[Peace-discuss] Ad Homonyms, Louis Proyect and other provocateurs

[Karen Aram]

Below please see a posting dated June 2015 which reflects my view of Louis Proyect. “Louis Proyect” like a couple other so called socialists who label anyone criticizing the USG interventions in Syria, as “Assad supporters” or Assad  Ists, or Putinists.  He uses lies, propaganda and ad homonyms  to make his points. An article by Rick Sterling of 2016 lays out the formula, or strategy used by Ashley Smith, which certainly applies to Proyect on steroids.

After last Friday’s excellent “News From Neptune” with Carl Estabrook and David Green, I took a look at Proyect’s website.  It was “indescribably unreal” with his diatribe and ad homonyms against such journalists as Pilger, Hersch, Hedges, Blumenthal, Norton, and North, to name just a few. No one escaped his ire. In his articles he uses “guilt by association” as well as lies in relation to events and information. This is not the action of a true Marxist, writer, journalist.

A true Socialist, Marxist, never supports “imperialism,” which is exactly what the US is guilty of perpetrating around the world and certainly in Syria.

The heightened and bellicose rhetoric Proyect uses, along with others, is a sign that the USG, whether it be the Pentagon, CIA, CFR,  those behind the throne, wielding power, are in disarray and confusion.

The US is losing, in spite of all efforts. We failed to achieve regime change in Syria, but will settle for partition. That partition is looking quite murky, with so many players and the Kurds embedded with all sides in their efforts to achieve independence.

The US is now immersed in our own initiated chaos.

Please see:
A postscript on Louis Proyect’s lies
11 June 2015

On Monday, the World Socialist Web Site exposed<http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/08/proy-j08.html> the allegations of Louis Proyect, publisher of the “Unrepentant Marxist” blog, that a WSWS article<http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/05/ukra-j05.html> included false information aimed at exaggerating the Obama administration’s escalation of military threats against Russia.

Refuting Proyect’s claim that a statement by Assistant Defense Secretary Robert Scher had been manufactured, the reply<http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/08/proy-j08.html> by WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North provided a link to an online video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2DRWzmNVQg> of Scher’s testimony before a House Armed Services subcommittee. Readers could see and hear Scher state the sentence that Proyect had claimed was made up: “Another [military option] is taking a look at how we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia.”

This should have been enough to compel Proyect to retract his allegation or keep his mouth shut. Instead, he continued to claim that the quotation was fabricated. He fell back on the position that the word “attack,” which had been deleted from the video due to a technical glitch, was never said. He wrote: “North admits that the word ‘attack’ is not audible in the recording but is convinced that this is the only conclusion that makes sense. Sad, really.”

If anyone has cause for sadness, however, it is Louis Proyect. To settle the matter once and for all, the WSWS contacted Robert Burns, the author of an Associated Press article that reported Scher’s testimony and was cited by the WSWS, and brought Proyect’s allegations to his attention.

Burns forwarded to the WSWS the exact transcript of Scher’s statement, which he had received from the US Department of Defense. The transcript reinforces what had already been established by the video: the sentence was exactly as it had been reported by Burns and the WSWS.

Replying to a question from a congressman about what the US was planning to do in response to Russia’s alleged violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Scher said (emphasis added):

We are looking at what actions we can take to ensure that any violation of the INF Treaty does not provide significant military advantage to the Russians. And as people have testified previously to this subcommittee and elsewhere, we look at that in sort of three categories of military activities. One is active defense—what we can do to defend places in Europe at locations that are—that the INF Treaty violating missile could reach. Another one is taking a look at how we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia. And then subsequently, a third part is looking at understanding that it is not simply attacking that capability, but that the—we can look at what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself.

We are still looking at all of those possibilities, narrowing down what we think would be the most effective and working very closely with our allies to determine how to best deter this aggression from Russia, deter and bring Russia back in.

This settles the matter and provides further evidence of what many have known for some time: Louis Proyect is a liar and a provocateur.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20180220/7f943559/attachment-0002.html>