DisInfoWars with Tom Secker: How to Catch Brzezinski in a Lie

Deep state intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski turns up everywhere but he is perhaps most known for his role in the founding of Operation Cyclone - NATO's program to support the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The media coverage, both mainstream and alternative, has focused on misleading interpretations of what happened and when, much of which has been encouraged by Brzezinski himself. I examine this coverage and identify the key questions - when did the arming of the mujahideen begin: before or after the Soviet invasion at the end of 1979 and what role did Brzezinski play in that?

To answer this I go through several documents from both the American and British governments that prove that Brzezinski is lying when he says the arming of the mujahideen did not begin until after the invasion. I also show that he is lying when he says he wrote a memo to Carter describing Afghanistan as the Soviets' Vietnam. Finally I show that The Real News were being misleading when they, at Brzezinski's stimulation, reported that he played no role in the decision to arm the mujahideen with lethal weapons.
Sources

Brzezinski on The Real News

'Outside the System' Memo to Brzezinski from Marshall Brement, December 28th 1979

'Outside System' Memo from Brzezinski to Carter

Record of Special Coordination Committee meeting 17th December 1979 (version 1)

Record of Special Coordination Committee meeting 17th December 1979 (version 2)

Cold War International History Project: Towards an International History of the War in Afghanistan 1979-89

Record of Meeting in Paris on Afghanistan Operations, January 1980

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. 344thBrother says:

    Well seriously, Look at that FACE! I mean, it’s a poker face made for bluffing. He looks like he’s lying when he’s not saying anything! But when his mouth moves… BUSTED
    p
    d

  2. Great podcast!
    However, the two links to “Record of Special Coordination Committee meeting 17th December 1979 ” are broken

  3. Why does Brzezinski go to such lengths to deny early arms shipment? I presume it’s not to deny he created AlQaeda or some such thesis, since for that question it doesn’t really matter WHEN you start arming.

    I presume he’s trying to hide the arms shipments because they were not approved ‘Inside System’ ?

    • But since the International History Project was already provided with the ‘Outside System’ documentation, (I vaguely remember to have heard that Brzezinski was part of that project), my presumption is incorrect.

      I don’t get it.

    • Hi Olivier,

      To be honest I think he’s chancing it. Because a lot is potentially at stake here – Gladio B (using Islam to reshape the world, or just to maintain a certain shape) has been around for a long time, but Afghanistan in the late 70s and 80s is where this modern quagmire of civilisation really manifested.

      Perhaps I failed somewhat in making clear what the relevance of all this is in this episode and will do a follow-up. The CIA supported the only mainstream Hollywood film to deal with this topic in recent years, and they very much support this ‘it never really got going until the mid-80s’ narrative with a touch of blowback right at the end. I think that there’s clearly an attempt to muddy the waters and downplay how deep these decisions went.

    • You mean he’s assuming that there’s no evidence of early armament out there / nobody is going to read it anytime soon?

      Fair enough.

      Since later armament is deemed acceptable and earlier armament is in need of lying about, I presume that the armament was moved without an ‘inside system’ approval. Which either means that Carter didn’t know of earlier armaments (not good) or that Carter gave ‘outside system’ orders, which I presume is a formalization of plausible deniability, pretty much like Reagan did for the contras. Would it have been illegal for Carter to keep orders ‘outside system’ ? Is the ‘outside system’ tag a known legal construct within the accepted classification system, or did you stumble on the deep state’s administration? It’s remarkable that anything with that tag would still end up with the history project.

  4. Interesting sentence in the SCC minutes:

    “Approval was granted for leaking information about certain banks’ circumvention of restrictions on Iranian assets.”

  5. Well ok, I guess I will show my level of lack of knowledge here, but so what? We have to learn, and be willing to be corrected… insulted, fine!
    Isn’t Mr. Zbignew Brezinsky one of the achetects of the Global New World Order, where America takes over Western Asia, by making complete Caos on the world?

    His idea is make a complete caos, make the world into a complete soupy mess, and then the one power that is still halfway in place scoops it all up.

    I think it’s nuts.

  6. well maybe he ain’t a robot, but jeezus, (I guess I am no fan of phony Englishmen/twerpy sounding guys), however, this guy really is too too, ah… WTF…. too artificial/finessed.
    I think he makes good points, but I sure don’t like his… ”delivery” or his gadamned accent.

  7. I’m sorry Tom, I don’t really see how The Real News “trying to convince you that the western powers were not supporting the mujahideen with weapons until after the Soviet invasion”. He’s basically just going back to the material Brzezinski ‘challenged’ him to review to see whether or not his assertions about when and where accurate and, as it turns out, this seems to be the case. Paul Jay (the interviewer’s) followup comments are almost entirely quotations from Brzezinski. He’s not, in my opinion, trying to convince you whether or not Brzezinski’s lying about the whole scenario or not, he’s just being a responsible journalist and reviewing whether or not when and what Brzezinski said happened in the manner and in the order he claims.

    I remember Sibel’s beef with Paul Jay and, interestingly enough, the manner in which you’re faulting him here Tom is similar. While I don’t entirely see either of your responses being entirely fair (or at least proportionate), I think this says more about Paul Jay than this does about you or Sibel. I guess, in this example for instance, I’m able to differentiate between what Jay is or isn’t implying in his follow up, but clearly he’s failing to convey this convincingly. If this is the case then, yes indeed, this is problematic, but in this case and in some ways in Sibel’s previous interaction with Jay I don’t think the accusation fits the crime. Let’s call it a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. In your view the crime has been committed and for arguments sake we can say that he’s guilty, but the difference between the charges is not insignificant.

    I recognized what I think it is about Paul Jay which has sparked the ire of people like you and Sibel watching an interview he did with Tom Drake. I decided to coin the phrase of identifying Paul Jay as having GDD: Gravitas Deficit Disorder. He just doesn’t come off well in a lot of instances and for example, when he tries to play the devil’s advocate, his inflection often lacks the conviction to sell it as such. Still, in the last part of the segment Jay actually asks some pretty profound questions about the nature of surveillance as a method of control for the elite via the police state and even makes the assertion that the behavior of the deep state reflects the agenda of psychopaths. I don’t remember exactly how he puts it, but he doesn’t mince words.

    The Real News has its faults, but I watch it from time to time and while I agree with the “left leaning” and at times “pseudo-alternative” descriptions I don’t really find the accusation of being “Democrat supporting” particularly accurate. Democracynow, certainly fits the bill on all three counts, but at least on the political spectrum The Real News comes across to me as ambivalent and if anything perhaps hostile towards the Democratic party for their hypocrisy than anything else. They’ve also had the best reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict than anybody else as far as I’m concerned.

    I don’t wish to argue with you or Sibel about The Real News or Paul Jay specifically because, as I previously stated, I understand why you came to the conclusions you did under the circumstances. All I want to say is that I don’t think the extent of criticism is well warranted when, within the foundation funded paradigm, The Real News operates with a reasonable amount of integrity and it doesn’t seem to align itself particularly neatly with a particular agenda. I think the subscriber supported model at BFP is the only real way that you’re going to get the real news, free of bias, blinders, gatekeeping, and agendas, but I think it’s worth recognizing when others make respectable contributions that legitimately challenge the mainstream narrative and don’t just rally support behind a political party and not just write them off ass being a fraudulent enterprise. Sometimes within the spectrum of the alt-media where I tend to dwell feel like I’m in the group that’s like; “that band sucks, they had a song played on commercial radio and their fans are a bunch of posers” and so on.

    I almost regret writing this as I type, because I’m not particularly optimistic that you, or Sibel for that matter, are going to find anything redeeming about The Real News and Paul Jay and I’m really not interested in allowing myself to get sucked into an argument, but I feel like I have a responsibility to present a counter argument where it seems warranted and necessary.

    Here’s a link to the last part of the interview with Tom Drake, which I mentioned. I think it illustrates the “GDD” aspect which detracts from how effectively or not Paul Jay makes his arguments, but I think at some point in the interview you see where he actually pushes the boundaries of the conversation in ways which don’t conform to the sort of gatekeeping, left-leaning paradigm I see them getting brushed off with here or elsewhere. The GDD factor is prevalent, but perhaps this will be useful in presenting the case as I’ve described it.

    For the record: whether or not Zbigniew Brzezinski was quoted accurately or not, he’s an indefensible, demonic, lying piece of sh!t and no amount of clever talking points and maneuvering could ever redeem him. I know this wasn’t necessary for me to state, but I’m sure there’s not going to be anybody here who will either disagree with me or blame me for doing so. On that note, thank you Tom. Brzezinski is a slippery chicken indeed and analyzing this maneuvering is a useful way of taking on the more sophisticated chicanery (pun intended) which can seduce the more intellectually inclined into falling for these horse sh!t retrofitted blowback “we were right, we just went about it the wrong way” fallacies.

    Okay, that’s more than enough for now. Thanks and keep up the great work =]

    • In all fairness, I think I’m just as guilty of my “I’m more punk rock than you” band analogy. From time to time I recognize that there are downsides to this attitude which, as I pointed out, isn’t always a good or at least fair attitude.

    • BennyB,

      I guess I disagree with some of what you’ve said but I certainly accept that offering glib criticisms like the one I did of The Real News is not particularly helpful. But I actually kinda like Paul Jay, inasmuch as I know his work. This particular piece pissed me off though because he did let Zbigniew sell him a dummy. Like you say, a lot of the final section is just him reading Brzezinski’s words. I never find that to be particularly responsible when dealing with such a slippery fish, though on the other hand you might see it as credible journalism because at least it’s factual – Brzezinski did actually say those things.

      And I do think this episode, on reflection, doesn’t make clear enough what the relevance of all this is. I sometimes get a bit lost in the weeds. So thank you for making it clear – it is exactly because these documents prove that the ‘whoopsy-daisy we accidentally created Al Qaeda, what a lot of blowback!’ narrative is a crock. As it so often is.

      For what it is worth, I don’t think I’m more punk than The Real News. I’m more hippy. But not more punk.

      • Tom,
        I think it was a good selection for illustrating what I referred to previously as the fact that Brzezinski is indeed a ‘slippery chicken’. However, I think it would’ve been more effective if you made the distinction that what happened was more a matter of Brzezinski playing Paul Jay, than Jay simply backing away from his previous statements and endorsing Brzezinski’s historical revisionism. You did acknowledge yourself that you could’ve been more clear, so it seems like the point wasn’t lost. Like I said though, I think it was still a good selection on your part.

        I feel like The Real News are making a legitimate effort and doing well in some cases. In others, such as this they’re allowing themselves to be played. To use my previous metaphor, I think the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter is significant. It may sound stupid, but I feel like there’s more to gain by challenging people like Jay to the extent that it’s possible with the aim of finding common cause and potentially helping them refine what they’re presenting to their audience instead of assuming the worst and trashing their efforts. I’m sure there are plenty of people who tune in to The Real News who would gravitate towards what BFP has to offer for example, but I know just trashing The Real News and Paul Jay without specifically illustrating the point as described above would be a put off for many.

        BFP is basically home base for me, so being put off is a non-issue for me, I’d just like to see more people coming here and learning, contributing to the conversation, and sharing these ideas and information with others. Perhaps I’m just being naive, but that’s just what I wanted to express. Nuff said…

        • Here I go again… hopefully I can apply some restraint 😉

          • BennyB,

            That’s all very fair and reasonable. I am trying to learn to be more diplomatic – it is not something that comes naturally to me. I will certainly reflect on your thoughts here.

          • Tom,

            I stopped trying long long long time ago;-) Seriously, Why should I? Ain’t running for office, ain’t working for the State Dep … why do I need to be more diplomatic? Right? Every time I say something, someone applauds, someone boos, someone shrugs. Only if ‘you’ are not saying anything you can expect uniform response…

        • Sibel,

          I only mean in terms of fighting less with people who I’m not really fighting with, and focusing more of my combative energies on those I really am fighting with.

          So not really ‘diplomacy’, more ‘strategic allocation of combat resources’ as I’m sure some Pentagon manual states…

          • ed nelson says:

            i hear that Tom,,, thank youforyour important post!

            I am perplexed with what I see Perplexed I guess.pt//// pisses off i you like0

            SZZZZZZ*

          • Right on, Tom. I’m glad you took something positive away from my feedback. It’s not a matter of trying to please anybody, certainly not me. As Sibel rightly pointed out, that’s a waste of time. Save being ‘as diplomatic and polite as possible’ for Bob Graham 😉 It’s a matter of strategy and you summed this up quite well here.

    • ed nelson says:

      `oh come on! Paul Jay is really great!

  8. OH BOY WHAT A BUNCH A balone!

  9. On another level… it is sometimes a bit difficult to figure how it is really a plan to go on…. to go on.

    What the the great Sibel say to that?

    Please don’t submit robot shit.

  10. +
    F yourself Oliveir, you are a complete dick head!

  11. Hi Tom,

    Enjoyed this effort very much. I agree with the overall premise of your work here and agree that you’ve nailed Brezinski as a liar. However, unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I do have one, possibly minor, nitpick with some of your evidence. Around 22:00 minutes you bring up the Cold War International History Project which leads to, around the 23rd minute the discussion of improving the financing, communications and arming of the rebel forces. By the use of the word ‘improving’, you believe (perhaps rightly so) it implies that those having the discussion had already begun these aims and, as I and you said, they thought they could improve on them. However, there is another possibility on this point. The rebels clearly had been armed, were being financed and had some level of communication. None of this necessarily had to have been coming from those involved in these discussions though. They could actually be looking to improve on what the mujahadeen had already acquired through other means. Is this likely? I’m not sure. But, again, unless I understand your point on this particular piece of evidence, I don’t believe it is a slam dunk.

    • *That last sentence should be misunderstand, not understand. No offense but, seriously, the functionality of the message boards should really be a lot better.

    • Beautiful sentence in the Paris report: The German attendee says he can’t export weapons because of the German constitution, and then:

      “He accepted that the German Government would be powerless to prevent aid provided for humanitarian reasons being used in substitution for other funds which might then be in practice diverted to the support of a guerrilla movement”.

    • Hi Andrew,

      Sure, we could interpret the comments that way, and that might indeed be Brzezinski’s get-out clause if he was ever confronted with these documents.

      But the reason I don’t think we should interpret the comments that way is because they combine the three together – funding, arming, communications – indicating they are all elements of the same operation, which we know was taking place since at least July when Carter signed the order. There is no separation implied, at all, in these documents (as far as I can see). So this notion of pre-invasion it was just money and equipment and post-invasion they added weapons too is, I think, abundantly disproven by these documents.

      Perhaps you disagree, but that’s my attempt at a rebuttal.

      • Tom,

        What you say seems reasonable especially considering how much time you’ve spent in the documents. As I said, I buy your main premise and agree that Brezinski lied. Just trying to help keep it be the sharpest case possible.

        Look forward to your next piece.

  12. ed nelson says:

    .hey Andrew…. could you make it just a little more simple what you say? Could you make it more easy for the average doofus like me to unnerstand? Good man Andrew?

    • Could you be more specific on what you need clarified, ed?

    • I’m also still curious as to who you are referring to in this post of yours?

      “well maybe he ain’t a robot, but jeezus, (I guess I am no fan of phony Englishmen/twerpy sounding guys), however, this guy really is too too, ah… WTF…. too artificial/finessed. I think he makes good points, but I sure don’t like his… ”delivery” or his gadamned accent.”

  13. ed nelson says:

    I don’t remember it now, but what ever it was, it was a comment that you made, that’s all I remember… It sure isn’t importtant. It was just a little thing… I tend to obsess over the littlest things…

  14. ed nelson says:

    Hi Andrew, I don’t mean anything um… bad to you… I am an old guy, who is pissed off about the way the
    world is going… I sure don’t want to be mean to youngster and I want to be nice to you young people!

  15. You don’t remember what, now, ed?

  16. ed nelson says:

    hi Andrew,
    I really appreciate your coorespondence to my comments…. I am temporarily under the weather as they say…

  17. Gary Binmore says:

    Good work, Tom, to nail him like that.

    People like Brzezinski don’t talk to convey facts but to issue a fog of disinformation.
    The “30 terrorist raining camps” in the USSR was probably another outright lie – it’s standard U.S statecraft to declare (not merely accuse) that an enemy is supporting terrorism and/or running drugs – a convenient means of whipping up the plebs into useful xenophobia while concealing one’s own pursuits in those endeavours.

    Citing a former CIA director (and DoD chief) as an authoritative source on anything without additional proof would be hilarious – were it not another standard Washington tactic. It helps to perpetuate the myth that Langley/Pentagon suits are paragons of truth and rectitude.

    “We are still a system of laws” is hilarious.

    His boast, not discussed here, that U.S. funding of the Mujahadeen destroyed the USSR is pretty much a lie. Low level CIA analysts had noticed a steady decline in Soviet power from 1975. This was banished from mainstream discussion for the same reason that Islamic terrorism is exaggerated now. Afghanistan only shortened the life of the USSR by 1 or 2 years, if that.

    Of course, the Soviets’ greatest crime in Afghnistan – killing millions of people – is never raised by the likes of Brzezinski because the US/NATO did that too. A classic case of rival superpowers staying silent about one another’s crimes.

    • ed nelson says:

      Hi Gary, Brazinsky these mfrs are messing things up

    • ed nelson says:

      hi, I havn’nt even readsinski much of the book…. however, I have an idea of what itis about.
      This book is…. the Brazinski book… (my eys sight is going away… to do with blogg stuff)
      Brazinsinki is a proponent along with Kissinger…they want to make caos…. and USA/Britania picks up the peices… Now we have to be glad to live here in the USofA….

    • People like Brzezinski don’t talk to convey facts but to issue a fog of disinformation.

      Well said as usual, Gary. 🙂

      • ed nelson says:

        you are completley wrong about Zbiignew Brazinzki… you don’t know what you are talking about!

        Zbignew… maybe he isn’t too much in the format of the usual typical åmerican ideal… no…however he is in the concept of REAL POLITICs Reality politics…

        His daughter is pretty enough… she is on TV every day with Joe Scarbough!

        So to the point:: Read Zbig’s book…I am going to read it soon… I already know that what he says there… it is: tear up the world in caos…destroy any and eveert possible remaining power…..that mey be of any substance… and drive the Empire

      • Gary Binmore says:

        Thank you BennyB. Every utterance of a guy like Brzezinski offers an exercise in clear thinking.

    • Gary,

      I could not agree more with your post. This notion that the CIA didn’t know that the Soviet Union was struggling is more lies. Some people within the CIA clearly knew, but Team B and the general Cold War philosophy did not allow for their voices to be heard.

      • Gary Binmore says:

        The well-named Team B! One of the lying sociopathic rabbles that coalesced in PNAC etc. Lying has never hurt a neocon. Brzezinski is too smart and too much a Polish aristocrat to associate with that lot, but no doubt he knows how to manipulate them. Neocons are the useful idiots of the Brzezinski/ Rockefeller/ Kissinger elite.

  18. Ok, ed. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but, I only give so much leeway (plenty, I think) to people (or ‘bots in some cases) who seem incapable or uninterested in having a meaningful dialogue. In short, I’m going to part ways with you, here. I’m sure neither you nor I will be missing out on anything substantial if we stop pretending you are interested in an exchange of ideas. Hope your bugs are fixed soon 😉

  19. ed nelson says:

    Andrew my pal… let’s not part as enemies… I think you and me probably are good buddies , for real.

  20. ed nelson says:

    Andrew buddie… or fellow traveler.. or what everyou may be… Let me tell you this… you don’t know much…
    You don’t know very much…. well for one thing… you got it all wrong about me… who I am. I have a library card… I read books… I look over the internet, I post commentts… many under the name Geoshmoe @ FDL… I guess you would get a kik out of that…. I say My points pretty strait up… I liked the one when I came to the defense of the guy … Domiinique … Stuouse…(the guy that they set up with a black bitch whore in NYC!
    I mean really? Don’t you think Dominick could get he rocks off over there in Africa… about one hour away…. a real Black Babe like Mereiam Makeba or better… he don’t have to come to NYC to so callec ”rape” some kafir bitch.

  21. ed nelson says:

    oh, go on Bennie! you are some kind of Ms Manners… type. And you don’t get to have the right to hold the door, that is exclusively for the owner… Sibel!

  22. ed nelson says:

    There he goes… calling them ”Communists”, like there is such a thing…. it is a term… no defifininion…. any country that bucks the empire system… get called communists….

    what a faggy voice the has…. couldn’t fightt his way out a paper bag pussy!

  23. ed nelson says:

    soory I was snoozing.

  24. ed nelson says:

    I mealn to say somerhing I do mean to say something….I just got over being too drunk…. Now can resume the conversation… by the way, I had a nice talk with Eddie Robertson… down there in Novato….everbodyknows Eddie and Cecil….hey they even know me too… Eddie Nelson…. I was my grandads”s grandson, even though he did like m me very much, He likide Eric’s kids more than us kids…. but amyyways…. I was the one who went overto North Norway…. I visited the grave of our great grand parents called Erik og Petalina…

    /Erik Nilsen….. I am a nelson so go figure

  25. ed nelson says:

    likie I say Sybel….I have this sort of love atttrraction to you

  26. I was wondering how many people would be as interested as me in hearing Tom talk about anarchist communism. Tom if you’re reading this, I’d love to hear your 2 cents on, for example, whether the first word of the term should have inverted commas around it or not and which typical activities, if any, of the sort of general British anarchist “scene” you think are worthwhile or not.

    I have a bunch of questions for you about this, because we both live in the UK, because I’m very interested and have been involved with that scene in the past, and of course because you have spoken about the UK anarcho lefty community before (“say what you want about their politics but they’re a very nice bunch of people” is the sentence that comes to mind). I know it might not be the best idea for an actual podcast, I’m pretty sure the bulk of listeners are not from the UK, let alone have contextual knowledge of left-anarchist goings on here. But I’m chancing my luck anyway.

    I guess I’ve been spurred on to this because the universities have just started back, and with that, at least here in Glasgow, always comes a spike in the amount of left wing posters on lampposts. It’s been troubling me: I think states are immoral and most people here don’t, but there is this not insignificant crowd who very much agree, yet I find myself bothered greatly by many of their ideas, or more specifically the their implementation. I think if I hadn’t met a bunch of them I very well may have fallen for the idea that these kinds of people are basically just all agent provocateurs, or at least just wouldn’t be doing what they are doing were it not for special branch. I don’t buy that but I think it’s likely there’s a degree of truth to the second part – I’m thinking Bob Lambert and his sick little legacy, and the less recent stuff you’ve covered already about the UK intelligence services’ history of generally fucking anarchists over.

    As I said I have so much to talk and ask about on this matter, and I confess I’m not a person who writes much more than shopping lists very often so forgive me for the higlty-piglty nature of this comment. If and when I get a response to respond to I will hopefully be a lot more concise.

    • Hey Jub,

      I’m not quite sure what to make of your comment – that is, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking or who you are asking about.

      When you say ‘anarchist communists’ who do you mean? Because when I said that line you quote I’m pretty sure I was talking about the eco-anarchists. Now, anarcho-communism exists philosophically and if you want I can try to find the time to do an episode on Rousseau. I quite like Rousseau. I could never get along with Kropotkin though, and he was another aristo-commie so I feel he is to be viewed with at least some scepticism from the word go.

      As to the Glasgow cornucopia of vague lefty student crap – I don’t know what to tell you, Karl Marx seems kinda cool to a lot of teenagers. It’s easier to wear a t-shirt than to think about the real world. Anarchism in general, and in fact all utopian philosophies in general have this psychological effect on people – they are an escape from political realities that are fucking horrible. So I sympathise somewhat.

      It is by no means just the British intelligence agencies who have screwed over the anarchists. The first ever truly international security partnership (as best I can tell) was the St Petersburg Protocols to combat Anarchism. It has always been a very difficult idea for them to quash. So, for all its problems, I say it’s the best bet for an ideal that genuinely frightens and bothers the deep state.

      As to what political activities anarchists are up to right now in Britain – hard to say really. I’m more a follower of the movements rather than a supporter. I see a lot of disparate protests and people trying to convince the Marxists to abandon their ideology (often to get accused of being neo-liberals for their troubles). The tradition I feel I am part of involves the likes of David Nicholl, who tried to resist the security state by intellectual means.

      Does this answer any of your questions?

      • CuChulainn says:

        “Karl Marx seems kinda cool to a lot of teenagers. It’s easier to wear a t-shirt than to think about the real world.”

      • Thanks for the reply, Tom. I appreciate it.

        I suppose when I say anarcho-communists I’m really talking collectively about a range of people including politically minded squatters, AFED, and green anarchists; people who are opposed to the existence of what they call both states and capitalism. As for what I’m specifically asking I’m now not so sure, I heard you say recently you’re on the left so I guess my question is, to what extent do you consider yourself to be left wing, what do you mean by that, and what do you think of the idea that profit is inherently wrong?

        I’m pretty sure I come under that category of people who have tried to convince marxists to abandon their ideology, which never goes down well, just like talk of conspiracies that are not acknowledged by the mainstream media. This is where I get the most bummed out. Do you have any tips on how to confront the notion that investigating the activities of the deep state is a waste of time, within an anarchist context, as it were? Because that’s as far as I’ve ever managed to get – in the event that someone does actually concede that there is something suspicious about, just for example, the pentagon’s missing $2.3 trillion/budget analyst office or whatever, then they just whip out the standard “it’s still a waste of our revolutionary time” sort of line.

        Also forgive my ignorance but I’ve never heard of David Nicholl – are you talking about the neurologist or somebody else? And do a podcast on Rousseau by all means, I would be really interested, but you don’t need to make it a priority.

        Muchas gracias

  27. Also just one other thing, is it just me or do militant revolutionary anarchists tend to be among the least skeptical of the official stories of terrorist attacks?

    That’s basically an aside, I just wanted to check the email notification boxes really

  28. jackdonovan says:

    Brilliant! Thanks.

Speak Your Mind