Letters to the Editor
-
Don't try this at home, or even at someone else's home
I do not advocate any of this. This is for instructional purposes only
The haute blogmonde may not be the most receptive venue for actualizing dissent institutionally or in the streets, but so what? The message has to get out and it has to be repeated over and over and over again until it becomes integral to the process of blogging and day to day living.
Refusal to cooperate with The Machine is fundamental.
Sometimes I feel like Adorno, a Marxist, who caught it from both sides during the 60s because of his criticism of the left's agitation towards what he coined "actionism" or the belief that actions such as protest marches and strikes alone would change political structures without being supported by sound theory, organizations, institutions and a strong party with a cogent program.
As far as direct action or monkeywrenching goes, don't organize it or even urge it. If that's your bag, keep your mouth shut and go out and do it. Even the far right gave up on that strategy long ago. They adopted the "lone wolf theory" of resistance and direct action. It is the only way to go. The government is watching.
-
An excellent article indeed
This is without a doubt the best article I have ever read here on this blog page and I for one say right on Chris Floyd.
-
Which is not to say
That Chris shouldn't write what he does. As William pointed out, even Tom Paine was criticized in much the same manner in his day. Bear in mind that monkeywrenching does not entail physical violence against persons. You can google it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeywrenching
http://affinityproject.org/practices/monkeywrenching.html
-
Please...
everyone do everything chris has listed. Nothing will insure Republicans get elected.
-
Anonywho?
An excellent article indeed
This is without a doubt the best article I have ever read here on this blog page and I for one say right on Chris Floyd.
--Anonymous
That's nice, anonywho, but I wonder how long someone has been reading this blog who still calls itself anonymous. I don't give much of a fug what 'anonywho' says since 'anonywho' is a nobody. A nobody without a record of comment posts to refer to.
-
Thanks Ché Pasa
I woke up from a nap and being groggy I started to respond to some of the nonsense like Defending Our Freedom claiming everything wrong with the congress can be blamed on the Dems and that there are no Repug thugs in the congress who keep voting against anything supporting real Americans. But you woke me up and I won’t waste my time.
Adnoto is a real American, but I don’t see us mounting another revolutionary war and in the meantime, refusing to use whatever leverage we can find within the present system to make some difference.
Marching tomorrow with fellow real American anti-war activists won’t stop the war, but it will stop me from feeling that I’m not making any difference at all. And responding during the Dodd days early this week also gave me a morale boost. As do non-troll thoughtful comments on Salon threads.
-
Ché Pasa
Yeah, Chris Floyd has been writing the same overblown crap for years, and he's accomplished exactly what?
-
Who's playing what now?
In response to Chris Floyd's reply:
But hey, if you want to play "more dissident than thou" games, go ahead. It seems a stupid and pointless waste of time and energy at this stage of the game to me, but suit yourself.
Give me a break. It was Chris Floyd, not I, who originally wrote:
... impeachment is not a "distraction" ... It is [a] prerequisite. ... Are you for the republic, or do you hold with tyranny, torture and mass murder? Let's draw the line at last, and be done with all pretense. ...
We see that the Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." ... We see, with despair, that the national Democrats share the regime's radical agenda ...
That is to say, if you are not for impeachment — indeed, even insufficiently in favor of it — you hold with tyranny, and you share the Bush regime's agenda. Period. Okay, maybe a few differences of "style and decorum" — but, in short, you're damned by reason of insufficient dissidence. Do I have Floyd right, here? Am I still not getting some elegant, sophisticated metaphor that is beyond my peasant letters?
I just want to be sure, since I stand accused of playing "more dissident than thou" games.
As for "warning of the dangers" of Bush v Gore back whenever it was that Floyd wrote what he wrote (please forgive my ignorance — despite the fact that he is well published in certain venues, I don't read The Nation anymore and have never heard of him until now), that's all well and good, but where were his calls for impeachment? Even the "pusillanimous Pelosi" has warned of the dangers of the Bush regime. Heck, even Arlen Specter has! That's not enough — it didn't include impeachment as the overriding goal, a boiling "constitutional crisis," the whole nine yards. That's what it supposedly comes down to, right? That is the hard line in the sand, isn't it? The prerequisite? Nothing else matters? Anything else is insufficiently dissident?
Or is Chris Floyd saying that in the past, insufficient dissidence was okay (sufficient, one might even say) but has recently become tantamount to treason? When, exactly, is the cutoff point? Where is the line in time between correct conscience and premature antifascism — or pusillanimity?
"A stupid and pointless waste of time" is not my choice of words, but I'll take it. All I can do is help, in my ignorant, simple-minded way, to build a bigger boat. Chris Floyd can keep his straws, burning or not.
-
Chris Floyd's hyperbolic arc is approaching reality on both axes
... Dodd's hold -- which may not even hold, who knows? -- has got them all feverishly frothing over the possibility that the Opposition, which has no history of opposing anything for long, might win one. And if that happens all bets will be off.
That is the really funny thing -- the elephant in the room that all respectable opinionators are ignoring. The Establishment response to minor pushback has been nothing short of hysterical lately, on a number of minor issues.
As Dirks mentioned above, Stark's language was strong -- but his own party leadership should not have forced him to recant like some disgraced Politbureau apparatchik. MoveOn's Petreaus ad did not required Congressional attention, much less censure. It was inflammatory political speech -- but this is sanctioned by the first Amendment.
Likewise, there is nothing "disorderly" or "aggressive" about a majority party senator attempting to put a hold on a bill in order to amend a small piece of it before passage. That is politics as usual, at least from a procedural standpoint. Yet, the majority leader of his own party is indicating he will not honor the hold.All of these things are unprecedented. They are shrill and hysterical in a way that mere polemicists like Limbaugh or Coulter could hardly hope to be. It's not the crack whores of politics who are behaving this way -- it's Caesar's wives.
Having said that..... Floyd, I can't stand the La Passionaria ranting. There are many who find it invigorating, refreshing and righteous. But I'd rather read about exactly what Sen. Reid's office has said today in regards to Dodd's hold. If they haven't said anything then lean on them like "Guido the Bouncer". Respectfully, politely, incessantly.
It's what I like about Glenn, and what his detractors hate -- he fucking well understands what it takes to win.