Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 27, 2011

What do Alexander Cockburn and the Norwegian mass murderer have in common?

Filed under: conservatism,Fascism,media — louisproyect @ 6:06 pm

The short answer to that is an affinity for the writings of paleoconservative William S. Lind. If you do a search on “by William S. Lind” on the Counterpunch website, you will come up with 16,500 hits. It should be understood that many of these hits refer to the same article, but clearly we are dealing with someone who was at one point as much of a presence there as fellow paleoconservative Counterpuncher Paul Craig Roberts is today.

Last October Alexander Cockburn defended this orientation to the right in an article that referred to me as an “old Trotskyist lag” in light of my unaccountable inability to appreciate the Tea Party:

Contrary to a thousand contemptuous diatribes by the left, the Tea Party is a genuine political movement, channeling the fury and frustration of a huge slab of white Americans running small businesses – what used to be called the petit-bourgeoisie…

Who says these days that in the last analysis, the only way to change the status quo and challenge the Money Power of Wall St is to overthrow the government by force? That isn’t some old Trotskyist lag like Louis Proyect, dozing on the dungheap of history like Odysseus’ lice-ridden old hound Argos, woofing with alarm as the shadow of a new idea darkens the threshold.

Who really, genuinely wants to abolish the Fed, to whose destruction the left pledges ever more tepid support. Sixty per cent of Tea Party members would like to send Ben Bernanke off to the penitentiary, the same way I used to hear the late great Wright Patman vow to do to Fed chairman Arthur Burns, back in the mid-70s. Who recently called the General Electric Company “an opportunistic parasite feeding on the expansion of government?” Who said recently, “There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington.” That was Barack Obama, though being Obama he added, “but their anger is misdirected.”

As has been revealed not long after it made its appearance on the worldwide web, Anders Behring Breivik’s 1500 page manifesto is pretty much a copy and paste job from other authors, including the Unabomber whose references to the hated “leftists” was replaced with “cultural Marxists”.

Breivik also borrowed liberally from William S. Lind. I first learned about Breivik plagiarizing from Lind in an email to the PEN-L mailing list by Tom Walker who blogs at Ecological Headstand where he wrote:

UPDATE: Plagiarism alert Breivik’s text on “Political Correctness” appears to be lifted almost entirely from a screed called “Political Correctness: a Short History of an Ideology,” by William Lind, “Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.”

I was so struck by Breivik’s rant on “political correctness” that I posted it on my blog the day before yesterday. When I subsequently learned that the words were Lind’s and that he was a frequent contributor to Counterpunch, I decided to do some poking around there.

To Counterpunch’s credit, nearly all the articles by Lind are strictly anti-war affairs of the sort that might have been written by Justin Raimando. It is not as if there were anything particularly wrong with them, only that they were unexceptional and mostly of interest perhaps because they were written by a paleoconservative.

But there’s one that’s more than a bit troubling. It appeared on July 12, 2007 and is titled “Old Bottles for New Wine: Not Fourth Generation Warfare“. Lind, who is an expert on Fourth Generation Warfare, warned Counterpunch readers:

On Friday, July 13, a Boyd Conference at the Quantico Marine Corps Base will devote a day to the subject of Fourth Generation war. As a panelist for one session of the conference, I have been asked to answer the question, “As one of the original authors and principal proponent of the 4GW concept, how well is it understood and acted upon by the West? By our adversaries?”

I will leave the second part of this question until Friday. As to how well the West grasps the concept of 4GW, the news, sadly, is bad on every level.

At the level of national governments, Western states not only do not grasp 4GW, they avert their eyes from it in horror, pretending it is not happening. In part they do so because they are the state, and the state does not want to admit that its own legitimacy has come into question. As Martin van Creveld said to me a decade or more ago, “Everyone can see it except the people in the capital cities.”

In larger part, they ignore the reality of 4GW because it contradicts their ideology, commonly known as “multi-culturalism” but actually the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. That ideology says that all the world’s cultures are wonderful, happy, peaceful cultures except Western culture, which is oppressive and evil and must be destroyed. In fact, Western culture is one of only two cultures in human history that has succeeded over millennia (the other is Chinese). 4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.

