Try to forgive, E, when people demonstrate how weak and imperfect of understanding they can be. We all suffer it. It comes to us too, when it will. It is indeed, though, a catastrophic failure of the supposed egalitarian, socialistic left. A real shitstorm of failure. Certainly they should be ashamed, and should confess it when - finally, FFS! - they wake up to what’s happening.
1 Like
You have my sympathies Everyman. Trouble is it was a bad world even before Covid and there are plenty of troubling issues needing close scrutiny. Johnstone isn’t a general platform with the clampers on one topic, like the BBC and the Guardian. If you had a platform like she does but devoted to ‘technocratic injustice’ or some such, would you let it be sprawled by climate activists or refugee campaigners, or any of a number of issues that are the most pressing from some.
There used to be an unwritten rule that you don’t take over someone else’s activist platform with your own agenda. Sometimes it had to be a spoken rule! But there is benefit from other activism as long as they don’t tread on people’s toes, like the great Chomsky has, and many on the left who thought they could use the covid issue to advance their own agenda despite never delving into covid enough to usefully contribute to it. So I’ll share Johnstone just as I’ll share Peter McCullough even though he never mentions antiwar stuff, or Americas Frontline Doctors even though many are Trumpers. Most of the sites advancing progressive vaccine/covid stuff think covid is a commie plot! I think you just got to pick out them cherries when you see them 
Cheers
2 Likes
You’re right @Evvy_dense . Every activist has their own favourite topics. However, with the current NWO agenda, there is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than the whole Klaus Schwab/Kill Gates/Rothchild agenda. Other issues still remain important. Issues like the ongoing suppression of the Palestinians, corruption of the judiciary (e.g. the imprisonment of the laywer who took on Chevon), austerity, the US and NATO’s brinkmanship in the east, destruction of the NHS are all important.
That said any half decent activist or blogger has to take the attack on our (and the rest of the world’s) freedoms head on. I have said for years that Chomsky is a gatekeeper. Maybe Johnstone, like Chomsky, MOA and the Saker, come out of the closet when faced with the toughest of challenges.
2 Likes
I shared and promoted and defended Johnstone when she was attacked (by Abby Martin’s brother, and by Counterpunch writers).
My point of view is that she presents herself as a MEDIA CRITIC, and she failed horribly. She did not critique what I consider the most pervasive propaganda campaign of my lifetime, that left me a second class citizen.
When Off-Guardian tried to exchange with her she would block them, unblock them to write something nasty, and then block them again.
I think now that we have misunderstood the media, with our propaganda model and our mockingbird model.
People like Johnstone and Greenwald ‘challenge elite power’ when elite power has already won and moved on to another goal. The ‘dissident left’ and the ‘dissident right’, if we want to use gross generalizations, are a market segment, perhaps the most valuable marketing segment because, unlike the zombies who watch the state/corporate media, the dissident left and right are both full of ‘potential activists’. These ‘potential activists’ sometimes get active, the zombies, never. So naturally, if you are the CIA for example, you are more concerned about the potentially active than the sure zombies.
How to target the potentially active and keep them AWAY from the real zone of contention? AWAY from defending the current target of elite power. Thus the ‘dissident left’ and ‘dissident right’ journalists, intellectuals, tend to drift away from real challenges to elite power. If they DON’T drift away they lose platforms, visibility (Patrick Hensington is banned from twitter, so is Steve Kirsch, Twitter puts a ‘toxic’ warning on any link to Off Guardian, Robert F. Kennedy is censored and demonized).
Thus, a career niche is ‘seem to challenge elite power’ to get followers, supporters, subscribers, but in fact it’s only ‘seem’, it’s not a spark for organization and collective resistance. As I said earlier, what happens is resistance is DIVERTED and thus weakened and then nuetered.
