Bloomberg pundit Noah Smith had a very revealing interaction on Twitter the other day that Iâve been meaning to write about ever since.
It began with Smith sharing a screenshot of an article by journalist Yasha Levine which condemns US imperialist escalations against China and ties them to the sudden spike in anti-Asian hate crimes weâve been seeing. Smith shared his screenshot with the caption, âI hold by my prediction that the American Left is going to split into A) social democrats, and B) foreign-policy-obsessed pseudo-tankies.â
âHow do we stop the B group from driving the narrative?â one of Smithâs followers asked him.
âWell, first we teach everyone the word âtankieâ!â Smith replied, with a Substack article he authored explaining that any leftist who opposes western imperialist agendas against China should be branded with that label and dismissed.
Well, first we teach everyone the word “tankie”!https://t.co/zzMSygnasw
â Noah Smith đ (@Noahpinion) March 29, 2021
Which is just so refreshing in its honesty, really. Itâs been obvious for ages that such pejoratives are being used by imperialists to control the narrative in a way that benefits ruling power structures, but itâs not often youâll have a mainstream narrative manager come right out and say that this is exactly what they are trying to do.
Smithâs admission that he is training his audience to bleat the word âtankieâ at any leftist who is âobsessedâ with a tiny trivial matter like US foreign policy in order to control the dominant foreign policy narrative is born out by the rest of his Twitter activity, which sees him repeating that word constantly and weaponizing it against anyone who expresses skepticism of the empireâs official foreign policy narratives.
âTankieâ used to be a term which referred specifically to British communists who supported the Soviet Union, but under the facilitation of narrative managers like Smith itâs enjoying a mainstream resurrection in which it is commonly weaponized against anyone to the left of Bernie Sanders who opposes US imperialist agendas. I wrote against imperialism for years without anyone ever applying that pejorative to me, but now it comes up on a near-daily basis. I havenât changed the basics of my beliefs or my approach to anti-imperialism, but the widespread use of âtankieâ as a pejorative against people like me most certainly has changed.
It joins the ranks of famous weaponized pejoratives like âRussian botâ, âCCP propagandistâ, âAssadistâ, and the one size fits all perennial favorite âconspiracy theoristâ in labels which can be applied to ensure the dismissal of anyone who voices skepticism of narratives that are being promoted by known liars to facilitate the agendas of murderous psychopaths. Another new crowd favorite is âgenocide denierâ, a label that gets applied to anyone who points out the glaring plot holes in the imperial Uyghur narrative which narrative managers are overjoyed about being able to use because it lets them equate skepticism of a geostrategically significant US narrative with Nazism.
What these pejoratives accomplish, as Noah Smith is well aware, is the ability to inoculate the mainstream herd from the wrongthink of anyone to whom that label has been applied. That way they never have to engage the argument or the evidence that gets laid out contradicting the official imperial line; as long as they can convince enough people to accept their pejorative as legitimate, they have a magical phrase they can utter to dispel any anti-imperialist argument which appears anywhere in the information ecosystem.
ASPI, Australian think tank funded by weapons makers & states including the US, just put out a hilarious report attacking @TheGrayzoneNews‘ Xinjiang coverage.
ASPI doesn’t challenge a single fact. It instead tallies Chinese diplomats retweeting us. đ§(https://t.co/DBCsS4N9BJ)
â Aaron MatĂ© (@aaronjmate) April 3, 2021
This is a major part of an imperial narrative managerâs job these days: smearing anti-imperialists and critical thinkers as untrustworthy. The debate is never to be engaged and counter-arguments are never to be made; why engage in a debate you will probably lose when you can simply explain to everyone why nobody should listen to the other side?
A perfect example of this would be the recent smear piece the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) put out on The Grayzone with the title âStrange bedfellows on Xinjiang: The CCP, fringe media and US social media platformsâ.
As explained in a thread by Grayzoneâs Aaron MatĂ©, the government-funded and arms industry-funded think tank ASPI makes no effort in its report to dispute or debunk any of the reporting that The Grayzone has been putting out on China or on anything else. Rather, they simply work to associate the outlet with the Chinese government by citing incidents in which Chinese officials shared Grayzone articles on social media. By fallaciously associating The Grayzone with the Chinese government, narrative managers now have a weapon which enables them to dismiss the outlet as âCCP propagandaâ.
As anyone who has been active in anti-imperialist online discourse knows, this is an extremely common tactic which narrative managers and their indoctrinated herd use to dismiss questions, criticisms and evidence which is inconvenient to the US-centralized imperial war machine. Try countering their claims with a well-sourced article full of robust argumentation and solid evidence, and theyâll dismiss you with a âHa ha, THAT outlet? That outlet is propaganda!â Because it came from an anti-imperialist outlet like The Grayzone or Consortium News instead of an outlet which never fails to support US military agendas like The New York Times.
Attacking the Source: Establishment Loyalistsâ Favorite Online Tactic https://t.co/d9spksuuFA
â Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) December 19, 2019
But itâs a completely ridiculous tactic if you think about it. All theyâre really saying is âYou canât use that anti-imperialist outlet to substantiate your anti-imperialist position! You can only use the pro-US outlets which have helped deceive westerners into backing every US war!â Itâs also logically fallacious; attacking the source instead of the argument is what people do when they canât attack the argument.
Citing an empire-targeted government sharing an anti-imperialist article as evidence that that government is tied to that outlet in some way is an equally absurd argument; obviously governments are going to cite evidence and arguments which favor them, and the imperialist western media isnât going to be publishing such evidence or arguments. The fact that western anti-imperialists and nations like Russia and China both oppose western imperialism doesnât mean western anti-imperialists work for Russ or China, it means those groups all oppose western imperialism for their own reasons. Since western imperialism is the most murderous and oppressive force on this planet, itâs to be expected that multiple different groups will oppose it.
Pay attention to the way imperial narrative managers try to use smears and pejoratives to file away anti-imperialists into a âdonât listen to the things this person saysâ box, and help others pay attention to it too. This is no more legitimate an argument than the Wizard of Oz yelling âPay no attention to that man behind the curtain,â and it should be treated with no more respect than that.
Source: Popularresistance.org