To start with, why is it the worry of Counterpunch’s editors or its readers whether 4GW is “understood or acted upon by the West”? As it turns out, Lind co-authored a book with two-time presidential candidate Gary Hart titled “America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform.” Look, I don’t quite know how to put this, but I don’t want America to win. There, I said it.

The wiki on 4GW states:

The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Classical examples, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus or the assassination of Julius Caesar by members of the Roman senate, predate the modern concept of warfare and are examples of this type of conflict.

Not being up to speed on Julius Caesar, I am not sure what the Marxist position would be on this but I am damned sure that I would have been for the Spartacus-led slave revolts. And the last thing I would have been interested in is advising the military on how to defeat 21st century versions of such revolts.

But the thing that really sticks out is this:

4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.

Was Alexander drunk when he read this article by Lind and gave it the green light? How in god’s name does one of America’s most well-known radical journalists fall asleep at the wheel and let such racist crap pollute a website that he has many reasons to be proud of.

Perhaps he published it as an example of the kind of sickness that pervades a certain sector of the American right. If that was the case, I would only ask that he include a brief introductory note the next time he favors us with such an item—something along the lines of this:

Dear Counterpunch readers

This article from regular contributor William S. Lind is not the sort that we usually include from him. It is not worthy of the kind of praise that his antiwar articles merit. We include it because it gives you an idea of the kind of nativism that affects a wing of the American conservative movement that could ultimately lead some of its furthest reaches—either here or abroad—to take violent action against its perceived enemies.

Alexander Cockburn

35 Comments »

  1. Thanks. That’s no surprise to us her on Cockburn’s home turf. His local buddy Bruce Anderson of the Anderson Valley Advertiser’s [where Cockburn’s
    stuff is published regularly alongside that of the likes of Stephen Schwartz] shtick is to attack local liberals and progressives with the same bullying attitude and much of the same rhetoric as right wing demagogues do, only gussied up with “left wing” rhetoric designed to cover for the right while belittling and seeking to demoralize the progressive movement. It almost seems like he and his milieu are wannabe Mussolinis waiting for their opportunity when the political situation will be ripe for their more sophisticated routine. That was exactly how Mussolini, a former self styled ultra left, emerged as an expert for the ruling class in combatting the Left.

    Comment by Tom Cod — July 27, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

  2. I don’t think that Alexander Cockburn would ever evolve in the direction of a Mussolini. He is a radical, but one who needs a Jiminy Cricket like me to keep him honest.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 27, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

  3. Thanks for posting, Lou. Wow! It gets even more twisted. I haven’t yet received a reply from Cockburn and St. Clair to my email last night asking about the Lind relationship. But Lind actually posted the Frankfurt School libel on CounterPunch! Bizarre.

    Comment by originalsandwichman — July 27, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

  4. Having had my own encounters with Bruce Anderson and Cockburn, I’d agree with Tom. But they are not Mussolinis in the making, they are red-neck would-be radicals. Essentially, they like the shock-and-awe approach to publishing (or is it chock and fuck?). It sells. That said, I’m with Tom here: These two charlatans would welcome and vote for a right-wing savior in a hurry — so long as it sells. They are not radicals, Lou. They are merely unprincipled opportunists. (I do not subscribe to, or read the AVA any more.)

    Comment by Gilles d'Aymery — July 27, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

  5. I’m copying myself here form another posting, but it fits in:

    Thus we should say: David Irving was sentenced for denial of Jewish superiority. His doom seals the reign of (albeit limited) freedom that began with the fall of Bastille. European history went full circle: from rejecting the rule of Church and embracing free thought, to the new Jewish mind-control on a world scale. Not only is Western Christian civilisation dead, but even its successor, secular European civilisation, has met its demise only a few days after its proud and last celebration by the Danish scribes. It was short-lived: about two hundred years from beginning to the end, the Europeans may once have had the illusion that they can live without an ideological supremacy. Now this illusion is over; and the Jews came in the stead of the old and tired See of St Peter to rule over the minds and souls of Europeans.