2 Likes
“Maybe Johnstone, like Chomsky, MOA and the Saker, come out of the closet when faced with the toughest of challenges”
Maybe but the same behaviour is seen even when there is no platform. The whole left can’t be gatekeepers. To me ‘gatekeeper’ means taking arms, slagging off people working on inconvenient topics. Like Monbiot.
Though I shouldn’t single him out at the G:
30/11/21 Let’s not pretend the anti-mask babies would have lasted a minute in the blitz
Marina Hyde
(Yes, it’s bilge)
…but he’s been at it longer.
The left has been a gateway to fame and lucre for years. It’s hard to say who was surfing the wave all along before taking a left to right hop when the time comes, as just being in the mainstream exposes even idealistic people to new and pleasant influences.
Johnstone has been a strong and principled left critic for years, very hard-working - already as useful as Chomsky was in the old days. I don’t see her hopping over to ‘the right’. I’d eat my tinfoil hat…
We’re in a new situation now with nouveau right and nouveau left meaning very little, and meaning nothing where covid is concerned, where the left are arguably worse. Leftists have never criticized ‘Science’ (the brand) that I can remember, always been like babes in arms to ‘Science’ even the devout anti-capitalists. I think that’s left them feeling out of their depth, having no base of scepticism to draw on.
I think the polarisation and resulting enthrenchment explains why there has not been much catching up. Now, if only they’d all followed 5F guidelines… 
1 Like
(Cough.) I ain’t saying nothin’. (But I wonder how PP is doing these days.)
" We are a self-organised community of folk who gather here to talk about our world through the lens of the Propaganda Model."
That depends on what you mean by ‘leftists’. Wasn’t there a strong anti-technocratic strand in/on the “New Left”, or did I only imagine that there was?
1 Like
Well, I’m a pretty strong anti-technocrat, even though having been a lifelong radical of the leftwards persuasion; if you define a technocrat as someone who thinks: ‘Well, I’m brighter than the average shlub, and I’ve spent all my early life becoming expert [meaning ‘expert’] in my discipline, so I’m MUCH better placed than the average Jo(e) to know what needs to be done and how best to do it. They should listen to me and do as I say, and not presume to argue with such as me who are inherently better placed to tell them what’s what.’
If that’s what you mean by technocrat, then yes, I think that the whole presumptuous class should be slapped down into their proper place, good and hard. And that goes as much for technocrats of left-leaning persuasion too. Spurious superiority complexes are never a good starting point for sound, actually-democratic politics.
1 Like
So let’s be clear here Twirlip. I’m definitely NOT going to talk about the world or the media only through the lens of the Propaganda Model on this site. In fact I think the Propaganda Model was, though accurate in some ways, a way to DIVERT people from the MOCKINGBIRD MODEL, which, at the time Manufacturing Consent was written, had recently been exposed as a REALITY.
I also will consistently propose a new way of critiquing media, which I call the ‘Marketing Model’.
So, do you want me to stop posting? Do you want Admin to block me? What is the purpose of your quote above? Be specific and explicit please.
Pontius is developing his grow-yer-own skills as a ‘farmers-market’ style grower (so as to be prudently prepared for the Long Descent which is already savaging us all right now, and which will continue to do so), and licking the grievous lost-love-ones wounds that fate has dealt his soul in recent months. Leave him be.
1 Like
Everyman: whatever Twirl may mean, FFS don’t stop posting here. Of course you won’t be censored, since you’re never discourteous, and I for one want to see fuller, more extensive exposition of what you mean by the Marketing Model. The title alone suggests that it’s on to something substantial. Tell it! 
1 Like
" We are a self-organised community of folk who gather here to talk about our world through the lens of the Propaganda Model."
I would say this reflects the common origins of many of us in the past as newbie media-criticizers on ML. It’s not been put in the guidelines, so I wouldn’t interpret it as being aimed as a restriction. Perhaps it was aimed as a kind of cryptic reminder not to rely too earnestly on the mainstream media alone.
