Ben Norton is one of the best commentators on modern politics, it’s tough to find people who are Pro-Russia for THE RIGHT REASONS! There are a shitload of Pro-Russia people who are supporting them because Mainstream media is against them and they’re not full on Nazis (otherwise they’d support Ukraine) so they think that they must be good. These people would support ISIS just to be confrontational. Ben Norton actually talks about the Euromaidan, the Alley of Angels and US Imperialism. Uncritical support indeed🫡
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
76 points (94.2% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2166 readers
41 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, you said it.
American left is kinda nutty in that there are a lot of people siding with Blumenthal in the replies which I find insane. Some choice ones include a guy ridiculing Norton for calling Blumenthal's turn right-wing. Some guy implying Norton is paid by Pfizer. Another one did not like how Norton covered the "freedom" convoy.
They need to readsettlers.org.
I could not care less if Norton stole money or intellectual property or whatever. It's great if he did.
load more comments
(31 replies)
Yeah, I'm with Ben on this one. The whole thing from Max Blumenthal appears to be incredibly malicious. First question is, why come out with this now. What is he trying to achieve with this smear campaign. As Ben arrives in a new country to benefit from the goodwill of his hosts, citizens must be warned that a criminal mind is lurking in their midst. Seems a tad much, is he warning all of China against him?
load more comments
(3 replies)
I am also fully on Ben Norton's side. I too would probably have had to split over fundamental disagreements with someone like Blumenthal once he started to peddle anti-vax conspiracy theories. A reminder that although the Grayzone is a very useful journalistic outlet that frequently breaks news and uncovers stories that are extremely important, and they are far more credible than the mainstream media, it is nonetheless clear that there are significant ideological differences between us MLs and them. These differences will sometimes result in ugly outbursts like this which would have been better kept private.
Ben Norton is definitely a marxist and he is actually very ideologically well-read and studied. Blumenthal is those fake ass closet right wing American like the Johnny Harris guy. These people may be anti-imperialist against the US but that's the only thing they know. Deep down, they fucking hate China and other stuff that doesn't suit them. lol
This whole situation is crap. I have respect for all parties involved and I get informed from both platforms. Yes, I would probably agree far more with Ben Norton over Max Blumenthall ideologically.
But I tend to judge people based on their work, and Max (alongside Aaron Mate) are doing excellent work in covering US imperialist and capitalist attrocities. So does Ben. And that's the only part of their relationship to me, as their audience, that matters. Everything else is borderline sectarianism.
Couldn't have said it better. GZ and Norton serve different purposes to me.
Hell, the Duran ppl, who iirc are paleocons, have extremely useful analysis in certain areas. I think they're very mistaken in other areas.
At some point recently I freed myself from ideological bloc discipline as it relates to media sources and just started sampling broadly and making up my own mind according to my values. It's liberating.
I could not agree more. This is my sentiment as well. Once you become confident enough in your own ideological convictions as a Marxist-Leninist there is no reason why you can't draw on sources with all sorts of different ideological inclinations as long as the analysis they provide is solid and valuable. I find it is a sign of weak conviction in one's own position when someone tries to exclude sources based on their ideological orientation rather than their credibility on a given issue (because i don't believe in blanket credibility...everyone has their biases). I'm not going to suddenly become an anti-vax conspiracy theorist because i read Grayzone articles, and I'm not going to become a paleoconservative by listening to the Duran, because my political and ideological views were not formed on the basis of online personalities like is unfortunately the case for many among the "breadtube" left and who seem to think that simply by listening to people who are not perfectly aligned with you ideologically you will suddenly change your core beliefs about the world. If your views are informed by a solid, scientific understanding of the world, you are if not completely immune then at least highly resistent to anti-scientific nonsense and you can pick and choose what is valuable and true from the analysis of people with whom you have disagreements and discard the garbage.
I've had conversations with 'leftists' who religiously ignore right wing literature and are shocked to hear me cite it after revealing that I'm a Marxist. Concrete analysis of concrete conditions and the ruthless criticism of all that exists mfs. That means you've got to learn to read things you disagree with.
You can't treat it like a team sport where you assume that your side has a monopoly on knowledge (well, MLs do, but that's different 😉) or as if contrary views are contagious. If you're at risk of reading a biography of Reagan and becoming a neoliberal, perhaps you're not as principled as you'd like to think.
You need to remind those people that we wouldn't even have had Marxism if Marx had chosen to ignore everything Adam Smith had written in the way they choose to ignore everything that can be labeled "right wing".
Part of being politically (and scientifically) literate is being able to treat sources critically.
Got to wonder how much of this is pushed by state security services. People are far less dangerous if they don't know what's really happening. Iirc @[email protected] is regularly challenged e.g. for citing Rand. As if you can know what the right wing thinks by ignoring it's bloody think tanks (which happen to be quite open about the horrors they want to unleash on the world and, lo and behold, whose policy papers often become policy a few months or years later).
It's absolutely incredible how much of this stuff is right there in the open. The really sad part of all this is that even when this information is officially published and accessible, people will still refuse to acknowledge it. This is what we're up against.
load more comments
(3 replies)
War-driving is a necessary skill to develop when one's enemies like leaving their plans plastered on the walls.
I personally think liberal media is extremely useful to be familiar with because they tip their own hand so often if you know how to spot it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
At some point recently I freed myself from ideological bloc discipline as it relates to media sources and just started sampling broadly and making up my own mind according to my values. It’s liberating.
Couldn't have said THAT better!
Tbh I could give less of a fuck, or if any fucks are given it's in favor of Ben 100% after seeing Max turn into a loser, cornering someone in public and throwing the video on the internet like some Fox News/Daily Mailremoved. What a child.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why is anti-vax a thing, again?
Hyper-individualistic plague-spreading westerners, who don't believe in the concept of public health.
Mainly in the West, though of course, you see it with the PatSocs a lot.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What the fuck is the LaRouchite movement about anyway?
Lyndon LaRouche was in a Trotskyist org and split to make another. That org is famous for beating CPUSA people with nunchucks. That cult became full on fascist, and eventually turned into the Schiller Institute. After LaRouche’s death his cult still calls all environmentalists eco fascists, spreads conspiracy theories, and says anti-nato stuff. I think I heard they once said we could fit 100 billion people on earth.
To be fair, depending on the technological sophistication and architecture, you could fit that many on Earth. But I would highly advise against it.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›