In-your-face feminism.

OpEds
JOHN DOLAN
EXILE CLASSIC
EXTERMINATE THE MEN: HONORING ANDREA DWORKIN, A FEMINIST WHO MEANT IT AND PAID

dworkin1

The death of Andrea Dworkin didn’t even make the small print news in Russia. Feminism, at least the feminism of the kind Westerners take for granted, never caught on. Patronizing Westerners often see that as a sign that Russians are culturally too primitive. Russians, particularly Russian women — and particularly the Russian female intelligentsia — literally laugh and roll their eyes when you mention feminism of the American or West European brand. The reason is fairly simple: Russians haven’t quite learned the Western art of sloganeering for radical philosophy without meaning a word of what they say. A Russian woman would assume that if you’re a feminist, you’d actually have to live out the philosophy. In that sense, Andrea Dworkin was, in her own way, the only “Russian” feminist in America — and that is why she was so hated.

There was a strange undertone of smug satisfaction in the obituaries for Andrea Dworkin. The fact that she died relatively young, at 58, got a lot of space, followed by long descriptions of her obesity and the medical problems that supposedly resulted from it. In other words, she was fat, fat, fat. Case closed.

Then there were her stories of rape and abuse, which the London Times called “probability-defying.” American papers were more sly and cowardly, of course, but managed to imply that she was crazy as well as fat.

Feminists more comfortable in the meanstream had some very strange comments on her. Elaine Showalter, a sleek Princeton gender commissar, said, “I don’t wish Andrea Dworkin any harm, but I doubt that many women will get up at 4 am to watch her funeral.”

If you know anything about the verbal habits of upper-echelon academics, this is easy to translate: “Die, you bitch! Shut up and die so I can dance on your XL grave!”

I can’t recall so much barely-concealed delight in a celebrity death since Sam Kinison was wiped out by a couple of drunken kids in a pickup. He had it coming, the papers of record informed us; he too was fat and crazy and said things you’re not supposed to say about women.

Dworkin’s fatness and madness hardly disqualify her from intellectual distinction. If we excluded the fat and/or crazy from recent intellectual history, we’d be left with a very bland, Clinton-style consensus. And that, of course, is the goal, the point of these non sequiturs. They’re great for dismissing loud, unbroken voices. American academics have a habit of skipping to the slur with disconcerting speed, as I found out a couple of years ago when I mentioned my love for Wallace Stevens’ poetry to a Film professor. She winced, then said, “Wasn’t he a racist?”

She didn’t really know or care whether Stevens was a racist. As I realized later, that wince meant that she hadn’t read Stevens, didn’t want to be shown up and so had simply reached for the nearest available non sequitur. The notion that Stevens might be a racist AND a great poet, just as Dworkin might be a fat loon AND a crucial figure in feminist intellectual history, is simply beyond our Beige compatriots.

The habit has sifted so far down it’s affected the dialogue of disaster films, as I noticed while watching a bunch of unconvincingly attractive pseudo-nerds try to survive the fastest Ice Age ever in theDay After Tomorrow. There’s a great scene where a male and female nerd, stranded in the NYC Public Library, are arguing about whether to burn Beyond Good and Evil for warmth. The guy says, “Nietzsche was the most profound thinker of the nineteenth century!” The woman replies, “Nietzsche was a chauvinist who was in love with his sister!” It gave me a nightmare vision of what Lite Beer Super Bowl ads will be like in a few years, after everybody and their dog has been to grad school.

In the mating rituals of healthy people — that is, people who aren’t like Andrea Dworkin — these stylized collisions about ideology, usually personified by clashes about an historical figure, are usually no more than flirtation. That’s literally true in Day After Tomorrow; in the last scene of the movie, the male and female nerd are holding hands in the rescue helicopter, their Nietzsche dispute remembered, if at all, as the first scene of a third-hand screwball comedy they’re using as their romance template.

We’re supposed to know that you don’t take it seriously — you don’t live as you speak. What I revere about Dworkin is that she never realized that. Dworkin is hated so intensely simply because she accepted first-wave feminism fully. She blurted naively the implications of that ideology. And that appalled and embarrassed millions of smoother women, who liked the cool, fashionable tune feminism gave their bitching but had never had any intention of letting it get in the way of their romantic career plans.