2 Likes
Hi Twirlip
“That depends on what you mean by ‘leftists’. Wasn’t there a strong anti-technocratic strand in/on the “New Left”, or did I only imagine that there was?”
I was mainly speaking from my own viewpoint and (possibly narrow) past experience gained therefrom. If you could elaborate your point I’d be interested.
No. There are certain topics that cannot safely be discussed here. My usual policy towards them is one of silence, which began with a prolonged absence. And even now that I have (tentatively) returned, the guy who founded the site has been driven into a prolonged absence! I cannot speak for PP, of course - I’ve probably annoyed him even by mentioning his name - and I have never understood his policy towards the matters that drove me away. But these matters are significant. And you were the one person who pointed out that general fact most memorably in relation to The Lifeboat News! Don’t you remember what you wrote once about the importance of paying attention to internal group processes? (Or are you a different Everyman? In which case, I’m sorry for the confusion.) Anyway, I propose to remain mostly silent. But I’m only flesh and blood. Sometimes an irony simply screams in one’s face, and must be given voice.
Sorry can’t agree guys…if there’s one thing you should all know about nuclear weapons it is that they are not toys…no mistakes, no second chances we will only be safe once they’ve been destroyed…nuclear power = nuclear weapons and visa versa… how can you assert that identifying the threat of nuclear war is “diffusing activism” (paraphr.)?
Quote: “The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.” (Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.*
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “war on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons.
“Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.” (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also Article Commentary: A Sustained Reaction - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach." Go to: https://www.alainet.org/en/active/40327
for full and extensive article.
*Italics mine.
Arafel: Reading between the lines is not difficult here, clearly there have been those right at the top of successive U.S administrations who have assisted Israel in its acquisition of nuclear weaponry. The implication is that a Pentagon Paper wall-of-silence has more-or-less always existed with regard to Israel’s nuclear ambitions and capabilities (and probably like the Pentagon Papers if such should be revealed would elicit only feigned surprise from most of the U.S populace -and most of the rest of the World-).
As the U.S has spread the B-61 “bunker-buster” around Europe Israel’s stick-to-beat the Americans with has been the Israeli nuclear program, the supply of smaller U.S designed bombs has no doubt been intended to ensure both “correct” somewhat “limited” use by Israel and to limit the possibility of either failure or explosive accident (which is how the U.S has unofficially justified supplying them to the Israelis to the international community -the implication also being that these bunker-busting weapons are primarily considered as for use against Iran-). The Israelis may have calculated that given the assistance of its Saudi allies and the local “good neighbour” policy between themselves Egypt and Saudi Arabia a tactical nuclear strike against the Yemeni rebels (who are supported at least by the Iranian administration), was “justifiable”, especially so as the Iran Deal was (at the time of the alleged strike), just about to be signed. Israel is known for forcing the hand of the U.S by stepping beyond the accepted boundaries of international behaviour, perhaps flashing their nuclear armoury has been another example.
Profiling.
Explaining Israel’s aberrant behaviour is not that difficult either, spoiled children who are rewarded when they behave like mavericks develop an inflated opinion of themselves and they make mistakes. No matter how hard the Deep State attempts to obscure the use of tactical nukes by the “Israel ibn Saud” alliance (incl. indulging in the wholesale breach of the human rights of the people of Yemen by trapping them within a war zone the Powers that Be don’t want the prying eyes or open ears of aid agency workers or journalists to penetrate -an apparently somewhat desperate and panicked reaction-), the truth will out but let’s hope it does so before another and bigger theatre of war is opened in either Korea or Iran and the initial flash of the Yemen strike is obscured by the fog of a larger nuclear war.
