1

GREENWALD DISPATCHES: The US Anti-War Left is Dead. The Squad’s $40b War Vote Just Killed It.

Be sure to circulate this article among friends, workmates and kin.

EXPOSING CAPITALISM'S MULTITUDE OF VICES AND INCURABLE PROBLEMS


Glenn Greenwald

The US Anti-War Left is Dead. The Squad's $40b War Vote Just Killed It.



First posted: 12 May 2022
Glenn discusses the recent origins of AOC's political career, and how much she has already distanced herself from her initial anti-establishment positions. The charitable interpretation is that AOC could not resist the forces of corruption that define the US duopoly, but that would require us to see at least some attempt on her part to oppose such forces, instead of simply caving in almost at once. Meantime, the fake left posturing and co-optation rhetoric continue, of course. And the same goes for the rest of the "Squad" and the notorious Bernie Sanders.



 


Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

NOTE: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读



Rand Paul Trashes “Disinformation” Chief To His Face

Be sure to circulate this article among friends, workmates and kin.

EXPOSING CAPITALISM'S MULTITUDE OF VICES AND INCURABLE PROBLEMS


Jimmy Dore Show

Rand Paul Trashes “Disinformation” Chief To His Face



May 10, 2022
It's symptomatic of the degeneration of the so-called left in the US that it is libertarians like Rand Paul who are getting the credit for opposing the US government blatant effort to completely control political speech.



 


Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

NOTE: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读



Those who still follow Bernie Sanders are suckers

Our articles depend on you for their effectiveness. Share with kin, coworkers and friends.


editors log bluePATRICE GREANVILLE


IMPERIALISM IS ONLY THE DEGENERATE, MONOPOLY PHASE OF CAPITALISM



We have said it many times, that Bernie Sanders has always been nothing but a shameless sheepdog to corral the progressive instinct still beating in some people's hearts, and bury it deep in the treacherous soil of the Democrat party, whose mission it is to be the grave for all such movements.


As demonstrated on many occasions, Sanders is a charlatan and a coward, easily beaten back by even the most pathetic establishment blowhards. He is of course a liberal, the "socialist" label a case of gross misapropriation. Some say that Sanders is to be credited for "normalising" the word "socialist" in a society long poisoned with vicious anti-communism. But this can be read in a different way. Without denying Sanders' role in this process, long overdue, it is also true that the system is showing such level of dysfunction and internal turmoil, that it is probable that some cagey mind managers thought it beneficial to co-opt a left challenge invested in socialism with someone who could be trusted to keep such notions safely within capitalist margins. For all its undeniable rottenness, the capitalist liberal state is after all still quite capable of effective mass manipulation. It was therefore logical that a Democrat long posturing as "an independent" would get the job.


As professional liberals, the Democrats and their ilk specialise in substituting empty symbols for substance, identity politics for class struggle, it's a hugely successful switcheroo worthy of the most cynical mountebank. That's why after generations of supposedly anti-racist struggles, most blacks are still mired in horrendous poverty; why most working women still don't have a decent income or basic protections; why the union movement continues to languish and degenerate, and why the National Security State continues its assault on the Constitution, using ever expanding powers of surveillance and now censorship, soon probably to be enforced by outright criminalization of the First Amendment. Meanwhile the rapaciousness and wars never stop. And the impoverishment of most Americans outside the privileged upper 10% not only continues, too, but accelerates.


Against this backdrop, like a loyal boy scout, it was inevitable that Sanders would join the mawkish, sanctimonious Ukraine crusade, a disinformation shitstorm without precedent in modern history, unleashed by the Deep State on the scandalously brainwashed publics of the West, by circulating his own piece of dishonest garbage.


Dishonest because, like all members of the morally repugnant Western establishment, "Bernie" does not dare mention what the historical context really is behind the current tragedy in Ukraine. Minor details like who made this crisis inevitable, or how much milder threats on America's borders would have resulted decades ago in probably a horrific military retaliation by the Pentagon are conveniently left out. For his chief purpose is to obfuscate what this enormously important historical juncture is all about: (1) the assault by the united, hypocritical West on Russia to effect regime change in Moscow, part of the US empire's war on Russia, China, Iran and other sovereign emerging powers;  (2) Russia's existential struggle requiring the neutralisation and denazification of Ukraine; and (3) the concurrent birth of a new peaceful, multilaterist order likely to replace the rapacious, unfixable, and incurably war-thirsty US hegemon.


