Today, as the Amerikan social-democratic The Nation magazine just pointed out,(1) what we at MIM call the parasite Left is leaping into bed with "realists" in the State Department and CIA against Cheney’s attempts to create reality on the fly.(2) After noting the Democratic Party partisan blog "Daily Kos" praise Bush Sr.'s cabinet man Brent Scowcroft, The Nation pointed out that "since the attacks of September 11, the gulf that once separated the liberal and radical critics of US foreign policy appears to have narrowed, if not altogether disappeared. The views of realist thinkers like Anatol Lieven, Andrew Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson now appear frequently in the left-liberal press. This fall The Nation, whose pages have regularly featured their voices,, will be cohosting a discussion with The National Interest, a realist journal that has Daniel Pipes and Zbigniew Brzezinski on its masthead, about views of realism from the left and the right. Groups like MoveOn.org have sprinkled their press releases with collegial references to Kissinger and Scowcroft."(1)
Bacevich is from the U.S. Military Academy; Chalmers Johnson has openly admitted to being a military intelligence agent; Daniel Pipes is the bloody hand behind sectarian conflict in Iraq and the Danish cartoon attack on Islam. His father Richard Pipes was so right-wing and aggressive he lost his job in the Reagan administration while bashing the Soviet Union. Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter’s National Security advisor and lead Cold Warrior who started u.$. aid to Osama Bin Laden and his comrades in Afghanistan in the late 1970s. Kissinger was Nixon’s Secretary of State, a war criminal responsible for millions of bombing deaths in Vietnam and the killing of a quarter million people in East Timor.
Globally even many so-called Maoists are in fact CIA operatives busy promulgating the writings of U.S. President (1974-1976) Gerald Ford's intelligence briefer Ray McGovern, the protests of Zionist and Amerikan intelligence cheer-leader Phyllis Chesler and assorted other culture warriors who put fighting Islam above the class struggle of the oppressed and exploited.
At this crucial moment, it is not surprising that the underlying glue of white nationalism holds together the left-wing of parasitism and a band of war criminals, critical spooks and "national security" analysts. Underlying the common analysis is a common view of the white so-called working class, the majority of u.$. people, what it wants, what it will fight for and especially what it can accomplish including in places like Iraq or Iran. The representatives of the labor aristocracy may blame the imperialists and the imperialists may blame the labor aristocracy serving as the boots on the ground, but together today’s "realist" coalition does not believe it can implement so-called democracy in Iraq.
Against the open realist imperialist re-co-optation of the left-wing of parasitism, some scattered and confused supposedly communist organizations that are not CIA assets maintain their independence from the Democratic Party without having specific real reasons why. It is the destiny of these organizations to realize that they have been "too far ahead of the masses," in which they include the petty- bourgeois mass of Amerika by way of false characterization as "workers." Eventually they realize that if the so-called masses of which they speak cannot launch any kind of frontal assault on imperialism or even a skirmish, noises from the Democratic Party have to be magnified and called evidence of the stirrings of exploited or oppressed masses. That is why the MIM line is the only one truly opposing the imperialist parties.
Notes:
1. "The Left Gets Real: The promise and perils of a new alliance," by
Eyal Press August 14/21 2006 This is another example of how the word "Left"
means nothing today. MIM was the first to point out the deal offered by
Democrats, CIA, State Department and other imperialists to the left-wing of
white nationalism.
2. The Bush administration is now infamous for criticism of "reality-
based" people. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1256356800&en=a3287b5ecfafc3a1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland