Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Kossacks try to figure out Macbeth and write his history
Posted by: McQ on Monday, May 29, 2006

As this little fiasco winds to a close, there is some heavy duty conspiracy theories being hatched in Kosdom.
The question was: Who was behind it? Who benefits from such a video? From the comment section to the post by Maha comes this most sentient statement by former Marine D.R. Marvel:
But if this bloke is a phony, chances are he's a "plant"...As were so many of J. Edgar's COINTELPRO-phylactics back in the day...
It worked pretty well for them back then...One thing you can be sure of about the RW: they never get tired of "Old Tricks"...And their audience never fails to fall for them...

It's an important point to remember, since all propaganda has a goal, and understanding that goal, and what it achieves, one is able to understand who is behind that propaganda.

Think about it. A video is offered on the internet. Right-wing propagandists, all versed in defined tactics of hatred for all things not of their liking, make a pointed (and very predictable) stand that the video is a bonifide example of Liberal hatred for the common soldier, is all the rage amongst the Liberal movement when it is clearly not, nor is the fact that the video is a Liberal creation any clearer than whether MacBeth was an Army Ranger. The selctiveness of the right-wing is amazing in this regard. They entirely dismiss the truthfulness and integrity of MacBeth (and by proxy all his statemnts) yet they entirely accept that this obvious piece of propaganda was created with the intent goal of bashing soldiers, rather than the goal of inciting the hatred of the right-wing and / or the suspicion of the left.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy amongst the right-wing blogsphere. What I am saying is that they are being used, their behavior predictable and reliable, to push the "Liberals hate soldiers" meme out into the greater blogsphere and mainstream media. It's what they do and do very well. The rightie blogsphere promotes hatred. It's a cannon for it.

Now, we'll have to wait and see what happens with the man in the video. He holds all the answers.
I agree, who was the man behind it? But Macbeth? A wannabe. That's all. And a scam artist. And my bet? My bet is when "the man in the video" reads this sort of nonsense, he'll be more than happy to adopt it as his own.

Of course, he'll probably believe you spell "Karl Rove" with a "C". Read the comments as well.

And the "right-wing blogosphere"? Well they don't call them "MilBlogs" for nothing, for heaven sake.

Meanwhile on another diary, they're getting a little whiny about who's getting to write the Wikipedia entry for Macbeth (who is now listed under the sub-category of "hoax" — fitting in my estimation).
OK, I'm really ticked off about the Wikipedia article about "Jesse Macbeth" refered to in Anatomy of an Anti-Liberal Viral Video. I love Wikipedia, but when someone tries to inject hoaxes and misinformation into it, I really get steamed.

I would like for the Macbeth article to be a factual article — or at least as factual as possible considering it's a hoax. With a couple of small exceptions, it looks like it was written by a conservative blogger with an agenda. More frustrating is that my edits are being reverted after only a few minutes. The "sources" this article sites are mostly from right-wing blog sites.
Please, visit, learn how to help Shakludanto make the entry more "factual", which, I assume means getting whatever he feels is right wing bias out of the article. Question: Does anyone remember him/her around whent he heavy lifting of outing Macbeth was done?
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Stars and Stripes has some statements from Macbeth:
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Hm. You’d think after being duped so many times by right-winger "tricks" (especially old ones!) Kos et al would be more careful before rallying behind an unknown entity solely for his message...
Written By: asklepios
URL: http://
Macbeth came into existence out of sheer leftwing want. Even if he was a "plant", which is just silly, he couldn’t have gotten as far as he did for as long as he did if the left didn’t wish what he was saying was true.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I really like the way that the left never ever admits when it is wrong. Has anyone ever seen the left admit error of any sort. I certainly can’t remember it. It’s all a conspiracy theory when they get caught with the pants down.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Personally I think you guys need to stop talking about "The LEft." You’re smearing them...errrr "tarring" them. Not all Leftists are Kossacks.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ahhh, Joe, doesn’t it ever wear you down, carrying all those grudges?
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
I don’t see YOU letting go, OrneryWP... the best thing is "don’t feed the trolls." Oh it’s NOT a grudge, BTW. I think you’re wrong, that’s all. I don’t know you so I can’t dislike you and carry a grudge.

Any way thought I’d save you the bother of a posting.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s just that you seem to spend some effort working in a quote of mine. I don’t bring you up out of the middle of nowhere, now do I?
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
It’s just that you seem to spend some effort working in a quote of mine. I don’t bring you up out of the middle of nowhere, now do I?
Shucks, I think he likes you Ornery.
Written By: McQ
I don’t know much about "Wikipedia", but my understanding is that it is supposed to be some sort of reference work, like an encyclopedia, that is open to additions, editing, etc. by anyone who feels they have something to add. Is this accurate?

I certainly hope so, as this has given me quite a few chuckles and brightens my day. Even now I am smiling, as I consider the idea of a constantly changing "reference" work. How does one cite such a source? Obviously, one would need a date and time stamp. Is the site builder’s name Winston by any chance? Deconstruction in action.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Even now I am smiling, as I consider the idea of a constantly changing "reference" work.
Try comparing different editions of an encyclopedia or dictionary some day.

Wikipedia entries are version controlled. Unlike MiniTrue, there’s an attempt to retain the history of changes rather than acting as if the change was always there.

This does not mean that Wikipedia entries are always correct, but there are feedback mechanisms that are supposed to reduce the possibility of abuse.
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Wikipedia is good as a reference to get you on the right path. I would not cite Wikipedia as authoritative because it is Wikipedia, as I might with an encyclopedia. I do find it useful as a starting point to find more authoritative resources, though.

For example, if I wanted to learn about the Corn Laws, Wikipedia may or may not have a reliable description, but it’s a good place to look for references and additional facts, which can then be checked upon.

In other words, Wikipedia is like your friend who knows a lot about car engines. When your car is acting up, it’s probably a good idea to check with him first to get an idea of what the problem may be. He may or may not be exactly right, but he’s useful.
Written By: Jon Henke
"Try comparing different editions of an encyclopedia or dictionary some day."

I do. At present I own 3 sets of encyclopedias, one of them a 1954 Britannica. In some ways the older ones are superior to newer ones. I also buy old books, mostly non-fiction, at yard sales, etc. There is sometimes a definite difference in style and even substance in old books, but at least with books you can assume that if someone went to the expense of publishing it, it is somewhat reliable and the author is usually reputable. Does anyone check the qualifications of Wikipedia contributors? One of my favourite books is an old history of important advances in chemical engineering(c. 1955) in which the phrase "n***** in the woodpile" is casually used. I find that old books hold up rather well in comparison to recently published ones.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Does anyone check the qualifications of Wikipedia contributors?
Good grief, given the amounts of tenacious nitpicking that goes on around here, how long do you think an incorrect entry would survive on Wikipedia?
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Wikipedia.......not a source you EVER want to take as authoritive for anything that can be subjective- people, events, controversies.

For static things it’s ok. But my cousin is a teacher and will not allow students to cite Wikipedia as a source on any of their research papers.
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Good grief, given the amounts of tenacious nitpicking that goes on around here, how long do you think an incorrect entry would survive on Wikipedia?"

I haven’t a clue. As I said, I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia. No offense meant to the fine people here, but I wouldn’t use or accept this site as an authoritive reference either, and if Wikipedia is as volatile as this site, it is definitely not acceptable as a reference. A little stability is necessary; you can’t have your reference change at unpredictable intervals.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks