Creating a better world through words and images

Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons

INSTALLMENT THE EIGHTH: Jordan Peterson vs. Marx, the Pareto Distribution, and the purge of liberals from academia (making room for war criminals and other neo-fascists)

(Concluding my response to “Lenny”)

It’s possible that Peterson has more to offer than I suspected…

However, with regard to JBP’s references to “Marxism:”

You wrote, “I don’t hear any discussion of JP’s criticism of Marxism and the idea that Marxists ignore the Pareto Distribution.” and also that: “These are ideas that form the basis of Marxism and JP criticizes them. Where is the left’s rebuttal of that?”

First, I disagree that Marx and progressives (the real left) “ignore” the Pareto Distribution. My understanding of Marx and his theories — enhanced most recently by the arguments of Chris Hedges and the lectures of noted Marxist economist, Richard D. Wolff — is that Marx’s case against the “revolutionary” and “destructive” force of capitalism would encompass the Pareto Distribution. (And the reason Marx doesn’t mention it himself, obviously, is that the PD theory was first published 13 years after his death… 29 years after the publication of “Das Kapital”).

The Pareto Distribution focuses primarily on wealth distribution, right?

It seems to me that Marx/his followers address wealth distribution in capitalist societies, asserting that capitalism inevitably results in a distribution of wealth that is highly inequitable and destabilizing, resulting in gobs of destruction and human suffering.

French economist Thomas Piketty’s highly acclaimed book, Capital, published in 2013, offers mountains of data supporting that basic argument of the Marxists: that centuries of history demonstrates that capitalism is inevitably destructive and always impoverishes the vast majority while creating ungodly amounts of wealth for the ownership class. Capitalism, whatever its strong points, inevitably leads to that dark place we call fascism in the modern era (the fascism of Mussolini: pure corporate hegemony, making democratic systems impossible).

While some economists seem to think that the Pareto Distribution’s 20/80 wealth distribution is ideal (i.e., the government-overthrowing “Chicago School” of economists), some of the world’s most brilliant, celebrated liberals (like Naomi Klein) have documented the massive failures of such systems. They’ve chronicled how the Pareto Distribution has been forced on societies — usually through foreign invasions, assassinations, and violent coups — and the results have always been disastrous. One of the more notorious examples would be Pinochet’s Chile after the CIA assassination of Salvador Allende.

The atrocious record of the PD’s 20/80 paradigm has been detailed — fairly thoroughly and with great specificity — in such acclaimed books as Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. And Piketty’s book only solidifies her case — and the Marxist critique of capitalism.

As a 2014 Princeton University study concluded, the U.S. version of capitalism has rendered our society wholly undemocratic, a pure oligarchy, wherein only the super-rich are represented by the government, and the will of the people is systematically ignored.

“Cultural Marxism” as a bludgeon

I agree with Doc that JBP, like countless other conservatives before him, uses phrases like “Cultural Marxism” to obfuscate, rather than illuminate. Instead of forwarding an edifying discussion about the pros and cons of capitalism and communism, he seems to be reformulating decades of risibly superficial right-wing smears of communism and Marx. (In this way, he’s every bit as neo-McCarthyite as the reflexively RussiaGating right-wingers calling themselves “liberal” these days.)JP and the conservative school to which he apparently belongs, use “Marx” as a bogeyman, as Doc says. Equating Marxism with “tyranny,” they use nonsensical phrases like “Cultural Marxism” as a cudgel to clobber anyone who champions social justice, liberal open-mindedness, feminist ideals, compassion, and tolerance of all people.

They particularly disparage those who demand justice for patriarchy’s long-suffering victims.

Perverse beyond words

But alleging that the rare few Americans who aggressively champion society’s most victimized, unrepresented communities are the real “tyrannical oppressors” is… perverse beyond words. And frankly, I’m sick and tired of hearing conservative white men hysterically shrieking:

“THEY are taking over OUR universities — with political correctness, Identity Politics, and left-wing ideology! The ‘liberals’ are brainwashing our kids!”


The truth I see is that academia — like the news industry and other institutions that once tolerated some liberalism — has largely surrendered to our neo-fascist establishment.

Universities have forced out one anti-establishment liberal after another (Ward Churchill immediately springs to mind… and Steve Salaita… and Cornel West… and Norman Finkelstein…).

And while liberals and progressives have been persecuted and forced out, war criminals like John Yoo — the “Torture Memo” author — have been hired… by prestigious universities like Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, etc.

Gen. David Petraeus, genocidal torturer and mass-murderer, has received the same treatment. So has Michael Hayden, Bush’s NSA Chief who lied repeatedly about torture, Saddam’s “WMDs,” vacuum-surveillance, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Ditto for Condoleezza Rice and Henry Kissinger, two of the worst war criminals of the last half-century (hired by Stanford and Harvard, respectively).

The End.

(Amen and hallelujah.)

