Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 29, 2011

Alexander Cockburn responds on Lind/Bleivik

Filed under: Alexander Cockburn — louisproyect @ 9:19 pm

From http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292011.html

Incidentally, on the topic of Breivik, we have had an enquiry from a reader noting that Breivik’s “Manifesto” has plagiarized material from William Lind, erstwhile Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, and asking that since CounterPunch published material by Lind, what is our precise relationship to this contributor. The inference seems to be that we published racist neo-Nazi propaganda which helped inflame Breivik. God knows what he would say about our contributor William Blum, considering the late Osama bin Laden famously cited Bill as one of his favorite writers.

As any CounterPuncher can quickly establish by reviewing Lind’s contributions  through our “Search” function at the top of this home page, we published columns on the conduct of America’s wars by  Lind between 2003 and 2007, in the Bush years because, from a conservative position,  he was a trenchant and knowledgeable military analyst and critic of the US onslaughts on Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Lind had been a participant of the military reform group, trenchant critics of the Pentagon.

His column was distributed by the Center and we would pick it up if it was on themes we cared for, which did not include Lind’s commentaries on many other matters, the cultural downslide of America and so forth.

CounterPunchers should know that its editors stand responsible for pieces CounterPunch publishes – though we obviously don’t agree with every word in the roughly 3,000 pieces we put up on this site every year. We publish and where necessary edit articles for  the edification of a large and intelligent regular readership. We don’t publish anti-Semitic or Nazi propaganda, as assessed by any rational person. I add this because many people eager to throw these terms around are irrational and usually malevolent. If you read our website with any frequency you will know where we’re at, as a left, radical enterprise.   We’ve always held it as part of our brief – stemming from political appreciation of the actual prospects here in the USA – that we should acknowledge positive political work and insights on the libertarian front and the right and from original viewpoints. Every once in a while some Trotskyite purist like Louis Proyect will hoist his skirts  and jump up on the kitchen table, aghast at the sight of an “incorrect” thought or assault by CounterPunch, often specifically me, on the canons of political and cultural PC as sedulously observed by this politically and intellectually demure old Trot. Then, when I say something he likes he’ll dispense a grateful bouquet.

We  don’t hold ourselves responsible for articles our contributors publish elsewhere. We have neither the time nor inclination to dredge through their lifetime archive on the internet to scrutinize articles they may have written one, five, ten or twenty years ago.  These days we get regular requests from contributors to purge our archives of their seditious thoughts because they are up for a job, or are in a tenure battle. A new search site has just been launched to enable the internet bloodhounds to person their blacklisting tasks more efficiently. That’s not our world.

 * * * *

Unfortunately, Alexander does not engage with what I wrote. I specifically said that Lind’s articles were not objectionable except one. I guess he still stands pat on this one unfortunately:

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.

Rather sad, really.

29 Comments »

  1. “The inference seems to be that we published racist neo-Nazi propaganda which helped inflame Breivik.”

    “We don’t hold ourselves responsible for articles our contributors publish elsewhere.”

    The description of the inquiry sounds like an allusion to the email I sent to CounterPunch on Tuesday evening. Alexander Cockburn has fabricated his “inference”. Not only was there no unspoken “inference” in the email, I made and explicit disclaimer of such an inference. Below is a copy of the email text with only the names of cc recipients edited out.

    From: Tom Walker [timework@telus.net]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:45 PM
    To: counterpunch@counterpunch.org;
    Subject: Anders Breivik and William S. Lind

    Dear Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair,

    As you may be aware by now, Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik’s “manifesto” 2083: A European Declaration of Independence contains extensive, unattributed excerpts from the work of a frequent CounterPunch contributor (at least in the past) William S. Lind. In fact, the framing introduction to the so-called “compendium” is essentially Lind’s chapter six of Free Congress Foundations book on political correctness. Another curious fact about Lind’s analysis is that it appears to have been influenced by a tract by Lyndon Larouche operative, Michael Minnicino, “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’” published in “Fidelio” a journal of Larouche’s Shiller Institute.