There is however a more subtle but equally plausible narrative, clearly the opinion analysts and manufacturers (both inside and outside), of The State Dept. have been exercised by the questions (and this for some time); “Does the public (both at home and abroad), now consider a limited “techy” nuclear exchange (or the asymmetrical use of such weapons in specific circumstances), to be a different animal to that of a full strategic exchange?” …(and), … “Can we make the limited “battlefield” (a somewhat loose term as applied here), use of lower yield nuclear weapons acceptable?” So perhaps the PtB thought; “We’ll let the Israelis drop one of theirs on Yemen and see if anyone jumps!” Outlandish? Not really when one considers just how much time and energy has gone into both the continuing Korean War and preparing for possible conflict with Iran, to put it in cold economic terms; “It’s worth a lot more than are a few more dead or outraged civilians in one of the poorest countries in the world” (that’s “to them” of-course). Maybe it’s a bit of both though (as usual in-fact when it comes to U.S foreign policy), with the right-hand not really knowing what the left-hand is doing.
Politicking is just that, however, international law states that if the Saudis and Israelis dropped a tactical nuke on Yemen this was a criminal act and a case should be brought against them and heard under the fullest of international and public scrutinies.
Also see; “#YemenNuclearStrike #TacticalNukes #UnofficialNuclearProliferation: A serious look into the murky world of post Cold War nuclear politics and proliferation” Go to: https://twitter.com/i/moments/879617300126732288 for posts containing more video footage…" Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2018/03/update-on-unofficial-nuclear.html
This pic. an Arafel “exclusive” (in that I was sent it direct from Yemen and no one else has yet dared to publish it);
Rhis, there’s more to it than that, as you well know, or should well know. I have had frequent e-mail contact with PP. But not recently! He does indeed seem to wish to be left alone, for the reasons you’ve mentioned, and (I’m perfectly certain) other reasons as well. I’m aware that it was a breach of etiquette for me to drag his name into the discussion. But it is disingenuous of you to pose as the guardian of his interests (every bit as much as it would be for me to do so).
"People like Johnstone and Greenwald ‘challenge elite power’ when elite power has already won and moved on to another goal. The ‘dissident left’ and the ‘dissident right’, if we want to use gross generalizations, are a market segment, perhaps the most valuable marketing segment because, unlike the zombies who watch the state/corporate media, the dissident left and right are both full of ‘potential activists’. These ‘potential activists’ sometimes get active, the zombies, never. So naturally, if you are the CIA for example, you are more concerned about the potentially active than the sure zombies.
How to target the potentially active and keep them AWAY from the real zone of contention? AWAY from defending the current target of elite power. Thus the ‘dissident left’ and ‘dissident right’ journalists, intellectuals, tend to drift away from real challenges to elite power. If they DON’T drift away they lose platforms, visibility (Patrick Hensington is banned from twitter, so is Steve Kirsch, Twitter puts a ‘toxic’ warning on any link to Off Guardian, Robert F. Kennedy is censored and demonized)."
I can’t think of a writer who actually does escape from either model E. The underlying problems are never addressed…for the most part this is because people simply aren’t prepared to either expose, isolate or pauperise themselves.
FYI I’ll list some of the worst offenders (in terms of subject matter):
- D.U use.
- Nuclear proliferation (and nuclear power esp. since CO2 emissions became such an issue -no matter how wrong headed the espousing of nuclear power is in this regard-).
- Particle beam research.
- Vibrational medicine (the efficacy of).
- WiFi use.
- Incineration.
- Black/Grey flag events (ie. 9/11).
The collective term for the wearing of such blinkers being (of-course), #neoliberalism…
(Cough.) I ain’t saying nothin’. (But I wonder how PP is doing these days.)
Hi Twirl. Do you think the forum has been taken over?
What I was getting at is when someone’s booked the scout hall for a couple of hours on a Saturday another group shouldn’t table six questions on another subject that is at most tangential and then debate them all.
However a web forum isn’t limited in size and anyone can start a topic.
Don’t want to say any more for the same reasons you’ve suggested (that I can’t speak about ).
It would be great if PP were back though.
1 Like