"We are in the midst of a global struggle with nothing less than the future of the planet at stake..."


[Dear Sucker],

There must be no ambiguity in acknowledging that what the whole world is seeing from Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is nothing less than a blatant violation of international law and human decency.

This war, in which a large powerful nation invades a smaller neighbor, has already killed thousands of innocent people, including many children. A large number of cities throughout the country are being leveled by long-range Russian missiles while others are under siege as people are running low on food, water and much-needed medical supplies. In the first week of the war alone, more than a million refugees crossed borders into neighboring countries. Some estimates now put the number of refugees at more than 3 million while many more have been displaced from their homes within Ukraine.

This has been a humanitarian disaster for the people of Ukraine, but it is much more than that. The Russian invasion threatens global energy and food supplies, is contributing to greater economic instability and the rising prices we see everywhere. And oh, by the way, this is all happening at a time when the world is already struggling with a global pandemic that has killed millions and the devastating impacts of climate change which threaten the very existence of the planet.

That is the bad news. And it cannot be sugar-coated. It is very bad.

But, in the midst of all this horror, there is some reason for optimism.

All across the world, people are waking up to the fact that there is a global struggle taking place between autocracy and democracy, between oligarchy and an economy that works for all, between authoritarianism and the right of people to freely express their views. There is also the beginnings of a new progressive global order that recognizes every person on this planet shares a common humanity and that all of us, no matter where we live or the language we speak, want our children to grow up healthy, have a good education, and live in peace.

We not only see this vision from people in the allied countries who are defending Ukraine and are speaking out against Putin's war, but from people within Russia as well.

It is extraordinary that in the autocracy that is Russia today, many thousands of incredibly courageous people have been out on the streets demanding an end to the war and speaking out against Vladimir Putin, knowing that it’s illegal to do so and that they will likely be arrested and punished. Putin recently referred to them as "traitors," a frightening term coming from a dictator.

Here in America, rising gas prices are waking people up to something we have long known, and that is that moving quickly to renewable energy is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of national security.

Yes. Our reliance on fossil fuels will continue to mean more drought, more crop failures, scarcer drinking water, rising seas, extreme weather events, climate refugees, and more disease. In fact, climate change threatens the very wellbeing of the entire planet. But equally important, we must break our dependence on fossil fuel not only to save the planet, but to end the hold that billionaire dictators like Putin and the autocrats in the Middle East have over the entire global economy. This is a profound national security issue.

Sisters and brothers, we have long said that we are in the midst of a global struggle with nothing less than the future of the planet at stake.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made that more clear than ever.

It is a global struggle between those who believe in democracy and the rule of law versus those who believe government exists to rob the people they purport to serve in order to make the billionaire rulers even richer.

It is a struggle between those who believe information should be open and accessible to all versus those who believe the flow of information should be controlled by the government and a small number of oligarchs.

It is a struggle between those who believe we should choose peace and international cooperation versus those who support xenophobia and massive amounts of military spending.

It is a struggle between a progressive movement that mobilizes behind a shared vision of prosperity, security and dignity for all people, against one that defends massive global income and wealth inequality.

And, in the midst of these difficult times, our job going forward is to build upon this global awakening and do everything we can to oppose all of the forces, whether unaccountable government power or unaccountable corporate power, who try to divide us up and set us against each other in order to advance their own power and financial gain.

We know that those forces have long worked together across borders.

We must do the same.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

RECOMMENDED ARTICLE:  Open Letter to Sandernistas / Bruce Lerro

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of  The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience. 


All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License



Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


 Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 




Caleb Maupin discusses the nefarious effects of BreadTube (the fake left online) as its influence continues to degrade and confuse the political debate

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


Caleb Maupin


EDITED BY PATRICE GREANVILLE
Streams of clarity, irony, humor and wisdom seen & overheard on the Net
Dispatch dateline: Jan 19, 2022


Why challenge BreadTube social-imperialists? Jackson Hinkle talks with Caleb; plus two chats with Sabby Sabs


WHAT IS BREADTUBE? CALEB MAUPIN JOINS SABBY SABS


Streamed live on Jan 7, 2022


THE FAKE LEFT IS FIRST AND ABOVE ALL SOCIAL IMPERIALIST.
As a political term, social imperialism is the political ideology of people, parties, or nations that are, according to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, "socialist in words, imperialist in deeds". In academic use, it refers to governments that engage in imperialism meant to preserve the domestic social peace.