    In a bibliographical note, Lind described Minnicino’s article as, “[o]ne of the few looks at the Frankfurt School by someone not a sympathizer, this long journal article explains the role of the Institute for Social Research in creating the ideology we now know as “Political Correctness.” Unfortunately, its value is reduced by some digressions that lack credibility.” It would appear that Lind embraced Minnicino’s conspiracy polemic, while eschewing the more esoterically Larouchite “philosophical” digressions.

    I have been a contributor to CounterPunch (“The Work Ethic and its Discontents”) and by no means intend to imply that the editors are responsible for all the political views of contributors. However, in this case, Lind’s political correctness thesis and its derivation are so toxic that CounterPunch has an ethical obligation to fully disclose what Lind’s relationship with CounterPunch was, whether that relationship has been formally terminated and if so, what were the circumstances, whether and, if so when, Counterpunch became aware of Lind’s extreme views. Did at any time the editors become aware of a report by Bill Berkowitz in the Summer 2003 Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center citing Lind’s writing and stating, “But it may be William Lind, who has long worked at the Free Congress Foundation that his ally Paul Weyrich founded, who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called “cultural Marxists.”?

    So far there has been little attention to Breivik’s ideological “borrowings” from Lind but given the wholesale plagiarism and the enormity of Breivik’s actions, I expect that will be intense attention drawn to it. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates has done some of the earliest reporting on the Breivik/Lind connection. I posted a brief analysis on my blog, ecologicalheadstand which identifies the plagiarism, the French magazine Liberation has mentioned it and a religious newsletter.

    Berlet: http://www.publiceye.org//christian_right/oslo/breivik.html

    Berkowitz: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/reframing-the-enemy

    http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/07/confessions-of-cultural-marxist.html

    I look forward to hearing from you soon in regard to the question I have raised above.

    Best regards,

    Tom Walker

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 29, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  2. “….aghast at the sight of an “incorrect” thought or assault by CounterPunch, often specifically me, on the canons of political and cultural PC as sedulously observed by this politically and intellectually demure old Trot…”

    Wow! Not only does CounterPunch not hold themselves responsible “for articles our contributors publish elsewhere,” Cockburn (inadvertently?) incorporates the toxic “political correctness” taunt into apologetic. No wonder the alarm bells aren’t sounding for him.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 29, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

  3. Just as problematic in my view and even more bizarre has been Counterpunch’s circulating of the oil and gas industry propaganda of Robert Bryce, one instance of which, an attack on wind power is in today’s issue. A fellow at the right wing Manhattan Institute, Bryce pulls out the full panoply of right wing canards directed against wind: its failure to “compete” against gas (the impact of fracking or drilling of course, is not mentioned), bird deaths, health impacts, noise complaints, etc. The latter, by the way, I have personal experience with having lived for two weeks immediately across the street from a medium size turbine in Falmouth MA. I never heard it-not even once- leading me with strong grounds to suspect that the supposed environmental impacts are a fossil fuel industry sponsored fiction.

    In any case, Bryce is pure poison and it is a real disgrace that Counterpunch is running him.

    Comment by John Halle — July 29, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

  4. I suppose, though, that the leftist journalism gig is becoming daily more precarious, remuneration-wise, and (channeling his inner Hitchens) the old flaneur is venturing out into the marketplace in search of a buyer.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 30, 2011 @ 12:29 am

  5. Re: #1 – Tom Walker aka Sandwichman:

    I sincerely doubt citing the expertise of The Southern Poverty Law Center for exposing fascist ideolgues in your open letter to Cokburn & St. Clair helps you change their minds when they’ve for years labored virtually endless diatribes again the same Southern Poverty Law Center & it’s founder who they argue is a degenerate swindler addicted to the fundraising/marketing possibilities derived from historic Northern Liberals’ guilty consciences for living so grandly at the zero-sum expense of the world’s true democratic majority, that is, non-whites in general and the Third World’s toilers in particular.