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/ForWhom.htm

    I think it speaks volumes of Assange and Cockburn to continue to work with him

    Cockburn is publishing some of the sleaziest authors imaginable, stopping just very short nazis. Lind actually held a talk at a holocaust denier conference, if splc is to believed

    Comment by PfromGermany — July 27, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

  6. Cockburn has macho fantasies about white working class and petit bourgeois reactionary populism. In the late 1990s he was infatuated with the militia movement, imputing to it a radical impulse that simply did not exist. And yet, the people he seeks to ingratiate himself with would be quick to call him a jew-banker and commie. White rural American teabagger/militia culture isn’t sophisticated enough to tell the difference between Soros or Cockburn or Proyect. Do a web search for pigford claim and see how Obama, Carol Mosely Braun (who got pulverized by Emmanuel in Chicago Mayor race) and the NAACP are in a secret conspiracy to destroy America over a federal discrimination law suit against the department of agriculture. And the color codes on the back of highway signs are instructions for the UN/Chinese/Muslims when they invade Amurica. Cockburn is so disconnected from actual white rural working class and small business owning America he can’t tell that for every 1 militia teabagger in this group there is another apolitical person who viscerally understands that teabagger and militia types are racist and reactionary shites. The group Cockburn identifies as proto revolutionary have an average age of about 62. The currently apolitical rural white workers are much younger. They know something is deeply wrong with the U.S., and they know the teabaggers are not the answer. What this group needs is a new labor movement and left-wing political party to give them a vocabulary so they can understand and act in their own interests.

    Comment by SN — July 27, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

  7. This attack on Cockburn is misguided. The Norwegian bourgeois/conservative/fascist terrorist is a neoconservative Zionist. William S. Lind is an antiwar paleoconservative. The latter group doesn’t write about the importance of supporting Israel and hating Muslims, two of Anders Behring Breivik’s main concerns.

    Comment by Norwegian Guy — July 27, 2011 @ 9:36 pm

  8. lol. he is pro-israel only because he believes israel to be a tool against Islam. calling him a zionist gives a totally wrong impression of his priorities

    he has copied a whole text by Lind into his manifesto. how can you deny Lind’s influence on Breivik?

    Comment by PfromGermany — July 27, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

  9. I think “Norwegian Guy” perfectly represents the “my enemies’ enemies are my friends” mentality. Lind is antiwar – so he can’t be a disgusting antisemite who develops anticommunist conspiracy theories

    Comment by PfromGermany — July 27, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

  10. Cockburn was and is appalled at the federal mass executions at Ruby Ridge and Waco. He’s also a big fan of jury nullification–i.e., juries pronouncing on matters of law, and not just applying law as instructed by experts. Both of these positions are worthy of respect. And it’s stupid to see him as a Mussolini-in-the-making.

    But the hob-nobbing with the likes of Lind and Shamir resembles David Steinberg dining out with John Gotti and other Mafiosi. “If we outrage the liberals/squares, then we must be way cool and rad!” In the absence of a lively movement of working-class militants, settle for “Epater la bourgeoisie!” A profoundly foolish substitute.

    Among Brevik-Lind’s lesser faults: we will have to be hearing eminently Frankfurt Schoolmen talking about how primally dangerous they are. How stupid of Lind to see the Frankfurt School as anti-Western Third Worldists. Like most of the big Western “Marxists” (Sartre and Beauvoir are the big exceptions), they didn’t deign to focus anywhere south of Sicily or East of Moscow.