Caleb chats with Sabby Sabs of Fred Hampton Leftists

Streamed live on Sep 21, 2021


[su_shadow][su_panel color="#1d1919" border="4px solid #24476d" padding="10" shadow="2px 0px 1px #eeeeee" radius="7" target="blank"] Caleb Maupin has worked as a journalist and political analyst for the last five years. He has reported from across the United States, as well as from Iran, the Gulf of Aden and Venezuela. He has been a featured speaker at many Universities, and at international conferences held in Tehran, Quito, and Brasilia. His writings have been translated and published in many languages including Farsi, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Spanish, and Portuguese. He is originally from Ohio. As a reporter with RT.com, Maupin's focus has been the United States. He has had many intense interactions with US State Department spokespeople including John Kirby, Mark Toner, and Heather Nauert confronting them about diverse issues like Syria, Russia, and the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons. Maupin was the primary US correspondent for RT’s international broadcasts during the 2016 Presidential elections. He reported from both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, and also directly from the riots in Oakland, California, during the aftermath of the vote.  [/su_panel][/su_shadow]

 

Rev. 11.11.20

All captions & pull quotes by the editors, not the authors (unless stated).

black-horizontal

News

^0America's Goal...

Make every homeless tranny

gender comfortable!





Why Does the Pseudo-Left Hate Grover Furr?

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.




OPEDS
Written By SSNA Admin

Grover Furr is an American professor and author. He has taught at Montclair State University in New Jersey for over four decades, and has written essays, articles and books on Soviet history in both Russian and English. Though his body of work covers a wide variety of topics, his most famous writings study the period of Soviet history under Joseph Stalin, particularly regarding controversies around the Moscow Trials, the Katyn “massacre,” the events in Poland in 1939, the murder of Sergei Kirov, the Ukrainian famine and Khrushchev’s “secret speech.” Furr’s research on the history of communism, Soviet history and the historical falsifications told against socialism is some of the most remarkable, ground-breaking and enlightening in the world. He uses a very precise and admirable document-based approach to research that is exceedingly valuable and hard to find elsewhere.

This approach, unsurprisingly, has won him more than a fair share of enemies and critics, not only on the right but the left as well. Those on the left who attack Grover Furr are the most peculiar of his critics. Professor Furr is someone that sets about examining historical allegations used to attack socialism, and in his published books and articles finds and publishes objective documentary and archival proof that it is not true, or at least deceptive. In other words, he spends a great deal of time and effort countering bourgeois propaganda about Marxism-Leninism. What has been their response? To attack him. One would think someone who speaks Russian, has translated Russian documents and has access to the archives would be of interest to those looking to learn about the history of socialism. One would further think, that a sincere person who considers themselves a socialist or a Marxist would thank Grover Furr for finding proof that a large portion of what we are told about Stalin and the U.S.S.R. are lies.

We live in an age where most Marxist or progressive academics who dare to challenge the status quo are fired, sidelined, driven out of academia or simply deemed irrelevant. Only a fool would pretend that academic repression isn’t a reality. Yet, when it comes to the brave, bold and challenging works Furr has published, critics universally dismiss them without reviewing the evidence he presents. In discussions, I have never heard them say, “No Professor Furr, I disagree with your thesis statement, and wish to make a counter-thesis. Here are my facts, arguments and sources backing it up.” Instead, what I hear over and over is his work dismissed as “absurd,” “insane,” or Furr himself labeled as a “crackpot” or “Stalinist.” There is almost always an attempt to link his methods of research to anti-Semites and fascists, or even outright call him a “Holocaust denier,” implicitly comparing Soviet history with Nazi Germany.

Why do his critics almost universally behave in this manner? The answer is simply: because they can’t refute anything he says.

