xipe posted:is it worth discussing the different tactics and techniques of how a person or small group of people can bring an 'out there' idea to a hostile group and win them over to it?
not very 'field tested' myself, but might be a process worth exploring
drwhat posted:i don't see any value in historical figure worship. shoving a guy's picture around doesn't accomplish any actual political communication, it's purely there for its subjective connotative meaning. if you already know everything i know, hey look, stalin! isn't that great? and if you don't know what i know, then.. stalin! isn't that great?
people rally around heroes but dead heroes from foreign contexts have a hard time winning converts.
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:i've learned many things. one thing i have learned is that american socialists are in no way actually concerned with winning public opinion, which is why they defend among other things north korea despite it turning off everyone to literally zero benefit
Keven posted:Is it useful to define soviet Russia as a democracy & if so why.
A common current running through a lot of our conversations lately has been the question of propaganda, or how one selects and presents information and ideas in such a way that they might be received by otherwise indifferent or hostile groups/persons.
In the West, contesting imperialist narratives and evangelizing for the cause of justice and emancipation for all peoples currently faces significant obstacles: persistent cold-war/colonialist/racist/sexist/etc sentiments, unsubstantiated so-called facts that "everybody knows," hostile imperialist media, confused and contradictory messaging due to petty factionalism and cointelpro... In addition to these external problems we are frequently internally limited by our own lack of skills, organization, resources, and strategy.
Not to mention of course our own odious and repellent personalities.
I've got a nasty cold and my brain is like porridge right now, so instead of making this an effortpost I'll just rattle off a couple questions that I feel are worth discussing.
How do we best allocate our limited capabilities to contest a seemingly endless deluge of disinformation, slander, bullshit, and indifference? Can the maligned past successes and victories of socialism be rehabilitated among people that have been taught different all their lives, and what is the best way to go about this? How important are old symbols? How important is it to make new symbols? What hills are worth dying on, and what scorched earth might be lost causes? How important is information about the past compared to the present, and can the two be tied together for a stronger message or will such efforts collapse due to increasing the potential points of failure to be received? How do you deal with a comrade whose messaging is erroneous or harmful? How can we be prepare and educate ourselves to be better receptive to responsible critique without ceding ground to empty talking points?
I think a lot of folks have some cool things to say about all this, and am looking forward to reading you all putting in that effort instead of me.
drwhat posted:
i don't see any value in historical figure worship. shoving a guy's picture around doesn't accomplish any actual political communication, it's purely there for its subjective connotative meaning. if you already know everything i know, hey look, stalin! isn't that great? and if you don't know what i know, then.. stalin! isn't that great?
people rally around heroes but dead heroes from foreign contexts have a hard time winning converts.
i don't disagree with this, but i don't think you can counter the contrasting myth--"(so-and-so) was a great villain of history"--with neutrality either. countering an anti-stalin guy with "stalin's supposed heroism or villainy is beside the point!" is just not going to convince anyone, no matter how true it is. i think that's a realization that comes around only after a comparably high level of theoretical evolution. in most contexts, it's going to sound like a concession. also when people see other people waving around an image of mao or stalin, it at least lets them know there's a different point of view about them, which might encourage curiosity about other facets of consensus opinion.
Instead of attacking single issues, their whole world view needs to be attacked and refuted. For the working class individual who's consciousness is fully subsumed within the propaganda machine of the bourgeoisie, almost everything they believe is a lie. This is something that came as an incredible shock to me the first time I realised it, when I realised that everything that I had been taught growing up in an imperialist country, all my values and unconscious assumptions about the world were built on lies and propaganda. The aim should be to shock people into questioning the foundations of their entire consciousness, by refuting lies and asserting truth as "hard-hittingly" as possible, not by stooping to the level of bourgie debate and getting sucked into trying to convince another person on every single little point. it is far easier and more effective to call out a lie as a lie, propaganda as propaganda, bullshit as bullshit.
Take anything that is said in an imperialist country about history, current affairs or economics and you can almost guarantee that the opposite is what you want to believe in: America isn't good, its evil; The Soviet Union wasn't evil, they were the "good guys"; "Investment" isn't good, its imperialism; "Economic growth" isn't good, its a measure of imperialist profits; Work isn’t good, its slavery; Profit isn't good, its theft; Wealth isn't good, its just a measure of the suffering you've inflicted on the world's oppressed peoples; "Democracy" isn't good, its a dictatorship of the rich; “humanitarian interventions” are nothing of the sort, loans are evil, interest is evil, finance is evil etc etc, it goes on and on. Stalin and Hitler weren’t allies, Chamberlain and Hitler were allies - everything you believe is a lie.
Fore example when discussing the USSR with an average, 1st world slave the most revolutionary refutals and statements should be made. Instead of arguing over minutiae, this tactic would state that all the typical and expected liberal points put forward to attack communism and the USSR are lies, because they are lies - and that they are, in effect a conspiracy against communism by the bourgeoisie. This rebuttal should be followed up with a concise statement of the truth. Not a dithering around the subject, but the actual truth as we know it.
Assad, Saddam, Kim jong-un, castro, mugabe, mao, Stalin, Lenin; all exist as villains in the heads of the average 1st worlder, while Obama, Churchill, Roosevelt etc are heroes. Instead of debating the "pros and cons" of each, the entire narrative should be upended: the former are heroes, the latter are villains, evil to the core. State that unequivocally.
The reaction is obvious: "buuuuttttt Stalin killed millions". instead of getting into a debate on their terms just refute it absolutely by attacking the base on which they have built this world view e.g. "That’s a lie told to you by your capitalist government to make you hate communism; of course they are going to teach you that, they want to perpetuate capitalism" "But I read a book/watched a documentary/heres a link to a liberal newspaper article" "They're lying to perpetuate a capitalist system, of course they will say that, they want to convince you that communism is evil because it is in-fact their system that is evil. That newspaper/whatever is pure propaganda to keep you sedated and believing lies so you don't question the slave system"
The battles for the victory of the proletariat exist not just in the physical circumstances, the material conditions where our consciousness finds itself, but in consciousness itself, in the highest known arrangement of matter, that which is self aware. Thought is just a product of matter – it is matter, and thus is a sphere of battle to be won using tactics and strategy, just like any other. That is what propaganda is, a battle for the consciousness of the masses.
When you challenge the very structure of someone's consciousness you are not only stating the exact opposite as truth you are also telling the other person that they have been lied to. The lies of the bourgeoisie are violence directed against the consciousness of the proletariat but as they are violence against consciousness rather than against the material body, the violence is disguised and only becomes evident when the lie itself is recognised as a lie. People hate lies, people react extremely negatively to this violence against their consciousness once they recognise it for what it is.
If you can make someone question the very foundation of what they have been told to believe by making them see that they have been told to believe that, that they're just regurgitating propaganda thinking that its their own thoughts, you can make someone question the very nature of the world around them, because once they see lies, the look for truth in the opposite of what they have been told. They you can hit them with the lectures on the nature of dialectical materialism or soviet policy or whatever.
You may disparage that this all seams a bit too "waking someone from the matrix", but actually put yourself in the head of someone who lives completely subsumed within the lies of the bourgeois state, someone who sees no alternative to the system they live in, think about what their daily thoughts are, think about what their consciousness is, what they are. Now compare that to what you are, what your consciousness is, someone who sees the world in a completely different way to them, in a way completely opposite to the way they see it, at a higher level of consciousness. They're nothing but a product of their environment, immersed since birth in the most pervasive and insidious propaganda machine ever conceived. They are effectively in a matrix, one of lower and deliberately lowered consciousness and lowering yourself to “debating” at that lower level is doomed to fail.
The most you are can realistically achieve is to make people question the status quo or the official version of history. See how irrational and tribal D&D become when presented with a discussion about the possibility of Stalin not being the great historical villain he is painted to be. That is not a fight that can be won, especially in that context, with those forum moderators, while dogpiled by dozens of awful detractors.
Other stuff: I think carefully worded talking points are helpful. I think leading with agreement and ending with subversion can work. I think making alternative understandings of politics and history approachable is important. I also think you'll have better luck with personal discussions than a huge, bad forum full of huge, bad people.