    Comment by Jim Holstun — July 27, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

  11. Here’s some ardent fans of the Lind book (Stormfront, “How a Few Jews Overturned Western and US Culture”)

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VpnsY9XubqIJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/t462097-2/+%22Jamie+McDonald%22+%22Political+Correctness:+Deconstruction+and+Literature%22&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_de|lang_en&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 28, 2011 @ 1:55 am

  12. David Duke with the post that apparently attracted the Stormfront discussion:

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/how-a-handfull-of-marxist-jews-turned-western-and-us-culture-upside-down_3519.html

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 28, 2011 @ 2:10 am

  13. David Duke and the Jerusalem Post make common cause!

    from http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4909/breivik,_hitler,_and_the_jerusalem_post_editorial/

    “Chillingly, the Jerusalem Post today editorialized that despite the horrific violence perpetrated by Breivik, the cultural conservative campaign against “multiculturalism” actually has legitimacy:

    ” It would be wrongheaded, however, to allow the fact that this terrible tragedy was perpetrated by a right-wing extremist to detract attention from the underlying problems faced not only by Norway, but by many Western European nations.

    ” Undoubtedly, there will be those – particularly on the Left – who will extrapolate out from Breivik’s horrific act that the real danger facing contemporary Europe is rightwing extremism and that criticism of multiculturalism is nothing more than so much Islamophobia.

    ” While it is still too early to determine definitively Breivik’s precise motives, it could very well be that the attack was more pernicious – and more widespread – than the isolated act of a lunatic. Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right.

    *Large chunks of the manifesto are wholesale copied from the books, articles, or websites or other writings of conservative writers, including, apparently a large section which is copied from Lind’s book On Political Correctness but not attributed by Breveik.”

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 28, 2011 @ 2:13 am

  14. So, it’s kinda boiling down to “what do Breivik, CounterPunch, David Duke, Stormfront and the Jerusalem Post have in common?”

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 28, 2011 @ 2:25 am

  15. Watch the discussion of Breivik on “Russia Today” News Channel sometime. Much of the content is not very different from the Jerusalem Post’s view. Some of it is considerably worse.

    The initial soundbite response was that his actions were a ‘protest against multiculturalism’.
    There was absolutely no consideration given to the fact that this was a political attack on the Youth Organisation of Norwegian Social Democracy.
    Then, when Breivik’s neo-fascist links became apparent, RT’s editors started to put two and two together.
    At that point they began to admit Breivik might have something in common the people who invaded Russia in 1941!

    But only last night their cuddly anchorman Al Gurnov was saying that he’d long argued that multi-culturalism was a failed model. His programme on the topic also quoted Russian nationalists who went a lot futher than him. They didn’t even make the standard “while there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act..” disclaimer.

    Comment by prianikoff — July 28, 2011 @ 9:00 am

  16. that some people on the left like “russia today” is another, very similar case of “my enemies’ enemies are my friends”. sadly, that’s what quite a few people believe anti-imperialism to be

    Comment by PfromGermany — July 28, 2011 @ 10:27 am

  17. Is Alex C still a Flat Earth climate change denialist?

    Comment by SGuy — July 28, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  18. I think that the neoconservative/Zionist context of Islamophobia, and it’s relation with the GWOT, is more relevant than Lind’s views, whatever stock Breivik placed in them. Breivik supports the Zionist project, Lind likely does not. I have my differences with Cockburn, but this line of criticism seems misguided.

    David Green

    Comment by David Green — July 28, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

  19. @7: This attack on Cockburn is misguided. The Norwegian bourgeois/conservative/fascist terrorist is a neoconservative Zionist. William S. Lind is an antiwar paleoconservative. The latter group doesn’t write about the importance of supporting Israel and hating Muslims, two of Anders Behring Breivik’s main concerns.

    @18: I think that the neoconservative/Zionist context of Islamophobia, and it’s relation with the GWOT, is more relevant than Lind’s views, whatever stock Breivik placed in them. Breivik supports the Zionist project, Lind likely does not. I have my differences with Cockburn, but this line of criticism seems misguided.

    These defenses of Cockburn miss the point. My beef was only that Counterpunch published an article by Lind that stated “4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.” What would my critics say if I had a guest post on this blog with such an observation? I would rightfully be pilloried. Alexander Cockburn has made a significant contribution to the left by publishing Counterpunch (I donated $50 during their last fund drive) but he screwed up royally when he allowed this piece to appear.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 28, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  20. “Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.”