For all Furr’s research has contributed to our understanding of Soviet history and to refuting the lies told about life in socialist countries, his critics and opponents have not offered any meaningful refutation of his works or even engaged with the evidence contained therein. When pressed to sum up his theses, the evidence he presents to support them, and then to offer counter-evidence and refutations of their own, silence fills the space. Very few, if any of his critics are capable of defining what specific points of his works they disagree with or can prove false. Often they assert things that are already addressed in the article in question. The opponents of Furr’s research, whatever their ideological differences may be, all share one common thread that over time is rendered impossible to miss. For all their ranting and raving, not a single one directly challenges him on the sources or attempts to refute his argument. There is a concrete reason for this – opposition to Furr’s research comes from knee-jerk anti-communism.

The pseudo-left’s endless venom towards Furr’s work is entirely (no, not partially, or even mostly, but from what I have seen, entirely) devoid of counter-criticism, counter-evidence, contrasting research or engagement in any way, shape or form with Furr’s work. At the present time, there are no scholarly refutations of Grover Furr’s work. Hostile reviews, on the other hand, are plentiful. Nor is there any lack of critics who chant “give us more evidence,” demanding a larger amount of evidence to their satisfaction – which of course, is a level of evidence that will never exist, no matter how much of it there is. Another consistent pattern with his critics is that they assume that an author must be able to prove the meaning of their research to the satisfaction of a hostile or skeptical critic in order to be considered valid. If the author fails to accomplish this task, it proves that he or she doesn’t understand what it means, and furthermore their failure to do so is definitive proof that the entirety of the research is consequently meaningless.

The debate on Grover Furr is always about form – the person, his writing style, his alleged motives, his allege dishonesty or lack of qualifications, and never about content – the evidence presented, what it shows, and whether it’s true or not. The infantile pseudo-left responds to science with provocation, facts with hostility, reason with insults, ideological questions with personal attacks, and the deep questions posed by Furr’s work with shallow criticisms. This is not to say that anyone who has criticisms of Furr’s work is automatically opposed to socialism. Far from it – criticism is an essential part of being a Marxist-Leninist. But by and large the criticisms of Grover Furr are not made from a principled standpoint.

“No one takes Grover Furr seriously” is the refrain. Yet, John Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Lars Lih and many others have praised Furr’s work while disagreeing with his politics. One does not have to completely share Furr’s worldview to find a great deal of value in his essays, articles and books. In fact, any serious researcher, Marxist or not, can learn a great deal from the evidence he gathers to back up his viewpoints, evidence that is almost never studiously read or studied by those who violently denounce it. If the idea that Furr is not a serious academic is a legitimate position to take, then there should be criticisms of his scholarship. Perhaps not surprisingly, I haven’t heard a single argument as to why Grover Furr is an unacceptable source of information other than his opinions aren’t popular. If his arguments themselves cannot be addressed, then his critics have no right to reject the citing of his work.

Much is made of Furr’s “academic credentials,” or alleged lack thereof, to write about the subjects he chooses. He is an English professor they say, and therefore cannot be considered an authority on history. These noble knights dedicated to the defense of “credible” capitalist academia you see, must speak out against Furr. Yet, these same people have no problem with the works of Noam Chomsky, a linguist who writes an endless parade of books on a wide variety of subjects outside of his field, such as criticizing U.S. foreign policy, economy, science, immigration and the Cold War. Anyone who is familiar with Chomsky’s work knows his views are fairly traditional anarchism combined with Enlightenment-era classical liberalism. They are not friendly to socialism, and certainly no threat to anyone in the ruling class. Speaking out against imperialism in of itself is not a particularly radical act, especially when you’re not criticizing it from a Marxist perspective. Many far-rightists and libertarians speak out against U.S. foreign policy as well. Why the double standard? What is the difference between Furr and Chomsky? Quite simple, really. Chomsky is the poster boy of left anti-communism, of a “safe” and defanged leftism deprived of anything not acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, Furr’s research attempts to refute popular anti-communist propaganda instead of accepting it. The pseudo-left would rather back the petty-bourgeois cause than the proletarian one, because they are “radicals” stuck in that method of thinking.

It is is absolutely inarguable that the modern view of the history of socialism has been shaped by those who despise it, and yet phony leftists have no trouble upholding the most vile smears against Soviet, Eastern European and Chinese history. In an atmosphere where the highly dubious works of Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes are upheld as a dogma and treated as material to be seriously engaged with or even refuted, Furr’s work is singled out by both reactionaries and the pseudo-left for outright dismissal and slander.

When denial is not enough, general charges are invented, such as the allegation his presentations of history are “conspiracy theories.” This has also been used to describe the works of other Marxist-Leninist scholars, such as William Bland. I stress again that until there are refutations, one cannot accept these charges. After all, with all the history of capitalist plots we’ve learned, can one seriously accept this level of argumentation? Are the facts true, or not? Blanket cries of “Stalinist” directed against Furr mean nothing. If critics have counter-evidence, then let them step forward and present it. This should not be an unreasonable demand for a Marxist – or for anyone, really.

When Furr speaks of opposition conspiracies within the Soviet Union, or of holes and outright falsifications in the official story of Katyn, these are treated with the utmost skepticism. The idea that the defendants of the Moscow Trials may have actually been involved in terrorist conspiracies to overthrow the Soviet government and assassinate officials is seen as nonsense. Yet, when we are presented with stories of a heinous conspiracy involving J.V. Stalin and a substantial number of other high officials to themselves assassinate Zinoviev, Bukharin and a number of others through judicial means, then this “conspiracy theory” is adopted as the default correct position. It follows that it is easier to go along with the dominant narrative – that is, that of the bourgeoisie – regarding the history of socialism than it is to objectively challenge these ideas.

With the fake left, the formula could not be more simple: U.S. Cold War propaganda is upheld, pro-communist scholarly research is not. Every charge against the socialist countries is true; every defense of socialism is akin to Holocaust denial. Those who would agree, at least in words, that the history of the Soviet Union is falsified by capitalist scholars and reactionaries, and that socialist leaders are routinely subjected to outright slander are declared “insane,” their research or conclusions “absurd,” and derided as “crackpots” or “Stalinists.” The critics do not review the evidence or engage with the thesis; they merely dismiss it. They do not present counter-evidence; they merely assert it. Furr’s fake “left” opponents claim that Furr is “not credible scholarship” only because they don’t agree with it. Furr is only a “crackpot” because they don’t like what he has to say. In their view, scholarly research that counters the bourgeois propaganda narrative of history should be cast aside, silenced, devalued, delegitimized, hidden from the public view and ultimately, destroyed.

It seems to me the “left” needs to look in a mirror and stare itself straight in the eye, and ask: what have we come to, if we cannot refute these works? What exactly does it say, when the entire pseudo-left cannot refute someone who is supposedly “a crackpot with no academic credentials?” What does it say, when they cannot even define the actual content of his work when asked, yet they have already declared it false on the whole? What does it say, when they have no evidence to counter Furr’s claims, but rely on attacking Grover Furr the person?

Any allegations that his works are “below criticism” are disingenuous. If they are worthy of such hostility, then they are worthy of honest criticism. If only all of us checked their facts and cited their sources for all to see like Furr does, rather than rest on our own preconceived notions and prejudices, perhaps the American left wouldn’t be in such a precarious position these days.

The pseudo-left’s hatred has nothing to do with honesty. This is because of anti-communism, not political disagreement, not ideological difference, not a problem with Furr’s research or his conclusions, not an issue with his methods, or legitimate criticism of his evidence. It is a liberal and reactionary view that anything anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin must be true, while anything that challenges that view must be attacked, smeared, demonized, ridiculed and silenced. When evidence is not engaged with or dismissed, and the person themselves is slandered, it is not principled disagreement, it is not ideological difference – it is hate and prejudice.

The question stands: why does the pseudo left hate Grover Furr? The answer becomes plain: they hate Grover Furr precisely because his works challenge the hegemony of the Trotsky-Khrushchev-Gorbachev-Cold War anti-communist anti-Stalin paradigm, the dominant paradigm of the bourgeoisie. In other words, they hate Grover Furr because he is a good communist in an age filled with fake ones. They hate Grover Furr because he is an honest researcher in an age filled to the brim with propaganda. They hate Grover Furr because he has evidence for the conclusions he draws and presents it openly, rather than relying on emotionalism. They hate Grover Furr because he challenges the bourgeois anti-communist understanding of Soviet history. These days pseudo-leftists are not just dishonest or liberal; they are avowed anti-communists.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

If you find the above useful, pass it on! Become an "influence multiplier"!
The battle against the Big Lie killing the world will not be won by you just reading this article. It will be won when you pass it on to at least 2 other people, requesting they do the same.


Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It's super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin. Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised.

 




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
 

black-horizontal