If yes, why?
He’s no ML, but he’s reliably anti-imperialist, and he’s done a ton of good investigative journalism. Recall his work on the false flag massacre in Syria. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water just because he published Chomsky’s wife’s apologia regarding Epstein.
I liked Aaron Mate debunking of the Russophobia going around, nothing more.
Honestly, we don’t have to “settle.” We’re getting to the point where we have a list of sources we can refer to later.
How many ML’s are actually doing investigative journalism? Nearly none, AFAIK. We have to get our facts from wherever we can. We can take the information without catching liberal cooties from the messenger.
I guess…
It just seems that, well, we have standards, dammit…
We should have standards of a kind. But as passing along sources of information goes, I don’t think one of them needs to be “must be a communist.” As I understand it, the primary contradiction right now is imperialism, so if someone is doing good anti-imperialist work, that’s something. Now if they are doing token anti-imperialist talking points and then taking a hard right turn, that’s a good place to draw the line, I think. But I’m not aware of this person failing in that particular way.
The issue here appears to be that he recently posted a statement from Noam Chomsky’s wife, Valéria Chomsky, about the ties to Epstein: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/noam-chomskys-wife-responds-to-epstein
And that prior to that, he posted something defensive of Noam Chomsky before retracting it after having read more on exchanges between Chomsky and Epstein. Shown at around 1:10-1:30 into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9gAKG7gFo
Where my mind goes is, what are his ties to Chomsky and reason for related sympathies. Is it nothing more than being defensive because, as he puts it, he saw it as “a rush to nullify a lifetime of noble work” (e.g. he believes in contributions Chomsky has made and sees it as the usual imperialist media looking for excuses to go after anyone outside the box?). Or is he himself too much like controlled opposition and Chomsky was too, and same is running cover for same?
I don’t know enough about him to judge and I think we should be cautious of assuming ill intent based on “six degrees of separation to Epstein” kind of thinking, especially when there are plenty of evident and straightforward connections to be concerned about. At the same time, I think there is value in being cautious in the other direction and investigating the material interests of people who are anti-imperialist but are not ML. It’s not going to be some cosmic accident that they are that way. There will be reasons they are willing to embrace the one, but not the other, whether those reasons are easy to see or not.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Exactly, Daniel Mate usually does very good work.
*Aaron Maté
Damn, got the wrong one. Daniel is the most moral cohost.
I like Mate, but I don’t like Max Blumenthal.
I just don’t like the anti-vax nonsense.
And some of his attacks against Ben Norton.
the anti-trans stuff was concerning, too, for sure
As a fem, I do agree.
The grey zone lost all its Marxist credit when Norton got froze out. blumenthal is a reactionary
Unfortunately Blumenthal seems to own the project. I wouldn’t go so far as to paint him as a reactionary, but he’s a weird dude with some awful takes, like those which @Makan@lemmygrad.ml mentioned. Klarenberg & Maté continue to stick around, for better or worse.
Edit to add: The Grayzone never really was ML, so I wouldn’t say they lost that.
Never go on the GZ now only GEP (Geopolitical Economy Report.)
I hadn’t heard anything bad about Aaron Mate. Blumenthal is the one that has some really strange anti-vaxxer and other individualist US views, although he’s solid when it comes to anti-imperialism, at least as far as I’ve read.
Maté had been critical of all people who were critical of Noam Chomsky. I actually wonder what he thinks about Noam’s anti-communist works if he actually believes his “lifetime of work” as viabke theory.
What’s the problem with Aaron Mate?
Major Chomsky fanboy. Actually defends his writings.
Sure, but nobody is perfect. He’s a solid anti-imperialist investigative journalist. He’s done a lot of work to expose the Syrian false flag gas attack, Russiagate, and the complicity of the West in causing the Ukraine war, among other things.
I don’t think such a minor thing, that doesn’t even really seep into his work, warrants calling him a clown.