INSTALLMENT THE SEVENTH: “Can’t we just drone this guy” liberals, the new McCarthyites, and Jordan B. Peterson revealed (desiccated right-wing claptrap in a brand new suit)

The undeniable efficacy of Two Minutes Hate “journalism”

The worst conserva-liberals say things like: “Julian Assange/Edward Snowden/Donald Trump/Chelsea Manning/Glenn Greenwald/Chris Hedges/Susan Sarandon/Jimmy Dore/Bashar al-Assad/Ralph Nader/Michael Hastings/Saddam Hussein/Glen Ford/John Kiriakou/Vladimir Putin/Bill Binney/Moammar Qaddafi/Caitlyn Johnstone/Yasser Arafat/Max Blumenthal/Prof. Stephen Cohen/Seymour Hersh/Cornell West/Hugo Chavez/Eva Bartlett/Aaron Mate/Hassan Nasrallah/Jeremy Corbyn/Moqtada al-Sadr/Bernie Sanders/Greg Palast… should just STFU forever — or prepare to be incarcerated, executed, lynched, or assassinated… ASAP!”

As Sec. Hillary “No-Fly Zone/We came, we saw, he died” Clinton said of Julian Assange:

“Can’t we just drone this guy?”

[Clinton “can’t recall” making the comment — unless it was a “joke.” (“It would have been a joke…”) Robby Mook won’t comment on the matter. But WikiLeaks reported it, and every single story WikiLeaks has printed, to date, has been verified as accurate, every leaked document authentic.]

And anyway, why shouldn’t she have said it? As stereotypically fascist as Sec. Clinton’s “joke” was, it perfectly reflects the current political climate. Fringe-right Republican, Peter King, Joe Biden, and others, had already called the WikiLeaks publisher a “terrorist.” (Tellingly, Obama never refuted these remarks, concerning a world-celebrated publisher — uncharged with any crime — who has repeatedly exposed the worst criminal malefactors of our time, from Bush/Cheney to Barack Obama to the CIA to the Clintons.)

Fascism-exemplifying comments like Sec. Clinton’s would have been unthinkable in the country’s brief, idealistic period before JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X were gunned down… before the death penalty was reinstated, kicking off the rollback of the peace-mongering, anti-establishment culture of the 1960s-early ‘70s… before Reagan’s orgy of unbridled, irrational materialism… and before “Sa-damn” made it possible for America to go to war again, to “(bury) forever in the desert” the “specter of Vietnam.”

(That’s George H.W. Bush, getting the neocon agenda rolling, with D’s and R’s — and the propaganda-parroting corporate media — united behind the 1991 invasion of Iraq. And all parties involved were good enough to minimize/ignore the ensuing parade of war crimes — a favor they repeated, in spades, for Clinton, Bush’s son, and Obama.)

Illiberal conservatism where critical thinking and compassion once resided

Witnessing the moral and intellectual corruption of the liberal class — and being close to so many people who have been affected by it — has been devastating for me, personally. I’ve been watching (and resisting and debating), as many people I’ve long respected and cared for — a host of kindly, gentle, brilliant Dr. Jekyll’s — have gradually morphed into a mob of morally-corrupt, critical thinking-impaired “Mr. Hyde’s: neo-McCarthyite, neoliberal, neoconservative, fact-averse (reality-hostile), easily programmed, and sadly predictable…

They are the latest proponents of classic Reagan-conservatism: reflexively partisan defenders of deregulation, “trade” pacts, and the war on journalism. Textbook conservatives, they’re arguing for all-of-the-above energy “solutions” and defending charter schools (condoning the assault on the public school system when it’s Obama, Arne Duncan, and Rahm Emmanuel doing it — but not when it’s Betsy DeVos). They’ve championed RomneyCare, with virtually no cost controls.

Worst of all, they’ve embraced the neocon agenda, running with the new McCarthyism and RussiaGate, which has been little more than a stream of flimsy claims, show-indictments, and sensationalized bombshells that are lucky if they survive one news cycle before being utterly debunked.

So partisan are these folks, they appear willing to risk a major confrontation with Russia, inviting a third world war, on a host of wild, lurid, evidence-free claims — claims that Noam Chomsky has called “laughable.”

Returning to Jordan Peterson…

I admit I’m not well-versed (at all) in his writing. That said, I began my investigation into him with an open mind, expecting to encounter an interesting, anti-establishment thinker. I watched a few videos posted by his followers, engaged his fans in conversation, and read an article by two sensible-sounding writers who’d read his book and attended one of his speeches. They seemed fair-minded, expressing admiration for at least some of his ideas along with their criticisms, which seemed well-founded to me.