I have been talking to a lot of people I know about Blood Lies and most people seem pretty much fine with it. Nobody's ever reacted like the D&D forums posters. Most people are ignorant of that part of history and when you start to explain simple facts like, 30 million Soviets were killed by the Nazis and most were Jewish Communists, when you mention some of the terrible things Churchill said, when you tell people who the kulaks were, they get the picture. When you remind people that we killed 30% of all North Koreans using germ and chemical warfare and indiscriminate bombing of entire cities, they are actually pretty willing to give the DPRK a pass. It's when you start talking to people who already identify as communists, while still believing scads of anti-Soviet propaganda, that you run into real barriers.
we can get some ideas on what symbols are meaningful by looking at our enemies.
for example a bridge in Gdansk named after polish miners in an international brigade fighting fascists in spain is getting renamed after maggie thatcher
https://www.facebook.com/events/1764988340402478/
looking at a some snips of the past i get the impression anticommunism was just as prevalent in the 20s and 30s, before the events it is demonised for ever occurred.
churchill was talking about international jewish-bolshevism as the existential threat to western christendom since 1917.
ireland in the 20s and 30s was immensely poor yet had a tiny communist movement and a large anticommunist one; in 1933 a catholic mob set fire to the communist party hq
(actually the whole story isnt so hopeless - soviet ireland for example)
jumping straight to today, i do wonder whether its more important now to defend stalin, or defend assad...
(i know they are neither like with like nor exclusive, but your typical rube will react the same way when challenged on them)
maybe looking at casual anticommunism the same way you would casual racism or sexism and 'call it out' or acting appropriately; could be an example of an answer to complicated questions with simple actions or rules of thumb
making communism cool trendy & compelling plays a part sometimes as well
https://www.facebook.com/redlondon17/photos/a.1833648893527160.1073741828.1833000846925298/2002401049985276/?type=3
Knowledge doesn't exist anymore. In the face of the triumph of anti-communism but it's complete falsehood, knowledge has retreated and been replaced by 'discourse'. Discourse doesn't simply mean that meaning and truth are inaccessible, but that this lack of meaning is the expression of the age. So not only is a discussion of the history of the USSR a question of power rather than truth but the idea of history itself is a question of power rather than truth.
Of course it's easy to condemn the identity politics, anarchism, and slacktivism that emerges from this. But it's essential to understand that discourse is the form of knowledge that emerges from late capitalism and thus is the ideology of the real conditions of the present. There are two common responses to this: third worldism, which means a retreat to places where postmodernism doesn't yet exist or cannot exist to support the material conditions that allow postmodern severing of use value and exchange value and thus 'truth' and 'politics' still have meaning; and identity politics, which means completely immersing yourself in the world of commodities and empty signifiers that characterize postmodern 'politics' as one commodity structurally identical to every other meaning-brand on the market. Whether this is tumblr politics, occupy branding, feeling the Bern, clickbait and/or social media activism, twitter revolutions, it's essential to understand that these are not expressions of postmodern politics but rather the most successful expressions. All politics are postmodern politics, even the CPGB-ML which fights on the level of discourse and not history. Perversely, a lot of their success is that their 'brand' is so radical that it has a certain appeal for leftists looking for social capital in their personal branding power.
Of course this is a closed, nightmare vision. Philosophers have been unable to escape it, from Zizek using Lacan's separation of the Real from any concept of truth to argue that for completely false positions in attempt to shock liberals out of their ideoloigcal stupor to Badiou retreating to math and abstraction to try and find Truth again while disavowing any attempt to find this truth in politics or history (ironically something neoclassical economists have already been doing for decades). But perhaps we can?
The biggest weakness of the postmodern closed universe of discourses is that it's over. The conditions that allowed it to function ended in 2008 and it has shambled on only because labor aristocrats have tried to hold on to it rather than reject it. Anti-austerity politics and neo-Keysnesian politics are the order of the day for this reason but these are its last gasp. Is it worth it to understand a system which is already dead? Of course what follows is probably fascism and war, but as Mao said this "would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole." The left is in a far stronger position than it was in 1914 and from the perspective of global humanity communism is sure to follow the death of late capitalism (hence the name) even if we may not personally survive.
The second biggest weakness is that it's not very convincing. No one really believes in identity politics, it's just what you do in a fleeting search for meaning among other equally shallow commodities. It's difficult to do communist politics when people have the attention span of a Vine but it's even harder to establish anti-communism. So much work goes into anti-North Korean propaganda but at the end of the day people care about North Korea precisely as much as they care about the newest TED talk that popped up on their facebook feed. The 'I choose logic' dumbasses at D&D don't actually care about politics at all, it's just a way of gaining value when all other ways have failed (they are too weird for social media, they are too privileged to participate in genuine identity politics, they are too insecure to actually devote themselves to one subject in depth, etc). D&D is a corpse, surpassed in every way by reddit which matches these kind of people with the attention span their ideas require. I don't have much to say about politics within neoliberalism but it's clear that when it collapses everyone will forget about anti-communism as soon as they stop making new iphones.
although we may be comfortable with the reality of the formal logic of traditional pictorial representation and, to a lesser degree, the actuality of the dialectical logic governing photographic and cinematic representation, we still cannot seem to get a grip on the virtualities of the paradoxical logic of the videogram, the hologram or digital imagery -Paul Virilio, The Vision Machine
Of course Virilio has no solution, he retreats to pessimism and religion. But we are uniquely able to understand the postmodern vision the computer screen imposes on us while upholding Marxism-Leninism as the absolute truth. Perhaps the Rhizzone can be the machine that produces the ideology of the future?
Edited by animedad ()
I agree with the general idea that trying to change the minds of hostile bourgeoisie is a waste of time and effort, we all know that ideology isn't really grounded in logic. but based on my own experiences in organizing and popular education, dissatisfaction with the status quo, a desire for a more just world, and skepticism re: capitalism are cracks in liberal ideology that we can and should exploit.
education can be a powerful weapon. in my Capital reading group I've had the real pleasure of seeing a few smart, skeptical people mature from dissatisfied liberals to self-described socialists over the course of a few months. i don't take credit for "converting" them, they got there on their own after getting the tools they needed for a substantive shift in their perception of class relations and the conditions of society. from there correct conclusions abt actually existing socialism tend to follow naturally without me having to go Full Tankie from the get-go.
Edited by dank_xiaopeng ()
When people are uncertain about a course of action, they tend to look to those around them to guide their decisions and actions. They especially want to know what everyone else is doing – especially their peers.
“Laugh tracks on comedy shows exist for this very reason,” Cialdini says.
o Experiment conducted:
Cialdini and a team of colleagues ran a soon-to-be published experiment to see which types of signs would most encourage Arizona hotel visitors to reuse towels. They tested four types of signs:
- #1 Cited environmental reasons to encourage visitors to reuse their towels
- #2 Said the hotel would donate a portion of end-of-year laundry savings to an environmental cause
- #3 Said the hotel had already given a donation and asked: “Will you please join us?”
- #4 Said the majority of guests reused their towels at least once during their stay
Percentage of those who reused towels per request:
- Sign #1: 38%
- Sign #2: 36%
- Sign #3: 46%
- Sign #4: 48%
When guests found out that most people who stayed in the same hotel reused their towels, they were more likely to comply with the request.
“What’s most interesting to me,” Cialdini says, “is that the most effective strategy was entirely costless to the hotel. But I’ve never seen it used by any hotel room in any city.”
o Application for marketers
Testimonials from satisfied customers show your target audience that people who are similar to them have enjoyed your product or service. They’ll be more likely to become customers themselves.
A similar principle applies to television commercials that say: “If our lines are busy, please call again.” Instead of saying “Operators are standing by.” The first response implies that other people like your offer so much that the phone lines are busy, which may persuade others to act similarly.
tears posted:We already know what the state is, what imperialism is and what needs to be done. These questions have been "settled" for decades, well over a century. Engaging in "debate", in the bourgeoisie sense, about these things with non-marxists is futile because the reaction from liberals always comes from the gut - a reaction. And it is backed up with no real facts or evidence. Throwing a load of actual evidence, finely crafted debates is not going to convince someone who is, unknowingly, just regurgitating propaganda. This must be combated not by trying to prove points but by refuting propaganda absolutely, asserting truths unequivocally and drawing direct attention to the violence of the lie that is inflicted upon the consciousness of the individual who has been instructed to believe these lies.
Instead of attacking single issues, their whole world view needs to be attacked and refuted. For the working class individual who's consciousness is fully subsumed within the propaganda machine of the bourgeoisie, almost everything they believe is a lie. This is something that came as an incredible shock to me the first time I realised it, when I realised that everything that I had been taught growing up in an imperialist country, all my values and unconscious assumptions about the world were built on lies and propaganda. The aim should be to shock people into questioning the foundations of their entire consciousness, by refuting lies and asserting truth as "hard-hittingly" as possible, not by stooping to the level of bourgie debate and getting sucked into trying to convince another person on every single little point. it is far easier and more effective to call out a lie as a lie, propaganda as propaganda, bullshit as bullshit....
I'd just like to add to this post that these shock tactics are already used by the ruling class. I'm reviewing a book right now on the Syrian conflict and am absolutely astonished how a bunch of George W. Bush talking points have been recycled, only now they are coming from self-professed "Leftists". Quite literally, up is down, left is right, etc. I think the greatest defense mechanism here for capital is clear - when you know something to be true, you know it from sensory experience even, and yet - here in a book, someone is telling you that you are quite literally insane if you don't disavow what you know and take on their version of reality.
I think it's a fine tactic to rhetorically slap some around a little, but the main difference is that we have evidence and proof to back up our claims, and that the enemy relies on the sophistry of Brown Moses, who is a CIA asset literally working for NATO.
MarianneSadd posted:
a lot of the Panama job can be boiled down to the "Sensemaking" row. persecute and prosecute leakers, then hijack their logic to execute the U.S. agenda. this not only befuddles liberal critics, it creates a state of incoherence that the same forgiving critics will advance as evidence of "moderation" or as the favored propaganda term for U.S. dirty tricks abroad in recent years, "complexity".
This was how the destruction of Syria was repeatedly described, in between announcing weekly the imminent "transition" in Damascus: each operation was deemed "complex", which made desk-bound reporters banned from the actual war zone hungry for a summary they could sell to readers and viewers, which was in turn provided to them by the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" along U.S. propaganda lines. Similarly, ISIS advances the U.S. cause of overthrowing Assad, but dubious scare stories about ISIS serve the same purpose as fright-night fairy tales about the Syrian armed forces: they paint a "complex" problem that cries out for a simple solution, that is, U.S./Israel steamroller policy and the imposition of white Western culture at gunpoint. The "complexity" of this solution is assumed as a matter of domestic discourse in the United States for one major reason: a Democratic government is implementing it, and Democrats are sensitive nerds.
camera_obscura posted:Empathy is the key to changing convictions. If you weird out a liberal with facts from outside the overton window, they will ignore you as a crazy fanatic. If you instead approach people with a "well, I used to believe the same thing. Then I found out that... " then you can potentially change minds or at least cause them to question what was previously a sacred cow.
The most you are can realistically achieve is to make people question the status quo or the official version of history. See how irrational and tribal D&D become when presented with a discussion about the possibility of Stalin not being the great historical villain he is painted to be. That is not a fight that can be won, especially in that context, with those forum moderators, while dogpiled by dozens of awful detractors.
Other stuff: I think carefully worded talking points are helpful. I think leading with agreement and ending with subversion can work. I think making alternative understandings of politics and history approachable is important. I also think you'll have better luck with personal discussions than a huge, bad forum full of huge, bad people.
I don't really think that the population of D&D on SomethingAwful dot com, famously run by two CIA assets, is the population we are aiming to discuss and organize with. I think it's more important to discuss and organize with like-minded people first and foremost, as most Actually Existing Communists are often lone wolf types nowadays. This is probably a result of our atomized culture and socialization mediums. I'm never happier than when I'm in a room of reds, and we are making plans for the future or working together on some project. Discussing things online, while it can be helpful, can be rather depressing and isolating.
I think that in part, this is why Anarchism is such a popular ideology among Western left types - you can have a party of one no problem, no one will ask you what you're up to, you're just expected to have certain individualist opinions about certain things. You certainly don't have to respond to challenges. Maybe you did a six week stint in a black bloc somewhere before, I don't know. Other than that, have fun with your professorship.
DSA is the other result of this, perhaps for those young ones who appreciate the structure and percentage of effort the Democratic party demands of them. They feel good being part of a team, and especially good that they're never asked to attend classes or do much more than table for Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, you're surrounded by like-minded folks who gently acknowledge we live in a shit storm, but also believe that action and working together to actually accomplish monumental tasks (not just talk about them) is, how shall I say, a little lame.
Edited by MarianneSadd ()
cars posted:MarianneSadd posted:a lot of the Panama job can be boiled down to the "Sensemaking" row. persecute and prosecute leakers, then hijack their logic to execute the U.S. agenda. this not only befuddles liberal critics, it creates a state of incoherence that the same forgiving critics will advance as evidence of "moderation" or as the favored propaganda term for U.S. dirty tricks abroad in recent years, "complexity".
This was how the destruction of Syria was repeatedly described, in between announcing weekly the imminent "transition" in Damascus: each operation was deemed "complex", which made desk-bound reporters banned from the actual war zone hungry for a summary they could sell to readers and viewers, which was in turn provided to them by the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" along U.S. propaganda lines. Similarly, ISIS advances the U.S. cause of overthrowing Assad, but dubious scare stories about ISIS serve the same purpose as fright-night fairy tales about the Syrian armed forces: they paint a "complex" problem that cries out for a simple solution, that is, U.S./Israel steamroller policy and the imposition of white Western culture at gunpoint. The "complexity" of this solution is assumed as a matter of domestic discourse in the United States for one major reason: a Democratic government is implementing it, and Democrats are sensitive nerds.
This is exactly right. Look at this piece by the Jacobin for an example:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/isis-syria-iraq-war-al-qaeda-arab-spring/
the audience is the left so of course anti-imperialism is
undoubtedly sound. But in terms of explanatory value, this kind of analysis does not go far enough. It suffers from too much generality and abstractness — telling us little about the specificity of this particular moment, or the nature of ISIS as a movement. By attributing a kind of automaticity or natural mirror between ISIS and imperialism, we can miss the all-important context and history that has shaped the remarkably rapid rise of the organization.
this mirrors what you said so well it's remarkable. so blah blah a bunch of left sounding analysis. Let's talk about the 'complexity' of the analysis which not only makes us sound smart but also allows us to accuse the other side of simplification and possibly even racism.
He throws in some bullshit:
On the other hand, the growing strength of ISIS does have a clear link to the repression directed by the Assad government against the Syrian uprising. A few months into the uprising, Assad released hundreds of prisoners (among them well-trained jihadists), many of whom became leaders and fighters in Islamic fundamentalist groups. Former high-ranking Syrian intelligence agents have claimed that this was a deliberate attempt by the regime to stoke sectarian discord and paint the uprising in an Islamist light.
In this context, the presence of ISIS actually serves to reinforce Assad’s claim to be “resisting terrorism,” a function that is clearly illustrated by the numerous Western states that have now swung over to supporting his government as a supposed necessary evil.
to set the stage for concluding from this complexity that
Yet despite the apparent bleakness of the situation, there are grounds for hope. Local forces are confronting the Islamic State in extraordinarily difficult circumstances — most importantly, Kurdish movements (simultaneously facing the Turkish government’s repression), as well as the non-ISIS opposition forces in Syria.
that's right, support the forces that don't exist (moderate forces is so absurd that it's been reduced to 'non-ISIS opposition'), the forces that are aligned with US imperialism, and the left sounding forces that are smart enough to brand themselves for David Graeber.
The stage for this has been set for decades. The main front has been the attack on dialectics, in which the concept of determination, primary contradiction, and base/superstructure has been replaced by assemblage, hegemony, multiplicity, discourse, etc. How can one say imperialism is the primary contradiction in Syria when this concept is reflexively dismissed as 'crude' or 'deterministic'? The politics Jacobin is advocating exactly mirror the philosophical ground set for it by Laclau and Mouffe, Deleuze, Agamben, Zizek (who I picked because they all had advocates on this forum at one time).
MarianneSadd posted:It's worth noting that one of the Jacobin editors quit because of this piece.
Do you know anything more about this? I'm curious what goes on behind the scenes at Jacofbin
babyhueypnewton posted:He throws in some bullshit:
On the other hand, the growing strength of ISIS does have a clear link to the repression directed by the Assad government against the Syrian uprising. A few months into the uprising, Assad released hundreds of prisoners (among them well-trained jihadists), many of whom became leaders and fighters in Islamic fundamentalist groups. Former high-ranking Syrian intelligence agents have claimed that this was a deliberate attempt by the regime to stoke sectarian discord and paint the uprising in an Islamist light.
shriekingviolet posted:Holy shit Jacobin might be a rag but I didn't expect them to sink so low as to parrot the utterly insane "Assad created ISIS to justify his government" line.
front page, obviously
shriekingviolet posted:Holy shit Jacobin might be a rag but I didn't expect them to sink so low as to parrot the utterly insane "Assad created ISIS to justify his government" line.
CLASSIC RHIZZONE. WERE BACK BABY