    Here’s a myriad of links:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=southerm+poverty+law+center&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org

    Just sayin’.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 30, 2011 @ 2:57 am

  6. I should clarify that the line about: “zero-sum expense of the world’s true democratic majority, that is, non-whites in general and the Third World’s toilers in particular ” is strictly my view and it’s uncertain whether or not Cockburn & St’ Clair concur, however, what’s not in doubt is that they both consider the S.P.L.C. a malignacy on the body politic, whereas I tend to think they’re among the least of our worries, considering the Pentagon budget squanders 3/4 of a trillion a year on 3 predatory wars.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 30, 2011 @ 3:33 am

  7. Karl,

    I referenced the SPLC because that is where the report appeared. Period. I have nothing to do with any grudges between Cockburn and SPLC, Lou Proyect or Chip Berlet. There are always more than enough potential red herrings to throw across the path but they’re all red herrings. But since you raised THAT red herring, riddle me this: how come Cockburn knows so much and toils so diligently to expose the depredations of S.P.L.C. yet is completely clueless about the toxic affiliations of a long time contributor. It’s one thing to claim ignorance; it’s quite another to claim both ignorance and omniscience at the same time. Maybe a position will be opening up at the Jerusalem Post?

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=231490

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 30, 2011 @ 3:49 am

  8. And, as you say, Karl, the S.P.L.C. (and scores of ostensibly non-profit fund-raising enterprises) are among the least of our worries.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 30, 2011 @ 3:52 am

  9. Not surprising he disparages PC because his put down of louis is distinctly sexist.

    Comment by SGuy — July 30, 2011 @ 6:02 am

  10. Note: Cockburn’s chronology is wrong. He says between 2003-2007. But here is a contribution from 2009: http://www.counterpunch.org/lind03112009.html

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 30, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

  11. Even if it had been written by someone who had no other marks against him, the article by William Lind:

    Old Bottles for New Wine
    Not Fourth Generation Warfare
    http://www.counterpunch.org/lind07122007.html

    should NEVER have been published on a supposedly leftist website, except perhaps in the context of a longer article dissecting and refuting it.

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 31, 2011 @ 7:50 am

  12. It’s remarkable that the SPLC, such an obviously collaborationist and co-opted organization, finds defenders on an allegedly leftist/Marxist blog.

    Comment by David Green — July 31, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

  13. Defenders? Really. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. You have one poster who imagines that they do “non-profit” work. Then you have me saying that whatever their faults (and they’re considerable) socialists have much bigger fish to fry.

    My own opinion is that SPLC is indeed collaborationist — a “for profit” organization that benefits primarily co-founder Morris Dees, but since he’s a slick lawyer that served as finance director for both Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1976 and George McGovern in 1972, he’s learned how to cover up the profits just like right wing religous organizations in the World.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 31, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

  14. I wouldn’t downplay Morris Dees’s signbificance so readily. Dees is like the domestic policy equivalent of the humanitarian interventionists who pushed for the revival of US interventionism in the Clinton years. Sure, you can say that the Pentagon was more important in a technical sense. But these types of liberal propagandists played a fundamental role in enabling the continuance of US interventionism after the Cold War. The Pentagon by itself would not have been able to sell the war in Serbia. Dees is not so much concerned with foreign interventionism as with domestic police state tactics. But his role is very similar. He can help someone feel like the Department of Homeland Security might really be a good idea if only we keep on advising the President on what its priorities should be. Sure, the DHS itself (like the Pentagon) is a more direct class enemy. But people like Dees act as enablers. That was why people used to spend a lot of time talking about “the renegade Kautsky” even when it was clear that Ludendorff was technically more significant.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — July 31, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

  15. Green and Friedrich wrote:

    “such an obviously collaborationist and co-opted organization”

    “My own opinion is that SPLC is indeed collaborationist — a ‘for profit’ organization that benefits primarily co-founder Morris Dees”

    I’m not sure I understand the problem you have with the SPLC; would you mind explaining it?

    Is it simply that it advertises that it’s non-profit but apparently isn’t? I find it extremely hard to believe that an org that works to expose and end forms of discrimination, especially the uglier ones, has been “co-opted” to “collaborate” (with whom is a good question: the KKK? Neo-Nazis?). Or is it that it’s a bourgeois org, rooted in bourgeois society and uses (apparently) largely bourgeois methods eg litigation and lobbying to achieve its ends?

    Comment by Todd — July 31, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

  16. The primary “anti-hate” orgs, the SPLC, PRA, & ADL, avoid criticizing the centers of power and USFP, including especially support for Israel. They’re symptomatic of establishment liberalism. They provide feel-good sources of liberal compassion and funding. They are patronized by the left, and Cockburn provided a valuable service in exposing this. And I would venture that feel-good liberalism of this sort is also relevant to the daycare witch hunts that Cockburn was also courageous enough to target. The anti-hate phenomenon is not historically unrelated to identity politics on campus, I would suggest.

    Comment by David Green — July 31, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

  17. Todd: I’ll refer you to Pat McNally’s comment #14 for my reply since that’s also my take.

    David Green: You’re points are good ones and I’m one of the choir you’re preaching to, especially since a leftist critique of indentity politics on campus is necessary & timely to counter the right’s diatribes.

    In a strange way it explains how somebody like Obama, whose essentially carrying out Bush’s 3rd term, could be so consistently labeled “a Marxist” in today’s lexicon. It’s enough to make one puke. It’s a truly strange world when the American working class in general, and over the road truckers in particular, have for the last 20 years called approaching Ohio “entering the Communist State” in their CB radio chatter due to the notorious strictness & asshole attitude of Ohio State Troopers.

    The police state mentality of cats like Dees truly is an example of what rightists consider a “Cultural Marxist.” This is trumped only by the rightists police state mentality bolstering “Cultural Fascism” like Renditions and Gitmo. Liberals & Conservatives are 2 sides of the same ruling class coin and giving a vote of confidence to either side is the essence of class collaborationism today — and yes, class collaboration is the greatest impediment not only to human progress but also in saving the planet from ecological ruin.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 31, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

  18. That’s what happens when a website embraces right wingers, check out Paul Craig Roberts’ views on the American Civil War.

    Comment by purple — July 31, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

  19. If I may restate Green’s trollery: Cockburn’s antagonism toward SPLC was objectively (not “PC”) politically correct, therefore criticism of Cockburn for something else is politically incorrect (again, objectively no “PC”). Wonderful.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 31, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

  20. Hm. All three of you are stating the obvious: these orgs are products of and embedded in (left) modern bourgeois liberalism, presumably largely accepting its “natural tendencies” and limits (with the large exception of the ADL, which, for its obvious faults, still has at least a nominal interest, I think, in documenting and stopping _real_ anti-Semitism). However, I have difficulty seeing how this is such a cause for alarm.

    I haven’t read anyone (here at least) who expects any of these orgs to argue in favour of socialist revolution (they themselves don’t even make the pretense of doing so), so why expect them to be or do other than what they are?

    “avoid criticizing the centers of power”

    I can say with certainty that the PRA doesn’t have this problem (albeit they don’t approach the problem from a Marxist perspective): they’ve had plenty of practice fingering Republicans (or Democrats) for regressive legislation and attacking groups and individuals who display anti-immigrant sentiments (for starters).

    “The police state mentality of cats like Dees truly is an example of what rightists consider a ‘Cultural Marxist.'”

    Really? And a supporter, even a liberal one, of multiculturalism is bad how?

    “Liberals & Conservatives are 2 sides of the same ruling class coin and giving a vote of confidence to either side is the essence of class collaborationism today”

    You’re not channeling Yoshie Furuhashi, are you?

    Comment by Todd — July 31, 2011 @ 10:29 pm

  21. Here’s a functional definition of the difference between right and left. The right fabricates, pursues and persecutes scapegoats on the left to avoid having to “unpleasant skeletons in the family closet.” The left endlessly scapegoats the skeletons in its own family closet.

    Comment by Sandwichman — July 31, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

  22. “the large exception of the ADL, which, for its obvious faults, still has at least a nominal interest, I think, in documenting and stopping _real_ anti-Semitism”

    The ADL’s interest is in crushing Christian groups like David Koresh at Waco which do not make support of Israel the center piece of their “Christianity.” That Waco-massaacre, for which the ADL played a significant role in bringing about, was thyen the motivation for the formation of a wave of “militiia” groups all across the country. Morris Dees spent a lot of time attacking these militia groups, and not surprisingly some of these attacks were valid. But most of all Dees was simply covering up the fact that it was the Waco-massacre by the FBI which caused the emergence of these militias and it was the ADL, motivated by hatred of non-Zionist Christians, which had been the prime advocate of cracking down on Waco. One can’t take seriously the “progressive” credentials of Dees in such a context.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — August 1, 2011 @ 7:59 am

  23. “The ADL’s interest is in crushing Christian groups like David Koresh at Waco which do not make support of Israel the center piece of their ‘Christianity.'”

    That’s a mighty leap! What proof or argument can you offer that the ADL is anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant since neither group as a whole has Israel as the center piece of Christianity? They’re certainly rabidly pro-Zionist, but I haven’t seen proof they’re conspiranoid nutcases.

    “Morris Dees spent a lot of time”

    Dees or the SPLC? Despite both being liberal, there’s a difference, no?

    “not surprisingly some of these attacks were valid”

    _Some_?

    “Dees was simply covering up the fact that it was the Waco-massacre by the FBI which caused the emergence of these militias”

    Try Occam’s Razor.

    “it was the ADL . . . which had been the prime advocate of cracking down on Waco.”

    Really? I hadn’t been paying much attention to Waco when it happened or afterwards, but I don’t believe I recall the ADL being on the news all the time advocating for the FBI to attack the place.

    “One can’t take seriously the ‘progressive’ credentials of Dees in such a context.”

    _What_ progressive credentials? Who here has been calling this man a progressive?

    Comment by Todd — August 1, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

  24. The Waco-massacre was a prime instance of an attack on a group which was specifically advocating a friendly attitude towards Iran and rejecting the view that friendliness towards Israel is a key duty for Christians. That pro-Israel view has become the predominant theme among current Christianity, so of course the ADL doesn’t take hostility towards that type of Christianity.

    The ADL’s role in the Waco-massacre was brought up early on first by Herb Brin in the April 16, 1993, issue of Heritage magazine where he commented that:

    “U.S. and Texas authorities have precise documentation (from the ADL, of course) on the Branch Davidian cult in Waco and how it operated in the past… advising the FBI and the BATF on how to respond to the Davidians and what course of action would be necessary to bring the cult members out of the compound.”

    That was before the massacre and Brin felt OK talking about the ADL’s role. Two years after the event J. Gordon Melton brought up more about the ADL’s advisory role at Waco in the Washington Post.

    Unfortunately, Laird Wilcox has been the only liberal (certainly not Marxist) author that I’ve seen who is willing to keep a steady critical eye on these types of things. One of things which sustains the credibility of the LaRouchites past the dateline is that they are willing to speak of such things, when many other would-be Leftists shun away from offending the ADL on such a topic. But the reports of the ADL role as advisors around the Waco-crackdown do not originate from LaRouche. They can be tracked back further if one takes the time.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — August 1, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

  25. “That pro-Israel view has become the predominant theme among current Christianity, so of course the ADL doesn’t take hostility towards that type of Christianity.”

    Sorry, but I don’t see an especially “pro-Israel” view among most Christians: all they know about it is the usual stuff they see on the news. They’re critical in a mushy “soft-liberal/anti-violence” sort of way that calls for peace without bothering to figure out the root causes for the violence and without getting too “upset”. On a more personal level, my wife is a reasonably devout, mainstream Church-of-England Christian; she’s only looked at me in confusion whenever I mention some point about Israel, and I can’t recall seeing any “pro-Israel” news in her church (or Church) newsletters.

    “The Waco-massacre was a prime instance of an attack on a group which was specifically advocating a friendly attitude towards Iran and rejecting the view that friendliness towards Israel is a key duty for Christians.”

    Where do they say this? I’ve done a bit of looking and nada; is there a specific site or book?

    There’s also the small fact that these people were stockpiling weapons and explosives for no legitimate reason; was that legal in the US at the time?

    “One of things which sustains the credibility of the LaRouchites past the dateline is that they are willing to speak of such things”

    I really wouldn’t use the words “LaRouchites” and “credibility” in the manner you just did.

    Comment by Todd — August 1, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

  26. Well the LaRouchites are who you usually run into first on the internet when you do a search for criticisms of the ADL on such matters. Laird Wilcox has nothing to do with the LaRouchites but is a liberal willing to comment critically on groups like the ADL, SPLC, PLA and the like in areas where normally only the LaRouchites dare to go. I certainly wouldn’t recommend letting anything rest on just a claim from LaRouche, but sometimes they can say things which are true in the midst of other unreliable claims.

    Among Christians the Evangelicals are the most fanatical supporters of Israel and represent about 40 million people. Other branches of Christianity most of the time just don’t go there to that issue, but in practice they default to the pro-Israel stance which is in force. The ADL has more concern about newer brands of belief systems (whether rooted in Christianity or Marxism or something else) which break away from Israel.

    The name “Koresh” comes from the Arabic “Quryash” and was supposedly the family name of Mohammed. For a time Koresh in his early years had favored the return-to-Palestine bit which goes with Christian Zionism, but then broke away from it and came out with his “Letter to Australia” which foresaw two saviors, one of them Jesus and the other the Persian Prince Koresh. Koresh’s teachings forged a religious tie between Christianity and Persian Islam, as opposed to Christianity and Israel. One shouldn’t have to accept any religious belief in order to see why the ADL had an interest in cracking down on this.

    Some more sketchy outlines of his background are given here:

    http://www.enotes.com/topic/David_Koresh

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — August 1, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

  27. “but sometimes they can say things which are true in the midst of other unreliable claims.”

    >shrug< I very much have my doubts. Beyond telling me what time it is, I'd take anything the LaRouchites say with more than a grain of salt.

    "Other branches of Christianity most of the time just don’t go there to that issue, but in practice they default to the pro-Israel stance which is in force."

    Just what do you think is a "pro-Israel stance"?

    "The name 'Koresh' comes from the Arabic 'Quryash' and was supposedly the family name of Mohammed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

    "The name Koresh is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "belly". [10] It is also a transliteration of the Persian name of Cyrus (Modern Persian: کوروش, Kurosh), the Persian king who allowed the Jews who had been dispersed throughout Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar to return to their homelands. His first name, David, symbolized a lineage directly to the biblical King David, from whom the new messiah would descend."

    I don't know about you, but that can also be read as quite pro-Zionist, too.

    Comment by Todd — August 1, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

  28. It’s unbelievable. You badmouth the guy left and right for being a sellout, un-PC, etc. Upon his death, you publish his co-publisher’s obit on you site. And less then a month after his death, his co-publisher posts your shitty piece on his site (metaphorically dancing on his grave, I assume). Congratulations, Louis. You’ve just completed the Stalinist level of petty opportunism.

    Comment by Matt — August 24, 2012 @ 2:01 am

  29. […] Lind.  I engage with religious conservatives often and sincerely, and even if  Cockburn did defend Lind’s being plagiarized by Bleivik. Sure, he opposed the war.  However, he all but endorsed, Marie Le […]

    Pingback by The paper Jacobins along the Wires (archive) | Symptomatic Commentary — May 11, 2014 @ 1:57 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: