RadioRaheem84
20th October 2010, 18:58
After his defection from the left, I assumed that he was genuinely having a change of heart, but after reading some of his older stuff, I've noticed that he may have been a charlatan all along or at least a glory hound.
In one televised interview he notes that as a leftist he finds the word "liberal" to be insulting, which means he knows what the word entails and that there is a distinction between liberal and leftists. He even goes so far as to describe them as "dangerous compromisers", knowing they're compromising with who? Capitalists and bureaucrats, that's who.
Now as an American pundit, he consciously blurs the line between liberal and leftist all the time, speaking in the political tongue that many American pundits understand. He calls Tony Blair a socialists and insists that the American imperial campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan is a liberal-left war.
Other things. Read any of his books from before he became a lapdog to afterward and you will find A LOT of name dropping but also A LOT of factual errors. Some minor, some major whoppers. Just the other day I was reading his Letters to a Young Contrarian and found some factual errors about proto-fascist poet Gabrielle D'Anunzio.
Then of course there are his endorsements of Adam Michnik, British Imperialism in India and Vaclav Havel, all before his switch to defending neo-con wars.
Comrades in here already pointed out his long, detailed but sometimes factually wrong citations of Trotsky and other Marxist writings. So he knows what he is talking about in a sense. He knows his stuff and has read a lot BUT uses it all in a manner for personal gain and notoriety.
I mean I could go on all day about his misuse of Marx to justify Iraq War, not to mention of International Law.
In one televised interview he notes that as a leftist he finds the word "liberal" to be insulting, which means he knows what the word entails and that there is a distinction between liberal and leftists. He even goes so far as to describe them as "dangerous compromisers", knowing they're compromising with who? Capitalists and bureaucrats, that's who.
Now as an American pundit, he consciously blurs the line between liberal and leftist all the time, speaking in the political tongue that many American pundits understand. He calls Tony Blair a socialists and insists that the American imperial campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan is a liberal-left war.
Other things. Read any of his books from before he became a lapdog to afterward and you will find A LOT of name dropping but also A LOT of factual errors. Some minor, some major whoppers. Just the other day I was reading his Letters to a Young Contrarian and found some factual errors about proto-fascist poet Gabrielle D'Anunzio.
Then of course there are his endorsements of Adam Michnik, British Imperialism in India and Vaclav Havel, all before his switch to defending neo-con wars.
Comrades in here already pointed out his long, detailed but sometimes factually wrong citations of Trotsky and other Marxist writings. So he knows what he is talking about in a sense. He knows his stuff and has read a lot BUT uses it all in a manner for personal gain and notoriety.
I mean I could go on all day about his misuse of Marx to justify Iraq War, not to mention of International Law.