Generally, I find myself agreeing with JP’s critics, including Peter Coffin. IMO, there’s something to his core message — and in the clearly political space he’s chosen to fill — that is unmistakably conservative, in the worst, most reactionary sense. I’m referring to his consistent, strenuous defense of our corrupt, patriarchal, Christian Dominionist/white-supremacist establishment. Peterson seems to be telling his audience, in coded language, no doubt, that it’s okay to be regressive and bigoted, especially against women and the LGBTQIA community… which I realize is a mouthful.

(From the outside of that community, one is tempted to add “BCDEFGHIJKLMNOP,” as the virtual parade of letters in this ever-lengthening acronym is flat-out confusing and alienating to many mainstream Americans. But I try to be open-minded, and I like “LGBTQIA” — and not just because I’m a Scrabble fan who likes being able to use a “Q” without a “U.” I feel that this acronym represents real people, honoring their identities and helping them unite and resist those who would oppress them… including those who would leave their beaten and tortured corpses bound to a fence in Wyoming.)

Not only does JP seem to be reviving a lot of stale, old conservative tropes — repackaged in more subtle language for an age when most people are trying to unyoke themselves from such retrograde ideas — he appears genuinely hostile to feminism and Identity Politics.

(That doesn’t take a lot of courage or radical thinking, in my opinion; quite the opposite.)

In sum, Peterson appears to be a particularly sophisticated and cunning flimflammer, to borrow Boris’s term, cynically exploiting the resentments of white-males, particularly those who have been discarded and repeatedly disparaged by our (right-wing; faux-liberal) establishment.

In stoking such resentments, I believe Peterson is courting chaos, just as Trump does. They’re largely playing to the same audience, and both encourage victimhood and resentment against historically vulnerable and marginalized groups and philosophies.

Taking on “Cultural Marxists” (with a plethora of bigoted, right-wing claptrap)

Like “Tommy Robinson,” another right-wing con-man IMO, they act as if they’re battling a corrupt, oppressively liberal establishment (the tyranny of “Cultural Marxism”) — when in reality they’re reinforcing the age-old, bigoted claptrap of a right-wing, white-Christian-male-dominated establishment. (An establishment that makes Trump look like an amateur — and a liberal — by comparison. The establishment’s real objections to Trump stem from the fact that he exposes and discredits them. He too accurately and nakedly reflects their core values… and he’s difficult to control.)

But returning to JP, I don’t see anything “liberal” about picking on transgender people, feminists, and “Marxists” (who practically don’t exist in the U.S.).

Why go after historically marginalized groups, already the targets of vicious attacks from the right? What’s the point, besides riling up reactionary conservatives by playing to their prejudices?

And having followed the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, I’ve already heard most of JP’s arguments about how hard it is for men in the workplace to know “the rules” for avoiding sexual harassment accusations. I remember it like yesterday: all those Republican politicians shrugging and wondering aloud, “How can a guy know if his advances are welcome? It’s impossible to navigate this mine field! They’re wearing dresses and make-up, what do they expect? Men are being victimized!”

Peterson doesn’t help his image any when he offers his unscientific theories about the proper role for a woman: nurturing/caregiving, raising children, supporting a successful man. He seems to be echoing traditional conservative stereotypes, sounding more like a Promise Keeper than an academic.

All that said, I admit I was surprised when you informed me that, “JP has been highly critical of Universities who have replaced tenured Professors with adjunct instructor who , non-tenured, low paid, and easily fired. That doesn’t seem right wing to me to defend teachers. That’s seems very liberal.”

Fair enough. It doesn’t change my overall assessment, but you certainly have a point: Here, JP is offering a solidly liberal argument with which I strongly agree. He’s addressing a very serious situation, which I’ve been following with growing concern. I have no disagreement with him on this issue, whatsoever — and I’m reminded that everyone has nuances; everyone is multifaceted.

It’s possible that Peterson has more to offer than I suspected.


NEXT: Jordan Peterson vs. Marx, the Pareto Distribution, and the purge of liberals from academia (making room for war criminals and other neo-fascists)

INSTALLMENT THE SIXTH: “Lenny” asserts that Liberalism entails open-mindedness and offers evidence that Jordan B. Peterson can be liberal, too; I agree and resume my post-mortem of Liberalism in America…

Lenny — James Charles O’Donnell III, I agree on many points you make. I love the idea of pillars of liberalism (tolerance, reason, education, idealism) but I’d also put being open minded in there. But as Conservatives have mostly abandoned all of these a long time ago I see the left doing the same thing recently. I mean I see many of my left wing friends (which are the majority) talk with disdain and contempt about working people, saying things like ‘education is a waste of time bc it’s all patriarchal mind control’ or peddling conspiracy theories, or openly expressing hatred for white men. All of these things go against what I would consider liberalism.

So the anti-intellectualism and intolerance that infected the right has now infected the left and this has left the middle wide open for the taking. That’s where JP has stepped in.

I wouldn’t call myself a follower but I have learned quite a bit from him that I think is valuable. I also find it refreshing that an academic has risen to become a mainstream popular figure. A criticism of Al Gore in the 2000 election was that he was boring and too professorial. And the reaction to that gave is GW Bush. In college I learned thing that blew my mind. I had professors who seemed to be trying to find truth. So I believe in education. And To his credit JP has been highly critical of Universities who have replaced tenured Professors with adjunct instructor who , non-tenured, low paid, and easily fired. That doesn’t seem right wing to me to defend teachers. That’s seems very liberal.

Don’t expect any comment section of most places to be anything more than an incoherent shouting match. I don’t waste my time. There are plenty of JP fans out there that have zero ability to think critically and will just defend anything he says. You can’t have a rational, open, intelligent conversation with those people. That’s not how they function. You’ll find the same thing in any mob.

I’m much more interested in specific ideas rather than personalities. Many of these criticisms of JP are about his personality not his ideas. And that to me is how we got to Trump.

I studied Marx and Marxism in graduate school. I don’t hear any discussion of JP’s criticism of Marxism and the idea that Marxists ignore the Pareto Distribution. Let’s talk about that. I find many people have no idea about Marx, have even read one page,of Das Kapital, or understand any of his most important ideas. These are ideas that form the basis of Marxism and JP criticizes them. Where is the left’s rebuttal of that?

James O’Donnell III — As with Doc’s comment, your first response — to my initial (“chiming in”) comment — has a lot that I agree with and some statements I’ll contest. I’ll try to keep my response under 4,000 words… just for kicks.

Conservatives and the “Disgust Factor”

I agree with you that open-mindedness belongs on any list of traditional liberal values. Being liberal-minded usually implies being open-minded — whereas conservative minds, whatever their values (some perfectly respectable), are generally more apt to be closed minds, full of certainty with regard to a great number of things… concerning lifestyle, culture, morality/religion, politics, diet, and more.

I read an interesting article many years ago that’s stayed with me. It described certain differences between conservative-minded and liberal-minded people. According to the study being reported, one of the primary differences between the two groups has to do with the “disgust” factor: Conservatives, apparently, have a much stronger “disgust” response than liberals. I’ve always found that conclusion interesting and reasonable: a closed, conservative mind could be an outgrowth of that mind’s heightened disgust response. As in, “Eiww, I’m not going to try that…” (food, drink, philosophy, book, film, art museum, position in the Kama Sutra — you name it, they’re not trying it!).

Also, I strongly agree with you that “…as Conservatives have mostly abandoned all of these (traditional liberal values) a long time ago I see the left doing the same thing recently.”

Chasing the Overton Window, the Liberal class defenestrates itself…

Today’s liberal class (present company excluded; this group is open-minded, compassionate, etc.) has caught up with yesterday’s raving lunatic conservatives. They chased after that rightward-speeding Overton Window, so hard and so recklessly, they’ve ended up defenestrating themselves, shooting right past the GOP, in many respects (McCarthyism, groupthink, “trade” pact promotion (overlooking slavery), historical amnesia, primary-rigging, warmongering, opposing diplomacy, persecuting journalists and whistleblowers, etc.).

I have a few theories that might begin to explain this phenomenon, but whatever the causes, I’ve seen the majority of liberals (especially in the post-Bush years) become as dogmatic, hypocritical, and imperious as the average 1990s-early 2000s conservative.

Many are every bit as inclined as their conservative forerunners to idolize politicians and censor, shut-down, and disparage anyone espousing a different political philosophy.

Sadly, millions of post-Obama liberals appear to be thoroughly propagandized, unable to distinguish facts from “white propaganda” (which was illegal before Obama repealed the Smith-Mundt Act). The vast majority appear to swallow virtually every drop of the “Kool-Aid” …in every flavor of “Kool-Aid” being peddled — by the same individuals and institutions that have lied to the public countless times and been caught doing it!

(Between ultra-conservative conservatives, then, and ultra-conservative “liberals,” today, I feel that I’ve been grappling with the same people for over three decades, now. They’re more alike than either side would care to admit. Neither group appears to object to the destruction of the rule of law, the neoliberal assault on our society, or the holocaust our last several presidents have unleashed upon tens of millions of Muslims.)

I’ve posted several blogs commenting on the frightening transformation of the liberal class. Here are two: and…

The conservative “disgust factor” infects liberals

Another eerie parallel: Like yesterday’s “Moral Majority,” today’s more ideological liberals seem all but incapable of sympathizing with those who have been vilified — or disappeared — by the MSM, which routinely traffics in stereotypes. As a result of such divisive stereotypes, liberals hold millions of their neighbors in unmitigated contempt, calling them “deplorables” — IMO a pretty shameful term to apply to any group of human beings, let alone one’s fellow citizens.

And while I also agree with you that comment sections often bring out the worst in people, I’m not so sure that undermines my argument that our society has devolved considerably on both sides of the exaggerated political divide. And such behavior is hardly limited to anonymous internet exchanges. Politicians and professional journalists, with the cameras running, don’t conduct debates so much as shouting matches

Here are some representative/typical sentiments I’ve heard from self-described liberals:

“We should just let (Hurricane ____) swamp Florida, the bunch of idiots, re-electing Rick Scott…” (The same sort of sentiments are routinely directed at residents of Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., when natural disasters strike in those “Red” states.)

“Why not just let (any “Red” state, particularly in the South) secede and self-destruct without our ‘Blue’ state revenue?”

The common theme is, “To hell with those racist ‘Red’ state scuzz-buckets!”

(As if the populations of “Red” states aren’t victims, too. As if their economies haven’t been plundered, too. And they disproportionately serve in the military, many coming back traumatized and broken, suicidal, addicted… and racist. In short, these people, their economies, their children, their futures… are at least as pitiable as they are deplorable.)

Two Minutes Hate

Then there’s the endless flow of bile directed at a whole range of individuals, people who’ve essentially been designated enemies of the state — some, admittedly terrible; others, among the greatest heroes of our time. In either case, the rule is simple: every individual who exposes or publicly defies the Corporatocracy is subjected to hate (of the “Two Minutes” variety) in the “news.”

All detractors of the establishment — not the imaginary “despotic liberal” establishment, but the real, ultra-conservative one — are systematically demonized by the politicians and media of the .001%. And the lies repeated, ad infinitum, by Fox and CNN and NBC and PBS and Vox and The Young Turks… are identical — the same exact lies and narratives. Because they’re all taking dictation from the same government sources, whose identities they generously protect.

“Official sources say…” journalism.


NEXT: “Can’t we just drone this guy” liberals, the new McCarthyites, and Jordan B. Peterson revealed (desiccated right-wing claptrap in a brand new suit)

INSTALLMENT THE FIFTH: Mujaheddin 2.0 and neo-Nazis, the MSM hate machine, and the Donald Trump of the 2008 Democratic Primary

(Concluding my response to “Doc”)

Washington’s proxies: Mujaheddin 2.0 and neo-Nazis (oh my!)

It is revealing that the mainstream corporate media has completely ignored — en masse — the reporting of multiple Pulitzer-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh, particularly his documentation of Washington’s plot (Bush-conceived, Obama-implemented) to create a second Mujaheddin army for the purposes of invading a peaceful (if repressive) Syria and unseating its government (like the Georgia coup and the Ukrainian coup, led by neo-Nazis financed by the U.S. to the tune of $5 billion, this policy is aimed at crippling Russia). The Syria operation has thrown that country into chaos, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead and 10 million refugees.

That’s a war that wasn’t close to happening before our leaders instigated it.

The MSM knows this; the MSM, by and large, makes sure this story will never see the light of day.

It’s also revealing that Seymour Hersh has been excommunicated from the American media, purged from the New Yorker and later from the (WikiLeaks-smearing) Guardian, before settling, for now, at The London Review of Books, where his excellent work continues to be ignored by the U.S. media… as a monolith.

The jingoistic MSM hate machine (which also spurns progressives)

And the media similarly walks in lockstep when it comes to vilifying foreign leaders — especially (but not exclusively) progressive, socially liberal ones — any and all who refuse to be Washington’s puppets, who refuse to support Western wars or refuse to allow our corporations to plunder their nations and impoverish their people: Daniel Ortega, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Hassan Nasrallah, Yanis Varoufakis, Moammar Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Viktor Yanukovych, Vladimir Putin, Jeremy Corbyn…

And if you really think that the corporate media, right across the industry, doesn’t have a “mission… to destroy progressive values,” then you simply aren’t very familiar with the media’s conduct.

In 2016, the MSM — while promoting Trump at the top of their lungs (at the Clinton campaign’s behest) — first blacked-out and then traduced Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of a mere handful of progressive politicians at the national level… because he was clearly headed for a victory over the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history: a serial racist, Wall Street tool, neocon stalwart, self-enriching influence peddler, and a complete liar and fraud. She had thrown Planned Parenthood to the wolves repeatedly, long been an enemy of women and poor people, especially African-Americans; and comported herself like a demagogue of the highest order, exceeded only by Trump and precious few others.

The “Donald Trump” of the 2008 Democratic Primary

Many on the center-left have seemingly forgotten that Hillary Clinton was the “Donald Trump” of the 2008 Democratic primary, spouting one shockingly offensive comment after another.

In 2016, the corporate media embraced the Clinton campaign-invented “Bernie Bro” malarkey and ignored the Clintons’ history of Southern Strategy politics. Having already called black children “Super-predators… without conscience or empathy,” Clinton would call Obama supporters “Boys,” and proudly profess that she was the candidate of “hardworking, you know, white people.” She would bash Mexican immigrants in language eerily similar to Trump’s in 2016. She even went so far as to disseminate the now-infamous photo of Obama in the garb of a Somali elder — in order to cast doubt about his citizenship and religion (the Clinton camp didn’t start those rumors — that’s a right-wing lie — but they ran with them, as Color of Change’s James Rucker and The Guardian have documented).