    I don’t know, what Lind labels “cultural Marxism” seems to at some level express a discomfort with the sort of academic identity politics with which I’m also uncomfortable–clearly a more virulent strain of opposition to this unfortunate trend than that expressed by Walter Benn Michaels. Lind has his issues, but if there’s going to be a viable antiwar movement in this country, I feel that we have to distinguish clearly between anti-imperialists like Lind and imperialists like Horowitz, Pipes, Lieberman, and Obama.

    Or pehaps we could contrast Lind’s views to Thomas Friedman, who wants to attract stereotypically smart immigrants because apparently Americans (read blacks) aren’t smart enough.

    David Green

    Comment by David Green — July 28, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

  21. Green, I have no idea what your politics are but the statement that “Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture” is ignorant racist bullshit that does not belong on a leftist website. If you think that because “Lind has his issues” is some kind of excuse, then you really need to rethink your politics whatever they are.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 28, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

  22. @16 PfromGermany

    Yes, but I don’t think that’s quite it. They’re not identical, but there’s a common theme amongst these people, which is displayed in their stance towards multi-culturalism.

    Breivik hates the liberal “multi-cultis”, including Liberal Jews.
    He identifies with Zionism because he sees it as useful to his cause.
    It helps quarantine Jews from the mainstream of European culture. And relocate them to where they can keep the ‘Muslim hordes’ at bay.

    Rather than this being some new “anti-nazi” form of fascism, it’s much like the attitude that the Nazis themselves adopted before the Holocaust began.
    There’s some attempt to build a diplomatic alliance with right-wing Zionists in this position. Breivik would probably have felt at home sharing a pot of tea with Baruch Goldstein.

    The other side of the coin of the classic Nazi position was to see Jews behind every social ill in the world, the main promoters of globalisation, international capitalism and multi-culturalism.

    Shamir, is another kind of cultural nationalist. Although he’s a self-proclaimed “anti-Zionist”, he actually shares quite a lot with Breivik‘s ideas. Shamir emerged from his baptismal font, as a born-again “universalist”.
    He pillages the legacy of mediaeval anti-Semitism to support his positions and admires G.K. Chesterton who, at one time, wrote for the left-wing “Daily Herald”. Chesterton then supported the First World War and ended up espousing a form of anti-semitic Christian nationalism.

    In the Russian context this is all intermingled with nostalgia for the Stalinist past. But given the historical legacy of the Afghan and Chechen Wars, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few potential Breiviks in the midst of the Russian Nationalists that were quoted by RT last night.
    Nevertheless, it’s still worth watching now and again, even if you need to take some of the commentators with a pinch of salt. Like any news channel really.

    Comment by prianikoff — July 28, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

  23. Lou, I have a first name, just like you do. And I read your site because I engage in your thinking.

    I’m critical of Cockburn for posting Lind, Shamir, Atzmon, and even Paul Craig Roberts. I’m also critical of him for highlighting Jeffrey Blankfort and other particularly vulgar proponents of the Lobby thesis (my responses to which were banned from the site). Nevertheless, the relationship between Breivik and Daniel Pipes is more interesting, geopolitically speaking, than with Lind. Islamophobia is a mainstream phenomenon, but can’t be called that. Instead, it’s called counter-terrorism. Lind apparently doesn’t support that.

    David Green

    Comment by David Green — July 28, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

  24. Chip Berlet has just updated a few hours ago his post on Breivik and Lind, originally posted Monday morning. It’s the most comprehensive and (utterly fascinating) piece published so far. Read it or shut up. And be sure to watch the linked video narrated by Lind. Remember Reefer Madness? This video deserves to become a leftist cult classic! (Or maybe I exaggerate).

    http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/7/25/73510/6015/

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 28, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  25. “Read it or shut up.”

    I read all of it before I last posted. The neocons and Zionists just love it when leftists get obsessed with America Firsters. Who cares about imperialism?

    Comment by David Green — July 28, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  26. OK, agreed that the Breivik ideological connection with neocon/Zionist Far Right is more interesting than with the standard redneck racist right. And Chip Berlet is a poor reference in this case, even if his view on Breivik’s Core Thesis is correct, in only a generic way: Berlet is notorious for downplaying the weight and key role of the highly placed neocon/Zionist Far Right with the broader Right. We saw this in action as they actually seized control of the U.S. Presidency during the GW Bush years up until 2006, and now currently in charge of the Israeli Knesset, who extended a speaking invitation to Glen Beck before its – wait for it – Immigration Committee (Glen Beck Speaks at the Knesset, http://godslittlearmy.org/?page_id=1229 , see also the second video ) Berlet, meanwhile smears by inference leftists who point to this, as potential “anti-semites” in his “Left meets Right” meme. The above talk2action.org ref is a perfect example of Berlet’s blinders on this: Not only not one word about the ideological relation with neocon/Zionism (easily enough accomplished by Berlet), but more incredulously, no mention in connection with Berlet’s highlighting Breivik’s ideological affinity with the Christian Far Right that this particular branch of the Far Right is notorious as the Christian *Zionist* Right, openly courted by the ADL and other “non-Christian” Zionists as well. That is accomplished by generally downplaying Breivik’s hatred for a particular type of immigration: “Islamic” immigration. It is all part and parcel of Berlet’s general method, which is to split hairs rather than make connections.

    In sum: Berlet is “soft on Zionism”, and that is a very big minus when we look at the years 2001-2006 in the USA, or look at the Israeli Knesset now, or at the US Congress who will rubber stamp anything the Knesset does now and in the future.

    But enough on Breivik and Berlet, this blog post is supposed to be about Alex Cockburn, another very good, but very different, question. I think almost all the postings here, and even the blog post itself, are offbase: Cockburn is a typical ‘post-Stalinist’, as measured among others by his worship of his father. In this regard Cockburn shares the same political space as the PSL/WWP, or of certain streams of commentary currently heard on KPFA, etc. The problem is that this is a rapidly dwindling space: first the dissolution of the Soviet Union turned their dreams of an actual “counter-hegemonic anti-imperialist bloc” into pure fantasy, then the demise of the antiwar movement in the US left them jobless and without a broader milieu. The PSL/WWP split is one symptom of this. They are left grasping at various straws, currently it is all out obsessive defense of the wonderful Ghadaffi, to the exclusion of all other considerations in that part of the world. Alex Cockburn grasps at others, that is all: Angry middle-aged white guys like himself. All in all, Post-Stalinism is a political tendency advancing into senility, soon to depart this world.

    Comment by Matt — July 28, 2011 @ 7:43 pm

  27. Cockburn, BTW, also deserves praise for his forays against the ADL, and for calling out the SPLC.

    David Green

    Comment by David Green — July 28, 2011 @ 8:09 pm

  28. I have actually seen a bracketed Editors’ Note within a Counterpunch article. I think the author claimed socialism was impossible and the editors inserted a Note Bene directly into the sentence disagreeing with the author. This was at least 4 or 5 years ago.

    Regarding Lind and “cultural Marxism”, what I’m wondering is this: who is the first person who name drops authors like Adorno into the right wing meme bag? Does William S Lind own a dogeared and annotated copy of Dialectic of Enlightenment?

    Comment by Brian Gallagher — July 29, 2011 @ 4:09 am

  29. “who is the first person who name drops authors like Adorno into the right wing meme bag?”

    This particular version, former Larouchite, Michael Minnicino, who now says he regrets the article, which he attributes to Lyndon Larouche organization’s cult pressure to embody the leader’s conspiracy ideas. See Martin Jay’s Salmagundi article for background

    Martin Jay Spills Some Beans!

