Myself, I don't think that those who oppose intervention in Afghanistan are necessarily evil or in bad faith. And I would certainly not say that the intervention in Afghanistan has proceeded in exactly the way I would have wanted it to. Nor would I imagine that the motives for supporting the intervention from some quarters are the same as, or even overlapping with mine. <BR/><BR/>But I think the moral case for the intervention is still absolutely correct. <BR/><BR/>At core, my position is a "third force"/"third camp" position - neither Taliban theocracy nor Western adventurism. But the sad fact is, there isn't much of an equivalent of the POUM/Durruti in Afghanistan. If RAWA are it, that's a sad truth, because, as I understand it, they do not have much popularity in Afghanistan (not to mention their Maoist politics). <BR/><BR/>In this context, the Third Camp position is morally strong, but practically not too relevant. That does not mean we should not be acting in solidarity with those forces which might present such a Third Camp - which might include RAWA - but in the meantime, the Coalition forces are the best hope Afghanistan has. <BR/><BR/>I meant to reply to your earlier comment mentioning RAWA (I think a response to when I linked to Terry's Afghanistan article), but I wanted to dig out the material I have on them, which I haven't yet. (I have been very much drawn to them, but suspicious of their Stalinist/Maoist phraseolgy, so some years back I asked some people with more knowldge then men whether I was right to be drawn to them, and got a cautiously negative response: I'll dig it out and post it some day!)bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-16415266870861610852008-06-13T11:06:00.000+01:002008-06-13T11:06:00.000+01:00Transmontanus, thanks for clarifying some of your ...Transmontanus, thanks for clarifying some of your point. However, whatever you claim RAWA's "true" criticisms might be, they do make criticisms about the history of U.S. and western interference in Afghanistan and the nature of the conduct of the U.S.-led coalition - including the common cause that it has made with some horrendous groups - that seem pretty valid to me. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, are most of the forces now occupying the country really there to protect anyone's freedom? I seem to recall a rather hasty attack after 9-11 that had less to do with defending freedom *or* pursuing the actual criminals in Al Qaeda than with finding a good reason to forcibly secure a strategic region near valuable natural resources. (I remember discussion about pipelines, etc. sometime back.)<BR/><BR/>I'm also a little concerned about what is really being accomplished over in those Pashtun tribal areas. It seems to me that both the Taliban and Al Qaeda could not use a better recruitment tool than the presence of those bullying and/or bumbling western troops crossing the border. (Conversely, I think the fundamentalists would lose their appeal more quickly were it not for the troop presence, thanks.) <BR/><BR/>Anyway, no time really for me to get into that debate further, and what would it gain me?<BR/><BR/>As you said, those who take an opposing view who are not making a deal with the devil are simply "people who have lost their minds, and people who are well-intentioned but who otherwise don't have a clue what the hell they're talking about."<BR/><BR/>Well, then, I guess that settles it! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-30074919824476772522008-06-13T05:13:00.000+01:002008-06-13T05:13:00.000+01:00Richard:No one here is guilty of committing the "a...Richard:<BR/><BR/>No one here is guilty of committing the "absurd oversimplication" or "propaganda" (?) of implying that "all those opposing troop presence in Afghanistan (whether U.S. or Canadian - "coalition," in other words) - want to form a devil's deal with the Taliban."<BR/><BR/>Some would be content to do just that, but nevermind; The devil's bargain I was referring to is the open, conscious strategy of the mainline anti-war leadership in Canada (and Britain) to make common cause with the "anti-imperialism" of extreme right Islamists.<BR/><BR/>This is not something I'm irresponsibly implying. It is merely somthing I am reporting. It is a matter of public record. It is the avowed strategy of the Canadian Peace Alliance, for instance. <BR/><BR/>However, what I would say about "all those opposing troop presence in Afghanistan" is nothing more or less than what UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon has to say about them, which is that they are making "a misjudgment of historic proportions" and are (I would say especially in RAWA's case) guilty of staking out a position "almost more dismaying than the opportunism of the Taliban itself." <BR/><BR/>RAWA long ago vanished off the radar of serious politics and has returned to the irrelevance of its Maoist roots. Read that statement of theirs that you reproduced here. Their criticism is less with foreign troops than it is with the Afghan people, who would "come out of their current puzzlement and doubts" if international forces were withdrawn. And again, magically, some three-way civil war involving the Taliban, the former Northern Alliance forces, and (again) some magical revolutionary third force would proceed to slaughter and dismember one another to the purpose of some sort of "peace."<BR/><BR/>It's crazy talk.<BR/><BR/>There is a third and fourth class of person, in my experience, who will oppose the presence of the 40-nation, UN-sanctioned ISAF front in Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>They are people who have lost their minds, and people who are well-intentioned but who otherwise don't have a clue what the hell they're talking about.Terry Glavinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888372152979226013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-9874041960397448182008-06-13T04:26:00.000+01:002008-06-13T04:26:00.000+01:00Bob, I like that quote about writing long letters....Bob, I like that quote about writing long letters... I've heard it was from either Samuel Johsnon or Mark Twain. (Pretty odd combination...but I'm pretty sure I've heard it attributed to one or both of these.)<BR/><BR/>Regarding this stuff about Afghanistan... It's also an absurd oversimplication - propaganda, really - to imply that all those opposing troop presence in Afghanistan (whether U.S. or Canadian - "coalition," in other words) - want to form a devil's deal with the Taliban. Please.<BR/><BR/>If you want a different perspective, try the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). You can't get more anti-Taliban and pro-women's liberation than this group. At the same time, they are just as strongly opposed to the western occupation and have been from the start.<BR/><BR/>See, especially, articles such as this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm<BR/><BR/>(I posted this with another blog "return address," answering another post, but comments to this post warrant a repeat here.)<BR/><BR/>Here's a quote:<BR/><BR/>"Instead of defeating Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Gulbuddini terrorists and disarming the Northern Alliance, the foreign troops are creating confusion among the people of the world. We believe that if these troops leave Afghanistan, our people will not feel any kind of vacuum but rather will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts. In such a situation, they will face the Taliban and Northern Alliance without their “national” mask, and rise to fight with these terrorist enemies. Neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan’s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-66881252160247216552008-06-12T18:42:00.000+01:002008-06-12T18:42:00.000+01:00"Is it basically a force for good or a force for i..."Is it basically a force for good or a force for ill?"<BR/><BR/>A force for ill. Full stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-49416780637566880422008-06-12T14:33:00.000+01:002008-06-12T14:33:00.000+01:00Re Jim, I was reading a Patrick Cockburn despatch ...Re Jim, I was reading a Patrick Cockburn despatch from Iraq this morning on the bus to work, and I was struck by the quality of the reportage and the dodgyness of the analysis - exactly as you say. Alexander's model of journalism - muck-raking, tittle-tattle, leaks, ad hom attacks - directly inherits his dad's <EM>The Week</EM>, the bilious self-published scandal sheet that got him into trouble with the British secret state, who believed he was getting his material from <A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040216/jacoby" REL="nofollow">Willi Münzenberg</A>. While Patrick, the far finer writer, has, despite being a <A HREF="http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,,1504460,00.html" REL="nofollow">polio survivor</A>, inherited his father's swash-buckling side, the International Brigadeer side. <BR/><BR/>Re Richard: Which American president was it said the reason he wrote long letters was he didn't have time to write short ones? In order: <BR/><BR/>Nader: I am not a fan of Gore or the Democrats, and may well have voted Nader, and understand your desire to make the alternative felt. But if I had voted Nader in a swing state (which NY is not!), I would have felt pretty sick to wake up and realised I had helped Bush win. Of course, the Republican vote-rigging in Florida was crucial, but the undeniable fact is that the number of votes Nader received in Florida exceeded the number of votes by which Bush defeated Gore in Florida by some 89,000.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave Israel and Zionism aside for the moment. I think what I said about CounterPunch is valid for any sensible anti-Zionist too, as testified to by the attacks on it from Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance, who are quite a way to the anti-Zionist side of the spectrum from me. <BR/><BR/>CounterPunch as a mixed bag: Of course this is true. There is plenty of good stuff in CounterPunch, and even some of the stuff written by people like Cockburn who I hate can be good. <BR/><BR/>It is true that Cockburn, Mickey Z and other CounterPunchers have taken a strong line against the Truth Cult. (Although they did print <A HREF="http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html" REL="nofollow">Christopher Ketcham's "What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?"</A>, which Truth Culters <A HREF="http://democratsinairplanes.blogspot.com/2007/02/counterpunch-may-be-edging-away-from.html" REL="nofollow">rate</A>.) And it is true that Jeffrey St Clair is a much more palatable character than Alexander Cockburn. <BR/><BR/>But my question is, what is CounterPunch’s underlying ideology? Is it basically a force for good or a force for ill? And my conclusion is that its underlying ideology, its core, is an unpleasant neo-Stalinist politics.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-597430471767452102008-06-12T01:23:00.000+01:002008-06-12T01:23:00.000+01:00Hi. Since our discussion over at one of my blogs ...Hi. Since our discussion over at one of my blogs influenced this discussion, I feel some obligation to respond. But I don't really want to invest too much time in this particular matter, though this is an interesting article.<BR/><BR/>A few points:<BR/><BR/>I support Ralph Nader too in opposition to Republicans and Democrats. Ralph Nader didn't cause Bush's election - or, rather, selection (by the Supreme Court) and the Democrats' insistence that Nader was responsible has been a way of deflecting responsibility for their own incompetence in the electoral arena (which was the result of various things that I won't get into here). Of course, Gore won the popular vote, and Bush's "election" was completely undemocratic anyway. But I think another Democratic candidate, waging another campaign, would have won by a greater margin that year, preventing the situation that happened, whether or not Nader or anyone else was in the running. Not that I would have supported the Democrats... I already was disgusted with their support of neoliberal policies, their pushing of NAFTA, their "ending welfare as we know it," their war-mongering around the globe. All those tendencies were intensified during Bush's term, but in many ways, it was just an intensification in the same direction, not a sharp turn in direction.<BR/><BR/>I didn't vote in 2000, because I had just a couple of hours left in the day after work, and I needed to get to a meeting of a group that was organizing for one of the "anti-globalization" protests. I thought at the time that my participation in that movement was a much more significant way to be politically active than pulling a lever at the polls. And I still think it was. (And by the way, I live in New York City, so even if I were really focused on preventing Bush from getting elected, it wouldn't have made a difference whether or not I voted here, Bush wasn't going to get the vote here.) <BR/><BR/>No major change is going to happen in the U.S. through voting for president at the polls, especially given the way that elections are completely controlled by corporate money, completely ruled by capital. The changes have to come from other kinds of political action and movements. But it would help to give power to a dissenting candidate at the polls, and to counter the incredibly undemocratic nature of presidential elections. As in past elections, there is no major-party candidate now who opposes neoliberalism, who would even stand up for a real national/single-payer healthcare plan (something that I believe you people in Britain have had for a while, but which would be a wonderful change for us in the U.S.), who would even stand up for mildly liberal reforms. I will support Ralph Nader (as I did in 1996 and 2004) in order to give some voice to an alterntaive point of view during the election (though it's not a form of dissent that nearly goes far enough in many ways as far as I'm concerned).<BR/><BR/>Regarding Israel... No, Israel has not committed a holocaust, but the government certainly has committed atorcities, from what I can tell, and the situation has often looked a lot like apartheid to me. Moreover, I have some pretty strong disagreements with the existence of Zionism. I'm not religious, and if I did adopt religion, it would probably be more in the area of eastern religion, buddhism or something like that. But as someone who is considered a Jew because of ethnic heritage, I don't want to be associated with the State of Israel or its atrocities. (And sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing this much further. I've already had big arguments with people on the other side, who would claim that incredibly reactionary groups were somehow progressive and revolutionary because they were "anti-imperialist" and opposed Israel. These arguments often degenerate into people blindly assuming one side or another without any reasonable analysis.)<BR/><BR/>Regarding Cockburn and his father... Well, I'm really not very interested the evils of Alexander Cockburn or his father. (Though your points about the New Left in general are more interesting...) I've said CounterPunch is a mixed bag. I've found some of their economic critiques to be very useful, and some of their articles are interesting. I also fully appreciated the strong stand that they took against 9-11 conspiracy theories, which is real poison for the left in the U.S. (not that there is much of a left left in the U.S. these days, but we don't need to have that kind of crap around to make it worse - and as you know, if you're worried about anti-semitism, 9-11 conspiracy theories have been full of that, and Counterpunch spoke out against it).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, CouterPunch is co-edited by Jeffrey St. Clair, whom I probably wouldn't agree with on all points either (especially not historical points), but who is a different person with different influences. And many other people are involved in this.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not out to spend too much time defending CounterPunch. If you want to spend a whole lot of time talking about how bad you think it is because of Cockburn and Cockburn's father, go ahead, that's your prerogative. (I hope that doesn't sound dismissive, it's just that I'm under a lot of pressure timewise (I have to try to find a job for one thing - somewhere, sometime) and I have to be a bit picky about how I spend my time, because the temptation to get lost in these blog debates is just too great, and it has screwed me up in the past some. And if you're tempted to say, well, then why did I write such a lengthy comment, the answer is that I really can't take the time to edit it. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-69738638869487643812008-06-11T23:42:00.000+01:002008-06-11T23:42:00.000+01:00Great stuff! it's time that the Stalinist-far righ...Great stuff! it's time that the Stalinist-far right "post-left" alliance was exposed. Old man Cockburn was, and his sons remain, leading figures in this Axis. Alexander's "CounterPunch" is now well-known for drifting over the line of divide between legitimate criticism of Zionism, and outright anti-semitism.<BR/>Brother Patrick's "Independent" coverage of Iraq (like fellow Indie correspondent Robert Fisk and, until he completely lost it, John Pilger) is well-informed but politically so biased against the West that he ends up effectively supporting clerical fascism and nihilism in Iraq on a "My Enemy's Enemy Is My Friend" basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-10355838297531684992008-06-11T22:39:00.000+01:002008-06-11T22:39:00.000+01:00"Alexander has seen fit to recycle his dad’s lies...."Alexander has seen fit to recycle his dad’s lies."<BR/><BR/>Back in the 1990s, when I was a young anarcho-lefty, Alexander (along with a couple of academics) was on a local radio program concerning Orwell. He repeated his father's lies verbatim but since the program allowed calls from the public I was able to call him out on his b.s. He was not pleased, to say the least, and came across as an uninformed buffoon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com