Now, that was a story worth reporting!

Even Michelle Alexander, author of the essential The New Jim Crow, argued in 2016 that “Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the black vote.” Yet the MSM repeated the trope that black people are Clinton’s “firewall,” even as black leaders denounced her and as Sec. Clinton had Black Lives Matter activists forcibly removed from her campaign events — and participated in a sketch that featured a joke about “Colored People Time.” Ha fucking ha.

The corporate media, enamored of its far-right champion, buried all that truth — just as they’d buried all the disturbing truths about George W. Bush in 2000, especially all of the outlandish stunts his side had pulled to rig Florida in 2000.

Such shameful acts by radical right-wingers are politely never discussed by our uniformly right-wing media. They are systematically and perpetually swept under the rug. Because the media always shills for the furthest-right politicians while hammering anyone to their left, with lies, truth, whatever’s handy. It’s what they’ve done for generations. Only it’s far worse now, as the billionaires continue consolidating their gains and gobbling up whatever wealth is left in the world. Meanwhile, leading media institutions continue to lower their standards and destroy their own credibility, as has been documented repeatedly during the Trump era by Pulitzer-winning journalists. It’s beyond regrettable, as organizations I once trusted have irresponsibly given legitimacy to Trump’s claims of “Fake News” and damaged their reputations, possibly beyond repair.

Their lies have become desperate, as the population continues awakening to the .001%’s war on our society and democratic institutions.

Explosive scoops routinely buried…

One more comment on the profit motive: “If it bleeds, it leads” has always been a deception. Incredible, explosive scoops are routinely buried, in the interest of protecting the false narratives of the ruling class. That priority trumps all others.

Just a few examples: 1) George W. Bush hatched the second Mujaheddin plot and the Obama administration ran with it… in the post-9/11 era (!); 2) on election night, once they knew they’d lost, Robby Mook and John Podesta concocted the RussiaGate excuse for losing to a reality-TV moron, with the added bonus that neo-McCarthyism provided a distraction from the rigged primary and allowed them to scapegoat WikiLeaks, an organization the neo-fascists have long wanted dead; 3) the Democrats and their media allies did everything under the sun to rig the 2016 primary, disenfranchising millions of poor and marginalized people; 4) the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and flooded African-American communities with cocaine, in order to fund its illegal, grossly immoral war on Nicaragua; and 5) Allen Dulles’ Nazi-loving CIA employed Corsican hit men to assassinate JFK (even Howard Hunt, late in life, confessed it, and he was one of the top figures involved; the proof is irrefutable, only the corporate media decided long ago to bless that American coup with its silence).

I’ve about a hundred other examples of the MSM’s utter hostility to progressives, but I’ve already rambled on unforgivably. Would that this lengthy diatribe were more concise, but it’s been interrupted by beekeeping, errand running, and a slew of other mundane stuff… but I feel I should respond before the day is out. In any case, I’m done… for now.

I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.


NEXT: “Lenny” asserts that Liberalism entails open-mindedness and offers evidence that Jordan B. Peterson can be liberal, too; I agree and resume my post-mortem of Liberalism in America…

INSTALLMENT THE FOURTH: (see title, above, for details)

(My response to “Doc” continued…)


Are you aware that it was Jack Welch, Chairman of General Electric (GE, which owns NBC), who in 2000, in the wee hours of a nail-biting election night, ordered his news desk to follow FoxNews’ example and call the election for George W. Bush — cementing the idea in the public’s mind that Bush had “won” the presidency and Gore was a “sore loser” — even though Gore was technically ahead in the Florida vote count at the time, on his way toward winning the presidency?

Did you know that it was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis, who was in charge of the FoxNews election desk, and who called the election for that network? It was a thoroughly corrupt process and outcome, requiring a raft of blatant rigging and the disenfranchisement of thousands of African-Americans… yet there was no pushback from the other media outlets.

But why should they have resisted? The thrust of the media coverage in 2000 was so heavily slanted toward Bush it was laughable. Bush campaign narratives became major media narratives, no matter how little evidence there was to support them. For instance, Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet,” nor was he a “serial exaggerator,” with a pattern of self-aggrandizing lies. Such claims were false, but Karl Rove’s slanderous attacks were repeated, ad infinitum, by every major media outlet… even as they quietly allowed the facts to come out in the back pages of their newspapers; or mentioned once or twice on their broadcasts — while the propaganda received 24/7 repetition and prominence.


The MSM’s modus operandi has become all too predictable: the industry always favors the furthest right candidate with a chance to win. That’s why they uniformly and blatantly favored Sec. Clinton in 2016. Trump was taking position after position to Clinton’s left, while reckless, reprehensible Clinton was vowing actions that could very well instigate WWIII. The neocons hated Trump, for good reason, Wall Street didn’t trust him, and neither did the healthcare industry, which had gotten everything it wanted from the Democrats: HeritageCare/RomneyCare, mandated customers and virtually no cost controls.

More evidence of the propaganda-dishing, right-wing monolith that is the American news media:

– When it comes to anthropogenic climate change, the science has been consistent for a very long time now: a full-blown crisis, arguably the gravest in human history, is fast upon us, with the oceans collapsing, the Great Barrier Reef dying, “multiplier effects” cascading, glaciers rapidly melting, and the Sixth Mass Extinction event well underway. Yet from the Koch-dominated CPB to CBS to CNN to NBC to FoxNews and beyond, a world-threatening catastrophe has been all but ignored. The science has been relentlessly downplayed and obfuscated by the corporate media, to the extent the subject has received any coverage at all. When the climate catastrophe does receive any coverage (a rarity), the corporate media gives us the old “false equivalence” treatment, giving industry-funded professional climate deniers equal time and treatment as genuine experts like Dr. James Hansen and Bill McKibben. And folks like Hansen and Bill McKibben are rarely given a platform in our broadcast media. Instead, fossil-fuel industry propagandists are routinely allowed on the air, claiming climate science is a “hoax” — as often as possible.

When it comes to pushing the MIC’s neoconservative agenda, the media — FoxNews to MSNBC to CNN to NPR to the leading newspapers — march in lockstep. ALL of those organizations (and countless others) sold the Iraq “WMD” claptrap and buried the well-documented truth that not even the Bush administration believed the lies they were spinning. Meanwhile, progressives were holding the largest pre-war protests in American history… and being ignored by the MSM. The obviously false case for invading Iraq was debunked seven ways from Sunday — before the war started — and uniformly the MSM ignored or buried the stories that contradicted the neocons’ propaganda… while blaring their lies at top volume, repeating them, just like Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels had taught them to.

– As a monolith, the media has conducted itself in even more propagandistic fashion, with regard to Bashar al-Assad “gassing his own people” (debunked many times over), while promoting the CIA-MI6-birthed, Washington-funded “White Helmets,” an al Qaeda front group that stages false-flag attacks and works only to demonize the government in Damascus — which Syria’s minorities have overwhelmingly fled to for protection, especially following the ethnic cleansing by radical Salafist militants trained, armed, financed, and coordinated by Western forces (CIA and JSOC primarily).

As much as I’ve droned on, here, I hope you’ll eventually give a read to my detailed analysis of the origins of the conflict in Syria, including the documentation of the chemical weapons attacks launched by the foreign invaders (Mujaheddin 2.0), which the U.S. has been pouring into Syria for the sole purpose of regime-change:


NEXT: Mujaheddin 2.0, the MSM hate machine, and the Donald Trump of the 2008 Democratic Primary

INSTALLMENT THE THIRD: Neo-fascism’s unopposed rise, the MSM’s purge of liberals, and the parade of upward-failing toadies to power!

(My response to “Doc” continued…)


In short, from the Clarence Thomas hearings to the impeachment of Bill Clinton to the incredibly dramatic and consequential 2000 election cycle, I’d grown increasingly obsessed with politics: I’d seen the presidency brazenly stolen by the most dangerous presidential candidate I had ever seen. It changed me. So did 9/11, and its nightmarish aftermath, with the U.S. plunging headlong into neo-fascism.

With dozens of political books and articles to read, I took jobs that advertised, “80% of your time will be your own” (just sit at a desk, walk the property, do some small, menial tasks, and answer the phone/door, etc.). I did so because I felt that my country was plunging off a cliff, more irrational by the day, with the GOP, especially, abandoning any semblance of comity and civility, embracing the most dangerous form of politics around: the Paranoid Style (reactionary, no holds barred, treating Democrats and critics like traitors).

But Bush/Cheney, given free reign (and no opposition) — given enough rope to hang themselves — imploded, utterly discrediting the neo-fascist agenda… before the Democrats needlessly rescued it.

It took me years more of observation and study to understand that the Democrats were well on their way toward becoming the all-time champs of the radical right’s neo-fascist/purely corporatist agenda. It was Democrats, not Republicans, who’d successfully passed the most destructive legislation going, including “trade” pacts like NAFTA, the retiring of Glass-Steagall, the prohibition of regulating derivatives, “three strikes you’re out” laws (ending judicial discretion), and worse — monstrous laws that the repugnant Republicans simply couldn’t pass… because people trusted that neoliberal Democrats bore some resemblance to traditional ones… even though the resemblance was merely rhetorical, ultimately a deception.

With grief in my heart, I’ve watched in real time the self-inflicted degradation and near-total corruption of the media institutions I’d come to know so intimately.


I’ve come to understand that it’s not the reporters who are the problem, generally, but the story-spiking, content-dictating publishers, editors in chief, producers, and newsroom managers who were destroying these institutions. These right-wing ideologues fire anyone who dares commit the crime of journalism that “comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.”

For instance: Phil Donahue, fired (MSNBC); Seymour Hersh, forced out (The New Yorker); Glenn Greenwald, forced out (first Salon, then the Guardian); Chris Hedges, forced to resign (NYT); Ed Schultz, fired (MSNBC); Josh Fox, permanently disinvited (MSNBC); Prof. Stephen F. Cohen, America’s top Russia expert, virtually blackballed (across the board); Cenk Uygur, forced out (MSNBC); Julian Assange, demonized and thrown to the wolves (across the board, but especially by the NYT and Guardian, which once relied so heavily on WikiLeaks’ revelations — 100% of which have withstood scrutiny — whether exposing the crimes of Republicans, Democrats, U.S. corporations, or the CIA). And this is a partial list, as John Loftus (blackballed former media darling) and Marc Lamont Hill (fired by CNN) could attest.

And then there are all the brilliant people, celebrated the world over, who are personae non gratae at virtually every mainstream American news outlet: Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Eric Snowden, Norman Finkelstein, Randall Robinson, Michelle Alexander, Glen Ford, Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Colleen Rowley, Col. Ann Wright, John Perkins, Vanessa Beeley, Tariq Ali, Richard D. Wolff, Eva Bartlett, Ralph Nader, Mahmood Mamdani, Phyllis Bennis, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman…

And the parade of radical right-wingers the mainstream media has given a platform to and sought to normalize in recent years is equally jaw-dropping: Glenn Beck, Megyn “No, Virginia, Santa is WHITE… and so’s Jesus!” Kelly, Erick Erickson, Michael Savage, Rich Lowry, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs, Andrew Breitbart, Matt Drudge, Rick Santorum, Dinesh D’Souza, etc.

It is undeniable that the corporate media has been lurching rightward for decades, abandoning traditional journalistic standards and embracing the info-tainment approach. Ratings don’t hurt, but making viable the venal, obedient, vacuous news personality who is willing to hawk any narrative and parrot any anonymous government official… that’s the real name of the game.

Keeping Wall Street and the ownership class happy is paramount… which leaves very little room for progressive news coverage.


Have you noticed that the best way to get promoted in the corporate media is to unquestioningly read the teleprompter and do “stenography journalism” — carrying water for the owners, selling the propaganda du jour with a straight face? Or that all the folks who fail in this corrupted industry, consistently getting every major story wrong — Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, Judy Woodruff, Michael Gordon, Tom Brokaw, Sean Hannity, Gwen Ifill, Tom Friedman, William Kristol, Brian Williams, et al — fail upward? It seems there are promotions galore for these blithe courtesans to power, including the journalists who turn out to be CIA flacks and the contributors whose financial ties to the war industry (the fossil fuel industry; the health insurance industry/PhRMA, etc.) are virtually never disclosed.

And what does the news industry have for the truth tellers? Hastily delivered pink slips! Every single time. Without exception. Without fail.

The same iron rule goes for policymakers: Larry Summers (bigoted failure), Tim Geithner (Wall Street’s absentee regulator), Gen. David Petraeus (genocidal torturer and failure), Gen. Stanley McChrystal (another serial torturer and fuckup), L. Paul Bremer (occupied-Iraq’s inept overlord), Sen./Sec. Hillary Clinton (the ultimate Democratic neocon and transparent Wall Street toady), Sec. Robert Gates (bag man for high crimes, from Iran/Contra to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”), Otto Reich (convicted propagandist), Elliot Abrams (ditto), DCI George Tenet (“slam dunk” intelligence made to order), Henry Kissinger (the Machiavelli of mass-murder)…

We’ve gotten to the point where the vast majority of people occupying positions of high power are serial screw-ups only their colossal blunders are committed on the behalf of the warmongering, Muslim-slaughtering, society-plundering, democracy-intolerant ownership class. They’re faithful to the privatization/deregulation-crazed oligarchs and the Corporatocracy they’ve built. Therefore, they are promoted, by whichever media giant or administration employs them.

Don’t misunderstand me: A lot of excellent journalism still takes place at such outlets as the New York Times and Washington Post, The New Yorker, PBS and NPR, The Nation, The Intercept, and various other sites. But that’s anomalous, not emblematic. And there are countless ways that these media operations function monolithically, virtually in lockstep. They spread the same bogus narratives, citing the same sources. They bury the same explosive facts and banish the same truth tellers.

The establishment’s enemies are unfailingly their enemies, the establishment’s priorities their priorities. Systematically and universally, they serve the interests of the top .001% — and the moment they stray, they’re fired.


NEXT: Continuing my response to “Doc,” recalling the stolen 2000 presidential election, elucidating the monolithic media and it’s subservience to the perpetual war machine