    In his recent post, Updated: Breivik’s Core Thesis is White Christian Nationalism v. Multiculturalism, Chip Berlet cited a recent Salmagundi article by Martin Jay, “Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe.” This is a truly astonishing, important and very timely document, which unfortunately is not yet available online. In fact, there is very little information about the article online. I have sent a request to Salmagundi to make the text available.

    http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/07/martin-jay-spills-some-beans.html

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 29, 2011 @ 6:08 am

  30. Matt said:

    “It is all part and parcel of Berlet’s general method, which is to split hairs rather than make connections.”

    I’d rather see Chip split hairs than make the _wrong_ connections.

    “Not only not one word about the ideological relation with neocon/Zionism”

    Why should he have genuflected to that particular idea when the immediate issue ie Breivik’s core thesis didn’t involve it? How would it have enhanced his point?

    “no mention in connection with Berlet’s highlighting Breivik’s ideological affinity with the Christian Far Right that this particular branch of the Far Right is notorious as the Christian *Zionist* Right,”

    Talk about hair-splitting . . . .

    “Berlet, meanwhile smears by inference leftists who point to this [the weight and key role of the highly placed neocon/Zionist Far Right with the broader Right], as potential ‘anti-semites’ in his ‘Left meets Right’ meme.”

    There’s a reason for this: too many on the (North American) left have conspiranoid leanings that can bring them into the orbit of actual anti-Semites.

    Comment by Todd — July 29, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

  31. http://counterpunch.org/avnery07292011.html

    “I was shocked to the core. These outpourings are almost verbatim copies of the diatribes of Joseph Goebbels. The same rabble-rousing slogans. The same base allegations. The same demonization. With one little difference: instead of Jews, this time it is Arabs who are undermining Western Civilization, seducing Christian maids, plotting to dominate the world. The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.”

    You don’t know the half of it, Uri.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 29, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

  32. […] I got the title for this post from a comment under the Louis Proyect blog, The Unrepentant Marxist post headed, “What do Alexander Cockburn and the Norwegian mass murderer have in […]

    Pingback by What do Breivik, CounterPunch, David Duke, Stormfront and the Jerusalem Post have in common | SHOAH — August 5, 2011 @ 11:37 am

  33. Louis – sorry to come so late to this but you do seem to have missed a lot of dodgy postings to Counterpunch over the past few years and the fact that Cockburn tends not to allow rights of reply even when people have clearly been smeared. Some comments here suggest a commercial motive. I really don’t know why Countepunch promotes political sleaze but this example of nativism which you have given is only a small part of a constant flow of reactionary bigotry dressed up as intellectual argument. I think your $50 would have been better spent elsewhere.

    Comment by levi9909 — August 5, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

  34. I think it is curious that Cockburn took no flak from the FBI despite his “far-left” background and was granted U.S. citizenship without question, nor have right-wing pundits ever insisted that he “recant” or repudiate his leftist beliefs.

    Comment by Harold Kirkpatrick — August 6, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

  35. […] some of Moishe Postone’s. // Enzo Traverso on Europe’s hate factory. // Louis Proyect on CounterPunch.   [Some acknowledgements due to Angelus […]

    Pingback by Gey koken ahfen yam « Anti-National Translation — August 22, 2011 @ 2:12 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis

“You can jail a Revolutionary but you can’t jail The Revolution” – Syrian Rebel Youth banner, Homs 24/7/2013

Exiled Razaniyyat

Personal observations of myself, others, states and exile.

Qunfuz

Robin Yassin-Kassab

amerikanbeat

cerebral. communist. hyper. analytical.

Sangh Samachar

Keeping Track of the Sangh Parivar

Cerebral Jetsam

JETSAM–[noun]: goods cast overboard deliberately, as to lighten a vessel or improve its stability

Paulitics

Paul's Socialist Investigations

The Cedar Lounge Revolution

For lefties too stubborn to quit

Canadian Observer

A home for satirical, edgy and serious articles about Canadian politics and business

auntie vulgar

notes on popular culture

Una Voce

The obscure we see, the completely obvious takes longer

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d bloggers like this: