S.T. Patrick Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Issue 004 of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics is now available at our LuLu page: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews The preview from the LuLu page: 228 pages. In this, the fourth issue of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics, we delve into the idea of what America believes and why they believe it. Joseph Green contributed the cover story, the brilliant "On the Origins of Seditious Discourse." New to garrison this issue are Elizabeth Lea Vos (Russiagate), John Potash (Jeffrey Epstein), Douglas Caddy (Watergate), Steve Ubaney (Was FDR Murdered?), J. Gary Shaw (Rose Cherami), and Adam Gorightly (Kennedy assassination research). Returning are Edgar Tatro (Lee Harvey Oswald), Jim DiEugenio (Watergate), David Ray Griffin (9/11), Jim Hougan (Richard Nixon), Kevin Ryan (9/11), Donald Jeffries (Natalee Holloway), Richard Bartholomew (JFK assassination), Randy Benson (Lee Harvey Oswald), Dr. Michael Chesser (JFK autopsy), and Walt Brown (JFK assassination). We also have coverage of the Iowa caucuses from both Caitlin Johnstone and Twitter nation. Thanks! S.T. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) Congratulations Mr. Patrick. Keep up the efforts to bring back Ramparts. Edited February 7, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 More Russiagate denial! More Dem bashing! Oh goody... As of last Friday the USA has a new form of government with executive claims of unlimited powers, ratified by the US Senate. This flushing of checks and balances is only the latest iteration of Trump’s slo-mo Fascist Coup. The Iowa caucus is Garrison Mag’s biggest current political concern? Horse shoe politics? Puh-leeze... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: More Russiagate denial! More Dem bashing! Oh goody... As of last Friday the USA has a new form of government with executive claims of unlimited powers, ratified by the US Senate. This flushing of checks and balances is only the latest iteration of Trump’s slo-mo Fascist Coup. The Iowa caucus is Garrison Mag’s biggest current political concern? Horse shoe politics? Puh-leeze... Do you have all the copies and have read them? Interesting historical perspectives. Likes been said "if you don't learn from history, your doomed...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 8, 2020 Author Share Posted February 8, 2020 I would not say that it's Dem bashing. Can you say the party had a good week... or month? Neither of the big two parties are beyond criticism. Those who self-identify with the left will probably always say we are "too right" and those who align with the right will say we are "too left." And that's not hyperbole. I've had a pretty major (everyone here would recognize his name) right-leaning journalist say he thinks it heavily leans left (he was observing and not criticizing). I've also had a leftist intellectual (or, that's what everyone calls him) ask if it was going rightward. Both read it (or so they say). Frankly, I'm fine with that. I think it's fair. I wouldn't want to read a magazine that just patted my own beliefs on the back. I like being challenged. A reader should not assume that I agree with all the articles written. I wrote that in the first essay of the first issue. I like being challenged. I'm sorry there are those who don't or won't like it. I wish that weren't the case. But I know that it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 I’m challenging the “current events” articles by Elizabeth Lea Vos and Caitlan Johnstone. I bought the first two books — great on historical issues! Dismal on current events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 8, 2020 Author Share Posted February 8, 2020 I appreciate you giving it a shot, Cliff. I do. We aren't going to make everyone happy, and I understand that, but I appreciate you giving us a shot. I should say that Elizabeth considers herself a leftist and Caitlin calls herself a "bogan socialist." I think both are supporting Sanders in the DNC race, from what I can tell. But yes, they are more in line with Aaron Mate, who writes for The Nation, and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. They also tend to align with Consortium News. I can understand how that may not be your thing. I can. But, as I said, I truly appreciate you reading the first two. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 8, 2020 Author Share Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Congratulations Mr. Patrick. Keep up the efforts to bring back Ramparts. Thanks! Your contributions have been amazing, and I'm excited to see what's coming from you in the future. Edited February 8, 2020 by S.T. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie Goldberg Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Thanks for posting this! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 9, 2020 Author Share Posted February 9, 2020 You're very welcome, Stephanie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 20 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said: I appreciate you giving it a shot, Cliff. I do. We aren't going to make everyone happy, and I understand that, but I appreciate you giving us a shot. I should say that Elizabeth considers herself a leftist and Caitlin calls herself a "bogan socialist." I think both are supporting Sanders in the DNC race, from what I can tell. But yes, they are more in line with Aaron Mate, who writes for The Nation, and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. They also tend to align with Consortium News. I can understand how that may not be your thing. I can. But, as I said, I truly appreciate you reading the first two. I do. S.T., I sense you’re not the type to take criticism of your work personally. I relish a good fact based back and forth. Steel sharpens steel and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 9, 2020 Author Share Posted February 9, 2020 I don't take it personally, no. Once the decision is made to have a writer onboard, I allow them a lot of freedom. I also get protective of them. I make a promise to support their careers and work any way I can, and I try to do that. I feel blessed for the opportunity to have everyone we do have onboard. But I understand that it won't please everyone. I've said this openly: if it DID please everyone, I'd think we were doing something wrong, because I would think we were too one-minded, sticking too much to one ideological road, so to speak. I don't plan on agreeing with every writer or every perspective. I don't plan on the writers every wholly agreeing with one another. And that also goes for the readers. I just hope we can all be open to writers and ideas that we may not want to agree with or that we may not agree with for a variety of reasons. I honestly have zero interest in the Right-Left paradigm. To me, there is mainstream history one one side (History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, Cengage, the big publishers, etc) and then there is us on the other side. Whether I have agreed with every article's conclusions or not, I am quite confident that the conclusions the writers have will not be given a fair shake in the next McGraw-Hill textbook that will find its way into schools across America. I respect and encourage the writers' ability to historically dissent, even if I'm not 100% in on the conclusion. But yes, I agree with you that I like a good factual conversation. Yes. And I respect your ability as a reader to challenge what is in the article after you've read it. You aren't the bad guy to me. You're doing what any reader should do. The History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, the big publishers and Big Media.... they are the bad guys to me. So I welcome your input, yes. And I thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Couteau Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Mr. Patrick, Keep up the great work. Your efforts are truly appreciated. Also glad to see John Potash featured in the current edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted February 10, 2020 Author Share Posted February 10, 2020 Thank you, Rob. I appreciate that. Potash is a way in to so many good stories that merge pop culture and intel. He's a gold mine that I hope we can keep on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 23 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said: I don't take it personally, no. Once the decision is made to have a writer onboard, I To me, there is mainstream history one one side (History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, Cengage, the big publishers, etc) and then there is us on the other side. Whether I have agreed with every article's conclusions or not, I am quite confident that the conclusions the writers have will not be given a fair shake in the next McGraw-Hill textbook that will find its way into schools across America. I respect and encourage the writers' ability to historically dissent, even if I'm not 100% in on the conclusion. But yes, I agree with you that I like a good factual conversation. Yes. And I respect your ability as a reader to challenge what is in the article after you've read it. You aren't the bad guy to me. You're doing what any reader should do. The History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, the big publishers and Big Media.... they are the bad guys to me. So I welcome your input, yes. And I thank you. I do feel I must defend McGraw-Hill and their textbook division a little - in this regards. My wife was a content editor for them for 25 years ( history was a main subject ) until just three years ago and now does the same thing for the company that took over this area of their business. I can't tell you how hard she worked to research content and create test questions for mostly secondary level textbooks. You cannot believe the difficult process of fact checking over and over and over and re-edits etc. Her patience and commitment is beyond anything I could ever muster for myself in any endeavor. Not disputing S.T. Patrick's criticism at all. I agree completely. But, a husband has to stand up for his wife when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now