I remember, ladies. I was there — at Berkeley in the 70s. And I was like Dworkin, a naive loser from a family which actually lived the ideology it claimed. Hers was the classic east-coast Jewish progressive tradition; mine was the most severe, self-flagellating brand of Irish Catholicism. The common denominator was the lack of compromise. Dworkin had a great line on this: “I don’t find compromise unacceptable, I find it incomprehensible.”

When she came of age, feminists like Steinem were speaking in the rhetoric of third-world national-liberation movements. Their case was simple and unassailable: women were oppressed, the biggest and most deeply, ubiquitously abused ‘minority’ on the planet. It was a view so simple that an intellect as subhuman as Yoko Ono was capable of absorbing it and translating it into “Woman is the nigger of the world.”

The difference is that Yoko would never have dreamed of letting her revelation get in the way of her relationship with that mangy meal ticket of hers, John. He was the reason she was able to get her 20-minute yodels on wax, baby. No way was she going to ditch him. Being the ultimate groupie, trading sex (let’s just move right along rather than get into what “sex” meant for John and Yoko) for money and fame had nothing to do with that line about women as niggers.

But there were people like me who’d been raised all wrong, who didn’t know any better, who actually believed that Steinem’s essays, which we had to read in our Norton Anthology, implied a code of conduct. And above all, that meant that man/woman mixing was going to come to a grinding halt. It was, according to the national-liberation model, fraternizing with the enemy. People were garroted for that kind of thing in places like Algeria, and Frantz Fanon had told us all how glorious it was that revolutionary piano wire was used to enforce this Spartan revolutionary separatism.

In my book Pleasant Hell I describe at length how I drifted sadly around the Berkeley campus in the 70s, convinced that everyone there was as bitterly lonely as I, and that this was simple historical necessity. And how shocked I was, happening to walk across campus at a later hour one night, to realize that men and women still fraternized with a vengeance once the sun went down. This may sound silly, but it was the biggest surprise of my life, and my introduction to the sleazy agility with which normal Americans dodge the inconvenient implications of the ideologies they mouth during the day.

Dworkin took the same Norton Anthology truisms to their obvious, clear, unbearable conclusions. If women were an oppressed group on the model of Fanon’s Algerians, Ho’s Vietnamese or Yoko’s “niggers,” then the steps to a revolutionary cleansing were simple:

1. The oppressed minority must re-learn history and re-evaluate society in order to see the horrors beneath the facade of normalcy.

In 70s campus feminism, this meant getting excited about footbinding, bar-b-que’d witches, and then acquiring a proper alienation from standard male-female interaction. In other words, learn all of the horrible oppressions males have unleashed upon women, and then cite the examples as reasons why you hate men and demand a fundamental change in the relationship.

This, comrades, was the tricky part. What Dworkin’s simple, loyal, canine mind could never grasp was that for a sly player like Steinem, this first stage of the process was fine, no matter how violent the denunciation of men and patriarchy became. Why not? As long as one didn’t let it interfere with one’s life (Steinem’s relationships with a series of male billionaires, for example), then Hell — the more violent the denunciation, the better!

Because — and this was another wrinkle I, like Dworkin, was far too naive to grasp — most meanstream men were in on the joke too. They were, in fact, more aware of what a joke it was than the young women students who in many cases, truly thought they believed their own clenched-fist chantings. The male response to 70s feminism was horror from old fools like Mailer, but a tolerant smile from the cool dudes whose job it was to disarm and fuck the feisty ladies. Their stance was a slightly more subtle, coy version of “you’re so cute when you’re mad, honey.”

2. The oppressed minority must mobilize, replacing its colonial relationship with the oppressors with ties to comrades among the oppressed.

What this meant for a “sane” or normal 70s woman depended on the degree of identification with the movement. At least, it meant lip service to a female version of “bros before ho’s” — high-profile socializing with female friends, during which male company was noisily disparaged. (This type of socializing, of course, was already a common habit of middle-class female socializing; giving it an ideological cast was simply a matter of replacing a few jargon terms.)

At most, it meant lip service of another sort: the big plunge into lesbianism. If you wanted to be a professional activist, you had to make the jump. A Women’s Studies lecturer I knew said a colleague once told her outright, “You’ll never have any street cred, Jennifer, because you don’t sleep with women.” For meanstreamers, the lesbian allegiance was all anyone could ever be asked to give; it was, in fact, more than most were willing to make. All you really needed to do was grit your tongue and give it a try — a rite of passage, a gesture of solidarity. After that you could get back to planning your wedding. That’s why the university lesbian interlude has been compressed into mock acronyms like BUG, “bisexual until graduation.”

But even full-time dyking around had little to do with the original model, the Fanon national-liberation rhetoric. He and Ho and Che didn’t advocate fucking other proletarians; they were in favor of wiping out the Other, the Oppressor. Fucking other revolutionaries was, if anything, a dubious way to spend time owed the Revolution.

Which brings us to Dworkin’s sexual orientation. If she was a lesbian, she was the worst I ever saw. And I should know — read my book. She called herself a lesbian, but then she also called herself a celibate. Even Morrissey would be scratching his head at that point. And besides, once the term acquired a positive connotation, everybody was a lesbian — Jane Fucking Austen was a card-carrying dyke, according to the ideologically-correct journals. Men at UC Berkeley who were cool but still wanted to fuck women took to calling themselves “male lesbians.” I don’t want to dwell on this; it wasn’t a great moment in American culture.

The point is that Dworkin never offered the world a significant other of the proper gender. Instead, she lived openly with…a man. I don’t mean to dwell on such sordid things, but it’s a matter of public record. The point was that they didn’t fuck.

And in this, once again she was a good orthodox Fanon/Guevara feminist. For the revolutionary, the point is not to screw in your own class but to stop getting it on with the enemy. And this was something America’s avid, proud young lesbians-until-that-first-big-job never, never promised to do. They’d made their point by licking girls; after that, they had every intention of fucking, or as Dworkin would insist, getting fucked by men.

For Fanon and the rest, any interaction between the Oppressor and the Oppressed is to the disadvantage of the Oppressed. That’s axiomatic. What that means in Dworkin’s simple, obvious reading of the Revolutionary Scriptures is that when men fuck women, it’s always an act of oppression.

That was where she went too far in the views of her more flexible colleagues. They didn’t like having their options reduced. That, in the view of an American striver, was the worst thing you could do to anybody.

Dworkin didn’t know a thing about her audience. Didn’t know they were talking career and fun when she was talking sacrifice, martyrdom. (It’s no accident her heroine was Joan of Arc. Dworkin was a Catholic without knowing it, an old-time Catholic who never suspected it of herself. She and J. K. Toole, another fat loser who died young, are the only Catholic writers to survive, for a while, in modern America.)

Dworkin maintained this strictly orthodox view in her most-hated book, Intercourse (1987), arguing that heterosexual intercourse was rape. Oh, and please, don’t tell me that’s not her argument. I not only read and reread that book but taught it to a group of horrified Berkeley students in 1990. That damn well is what she said. You could tell it by the expression on their little faces — a great moment!

Even the reviewers who praised Dworkin did it in ways intended to alert their readers that they were encountering a nut, someone who was to be admired rather than listened to. Intercourse was “daring,” “radical,” “outrageous” — in other words, beyond the pale. It was something to have on your shelf, or your reading list, as ballast, another sort of street cred. It was never meant to accuse women who fucked men of, to coin a phrase, sleeping with the enemy.

But that was exactly what Dworkin meant, and all she meant. It was so obvious; the real shock is that it took so long for someone in the women’s movement to say that and get noticed for it.

The last stage in Fanon’s and Guevara’s blueprint was the one that put Dworkin out of play forever:

4. Kill the oppressor.

That’s what the revolutionaries said, and they didn’t mean it figuratively. They meant get a fucking machete and kill a cop, take his gun and use that on as many of the oppressors as you can get. They were pretty damn clear on this, as clear as a Calvinist ruling out salvation by works. You could not overthrow the oppressor with harsh language, or the evil eye, or moving depictions of slum conditions. You had to kill the bastards. Are we clear?

And Dworkin, as loyal and dumb as the horse in Animal Farm, trotted along to this fatal fourth step — and found herself alone.

She said it, as usual, with simple clarity, in the language of Che Guevara. It must have amazed her that she even needed to say it; it had been so obvious from the start. Her pleas for resistance are couched in a wonderful diction, mixed of Catholic martyr-cult and Fanon’s call to jacquerie: “I’m asking you to give up your lies. I’m asking you to live your lives, honorably and with dignity. I’m asking you to fight. I am asking you to organize political support for women who kill men who have been hurting them…They resisted a domination that they were expected to accept. They stand there in jail for us, for every one of us who got away without having to pull the trigger.”

In the end, the most remarkable thing about Dworkin is that there was only one of her. Hundreds of millions of women more sly, raised with the notion of compromise and an immunity to ideology, scrambled away from the inconvenient implications of liberation rhetoric. She alone stood there on her famously arthritic knees, doing her simple best to fight the jihad she’d been fool enough to believe would actually take place.

What if they held a war and only one fat lady sang? You don’t need to ask; you’ve lived through it.

This article was first published in The eXile on April 22, 2005

Buy John Dolan’s novel “Pleasant Hell” (Capricorn Press).

Posted: September 14th, 2013




The unlikely life and sudden death of The Exile, Russia’s angriest newspaper.

MEDIAKulturkampf
Lost Exile

Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames, co-editors of The Exile, a subversive English-language newspaper based in Moscow, whose decadelong run came to an abrupt end in 2008. Inset: A Boris Yeltsin cover accompanied by a typical Exile headline. By Martin von den Driesch (Taibbi and Ames).

Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames, co-editors of The Exile, a subversive English-language newspaper based in Moscow, whose decadelong run came to an abrupt end in 2008. Inset: A Boris Yeltsin cover accompanied by a typical Exile headline. By Martin von den Driesch (Taibbi and Ames).

By James Verini, Vanity Fair
FIRST PUBLISHED February 23, 2010

The demise of The Exile began, as so many demises have in Russia, with an official letter. Faxed to the offices of the newspaper late on a Friday afternoon the spring before last from somewhere within the bowels of Rossvyazokhrankultura, the Russian Federal Service for Mass Media, Telecommunications, and Cultural Heritage Protection, it announced the imminent “conducting of an unscheduled action to check the observance of the legislation of the Russian Federation on mass media.” The Exile, a Moscow-based, English-language biweekly, stood accused of violating Article Four of that legislation by encouraging extremism, spreading pornography, or promoting drug use. The letter scheduled the unscheduled action to take place between May 13 and June 11. This being Russia, it wasn’t faxed until May 22.

An Exile sales director, about to leave for the day, received the fax and phoned an editor, who called the real target of the letter, Exile founder and editor in chief Mark Ames, at that moment a world away in Los Gatos, California. Ames in turn promptly called a few lawyers in Moscow, who warned him he might be arrested if he returned. Someone, apparently, had it out for The Exile.

But who? Ames likes to indulge a grandiose paranoia whenever possible, and did. A functionary? An enraged oligarch? Someone on President Dmitry Medvedev’s staff, or, more to the point, in Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s circle of spooks? (The Exile’s first cover story on Putin, in 1999, grafted the man’s head onto the body of a latex-clad dominatrix over the headline putin commands mother russia: kneel!) Egotism aside, the possibilities were in fact endless. Since its debut, in 1997, The Exile, which read like the bastard progeny of Spy magazine and an X-rated version of Poor Richard’s Almanack, had pilloried, in the foulest terms possible, almost everyone of importance, and no importance, in Russia, and had made a point of violating not one but all of Article Four’s provisions. But everyone knew that.

So why now?

No one seemed to know that.

The one thing that Ames did know: he was going back to Moscow. Putin’s Russia is an infinitely more dangerous place for journalists than the crumbling country that had drawn Ames 15 years before from the same suburban town where he paced about now, but still it was Russia, and not America, that was his spiritual home. It was not for nothing he’d named his paper The Exile.

Several days after Ames returned to Moscow, the dour Federal Service officials, three men led by a woman, arrived at the paper’s office. When they walked in, a staffer old enough to remember some of the worst parts of the Soviet era, crossed herself and simply ran from the office, Ames says. The officials questioned Ames for more than three hours, going through issue after issue of The Exile, by turns offended, disgusted, baffled. Ames suppressed his urge to start cursing at the officials in mat, Russian’s profane slang, as he watched them thumb through his life’s work, but his restraint meant little: news of the interrogation soon got out, and stories appeared in the Russian press, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters. Ames’s investors broke off contact. The distributors stopped sending trucks. “They worried that everybody would be sent to Siberia,” Exile sales director Zalina Abdusalamova says.

Just like that, The Exile’s era was over.

Ames is angry—he’s often angry—about how it all ended. He’d always pictured some exultant, bloody end for The Exile. But he can’t claim to be surprised. “I always assumed that every issue would be the last,” he says. Indeed, it’s a mystery to many why Mark Ames didn’t end up in jail or a grave years ago. In its time The Exile was arguably the most abusive, defamatory, un-evenhanded, and crassest publication in Russia, and Ames and his staff had paid for that fact, or at least for the fact that they were arrogant reprobates, many times before. Columnist Edward Limonov, the 66-year-old political provocateur in whom the Federal Service officials were particularly interested, filed his copy from prison for two years after being convicted of possessing arms, which he admits he intended to smuggle into Kazakhstan in an effort to incite a coup there. Writer Kevin McElwee, an American expatriate, had both legs broken when he was torn from the side of a building he was scaling to escape an angry mob of Muscovites, an incident that had nothing to do with anything he’d written—McElwee, The Exile’s film reviewer, was just a rambunctious drunk. On another occasion, a deranged and slighted man sent a letter promising to kill the “frat boy” Ames. Ames in turn published an editorial urging the loon to instead off his co-editor, Matt Taibbi. True, the many death threats Ames received took less of a physical toll on him than loading up on Viagra and attempting to bed nine Moscow prostitutes in nine hours, which he wrote about to commemorate The Exile’s ninth anniversary, but that was only because Ames approached the assignment with a rigor befitting a Consumer Reports exposé—“There really was no other way to tell whether these drugs actually worked,” he recalls with sincerity and audible exhaustion.

But far more dangerous in Putin’s Russia was The Exile’s serious journalism. By the time it was shuttered, the paper had published damning views of Russian life through three administrations, two wars, and a stock-market crash, ever since the freezing February night in 1997 when, penniless and infuriatingly sober, Ames had put out the first issue in a torrent of outrage at the sharpies and frauds who insisted that post-Communist Russia was a new democratic paradise, at the liars in the Kremlin, the dreamers in Washington, the academic careerists, Wall Street, the World Bank, the idiots in the press who’d never hired him—at pretty much everyone save Ames himself. Never mind that he and Taibbi would prove the hardest-partying Moscow media celebrities of their time, never mind that they wouldn’t just expose the place’s hedonism but come to embody it—Ames was pissed off. He wasn’t George Plimpton chasing Hemingway’s Sad Young Men as part of some romantic lost generation. He was living in the unromantic rubble of a lost empire.

“Everything was about free markets and capitalism and democracy, and it was all leading us to some great new future, but all you had to do was look around in the streets and see there was something fucking wrong with it,” Ames says. “We were in the middle of total devastation, one of the worst, most horrible fucking tragedies of modern times.”

Ames was from the start vindictive, and carping, and paranoid, and, in the opinion of Exile devotees, a group that includes many of its victims, he also happened to be right.

“They were incredibly gutsy,” former Moscow-bureau chief of The Economist Edward Lucas says. Ames once devoted a cover story to deriding Lucas’s reporting, and The Exile panned his book, but nonetheless Lucas read the paper regularly. “There was kind of a suspension of disbelief in the 1990s—it may be corrupt, but it will work. The Exile spotted very perceptively that the most optimistic Western interpretation was wrong.”

“They were very direct and visceral and often very scurrilous, but they caught a side of Moscow that no one else did,” Owen Matthews, currently Moscow-bureau chief for Newsweek, says. “They didn’t feel the need to hedge around with reportorial politesse,” and Ames is “a great stylist. I don’t compare him to Céline lightly. He has that quality of brutal honesty.” This from a man whom Ames repeatedly savaged in print, once describing his teeth as leaning “randomly like Celtic temple ruins.” Still, he’s an admirer. “I haven’t seen a newspaper that’s so breathtakingly dark and cynical and brilliant,” Matthews says. “They had something going that really couldn’t be repeated anywhere. It would be out of business in three seconds if they tried to publish it in the U.S.”

“They took me on for using journalistic clichés, and at the end of the day I was like, ‘You know what? You’re right,’” says Colin McMahon, a former Moscow-bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune, adding, “I read it because it was good for story ideas, frankly. These guys were deeper into a subculture of Moscow than I could ever have allowed myself to be. I’d see something in The Exile and say, ‘How can I get this into a story without mainlining cocaine?’”

Yet The Exile was too vitriolic to romanticize for long or to consult just its fans. And listening to the critics is too fun. They call Ames and Taibbi, singly or in combination, children, louts, misogynists, madmen, pigs, hypocrites, anarchists, fascists, racists, and fiends. According to Carol Williams, of the Los Angeles Times, “It seemed like a bunch of kids who’d somehow gotten funding for their own little newspaper.” A former New York Times Moscow-bureau chief, Michael Wines, offered a no-comment comment. “I think I’ll pass, thank you,” he e-mailed, “except to repeat what I said at the time, and what Shaw said a lot earlier: Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

Of course, a pig is probably not the farm animal that comes to Wines’s mind first when he’s reminded of The Exile. It was Wines, then the Times’s Moscow-bureau chief, who, having won The Exile’s coveted Worst Journalist in Russia March Madness contest in 2001, was typing in his office when Ames and Taibbi rushed in unannounced and, by way of congratulations, slammed a pie in his face. The pie was made with fresh vanilla cream, hand-puréed strawberry, and five ounces of horse semen.

‘That’s what he said?,” Ames asks when I relay Wines’s comment. “He said the same thing back then, the poor bastard.”

It’s a late-November afternoon and Ames is sitting unrepentantly at his kitchen table, next to a window looking out onto a cheerless backyard complex, in the second-floor Brooklyn sublet where he and his wife moved a month earlier after deciding to leave Russia for good. It’s been 15 years since Ames first moved to Moscow. Now a contributor to The Nation and the Daily Beast and a guest commentator on MSNBC, Ames, who’s just woken up—it’s 2:30 p.m.—is typing a Nation column indifferently on a laptop. He’s more interested in a documentary on TV about life in the Pleistocene era. “I feel bad for the Neanderthals,” he says. “They ran into Cro-Magnon man and just got stomped.” He takes a break to crush some Adderall pills in a bowl, the powder from which he then daubs onto his tongue, washing it back with his third cup of black coffee.

Ames looks younger than his 44 years, handsome in a prehistoric and only slightly demonic way, at six feet four inches with the thick neck and headstone torso of the all-league defensive end he was in Los Gatos, a San Jose suburb. He’s wearing black jeans, a black T-shirt, white socks with no shoes, and a black Oakland Raiders cap pulled low over his already shadowy eyes and vehement face, which seems to grow darker by the hour. Thanks to his coloring, the Moscow police often mistook him for a “black ass,” slang for a migrant from the Caucuses, and delighted in shaking him down for bribes.

In the bedroom, his 27-year-old wife, Anastasia, is still asleep, and in the next room over, among half-emptied suitcases, sits an unopened hulking green Samsonite festooned with FedEx packing tape. It contains the complete and now sole paper archive of The Exile. Just before the interrogation, Ames had Exile editor Yasha Levine secretly pack up all 285 back issues and fly them to the States.

Ames opens the suitcase and removes the bundles of newsprint, gingerly laying them on the floor. Some have been professionally bound and jacketed, while others, in fitting samizdat fashion, have been thrown together and sewn up with string. Kneeling, he opens the most yellowed bundle to the inaugural issue, No. 0, dated February 6, 1997. The red X in The eXile, a graphic betrayal that in two strokes turns democracy into anarchy, is faded but still big and raw and eye-grabbing. He leafs through his first columns. I ask the last time he’s looked at them.

“It’s been a long fucking time. I don’t like looking back,” he says.

“Why?,” I ask.

“What’s the point?” he says.

That Ames produced even a single issue of The Exile is a minor miracle. His entrance into the Moscow media world could hardly have been less auspicious. After stints working for a wine dealer and a Mauritian importer, he started the paper out of gall, having tried and failed to get work as a writer at The Wall Street Journal, the Moscow Times, the L.A. Times, and on. (Ames confirms only the Moscow Times.)

At first, “The Exile was about petty, personal vengeances as much as it was about anything political,” he says. “Why have a newspaper if you can’t have these arguments and win?”

By the time he got to Russia, Ames relished rejection, he says. At U.C. Berkeley, he’d rebelled against the “bland liberal consensus” by flirting with right-wing politics, getting into arguments with humorless lefties, and falling under the wing of John Dolan, a literature professor and campus cult figure who liked Ames’s personal essays and macabre short stories, loathed though they were by his fellow students. Ames still remembers Dolan’s first somber career advice: “He said, ‘You’re talented, but one thing you’re going to have to get used to is that you’ll never get published in The New Yorker.’” Dolan also introduced him to that urtext for masochistic littérateurs everywhere, Dostoyevsky’s The Devils, the story of a doomed anarchic plot hatched by amateurs. Ames was hooked from the words “Stepan Trofimovich was, for example, greatly enamored of his position as a persecuted man and, so to speak, an exile,” thereafter tapping at every chance he got the grotesque vein in Russian letters, idolizing Gogol and Bulgakov, shunning Tolstoy and Chekhov. After graduating, Ames bounced around between menial jobs and taught himself Russian, and when the Iron Curtain fell, in 1989, one place beckoned. “The only way to escape was to go somewhere that scared off all those frauds and idiots,” Ames says. Russia “was perfect for me.”

Ames’s first attempt to stay in the country, in 1991, was thwarted when Communist generals tried to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev, which led to the heroic rise of Boris Yeltsin and his dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Ames watched coverage of the coup from Berlin, enraptured. Two weeks after Ames finally moved to Moscow, in 1993, Yeltsin, no longer much of a hero, disbanded parliament. Then the rebels attacked the White House. Ames had just turned 28. He ran around the city, chasing tank fire, ducking behind soldiers until they kicked him away. “It was this different world where everything was more intense and consequential and full of surprises,” he says. This was home.

By the mid-90s, a different species of expatriate was flocking to the Wild East, as it was known. The decade had all the indulgence of 1920s Paris and Weimar Berlin, without the bothersome art and poetry. There was too much money and sex to be had. Perestroika and glasnost were all very nice, but Russia was broke, and Yeltsin, committing to a raft of hasty privatization measures, ushered in Western bankers, consultants, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and opportunists of every other stripe, who joined the nascent capitalists and native raconteurs of Russia. According to The Christian Science Monitor’s Fred Weir, “It was, of course, the sexiest story in the world, because the great Soviet giant was transforming itself—we thought—into a Western country.” In fact, he says, “the fuckers were just looting Russia.” It was hard to keep your eye on the looting, though, when Moscow was overflowing with young Russian women coming in from every corner of the country to find work. “Every woman was hot,” says Alexander Zaitchik, an Exile editor. “The policewomen were hot. The tram drivers were hot.”

“Russians are always anarchic, but at that time they wanted to try everything—new drugs, new positions,” the Wall Street Journal Moscow correspondent Alan Cullison says. “The esteem of Americans was enormous. The men wanted to drink with you, the women wanted to sleep with you.”

But if libertinism was regnant, propping it up were graft, poverty, and murder. Many Russians were living in worse squalor than they had under the Soviet Union. Horrific public violence was routine, and Westerners were not immune, a fact driven home early in the party when an Oklahoma-born bon vivant hotelier, Paul Tatum, was perforated with Kalashnikov rounds in a metro station one evening in 1996. Nor did reporters enjoy special protection. Carol Williams investigated the Tatum murder for the Los Angeles Times and after concluding it had likely been a contract killing, she got a call from someone in the government who told her it was “unhealthy to pursue certain avenues of inquiry,” Williams says. The trickle-down venality began with Yeltsin’s cadre of billionaires and bumptious economists and descended to the streets and storefronts of Moscow, controlled as they were by overlapping criminal syndicates and factions of the city police and the F.S.B. (the K.G.B.’s successor), which provided the requisite krisha, or roof—protection by way of extortion, in other words.

“When I opened a business in Moscow, the question wasn’t if we’d be successful, but whether we’d be able to keep it,” says one American financier and entrepreneur who works for a large Wall Street firm in Moscow. “Would I be in danger, get kidnapped? Would I get extorted by a criminal racket, or by the K.G.B.?” He adds, “All of us were scavengers on the carcass of the Soviet Union.”

And the place where Moscow’s new expatriate plutocracy ogled that carcass was in the pages of The Exile. By the week in early 1998 when it published a cover story on Yeltsin entitled “The Bribefather,” complete with Mario Puzo puppet-master typeface and Yeltsin’s vodka-bloated mug receding into blackness, the paper was required reading.

“It was the bible. You’ve never seen a paper read like that,” Russianist and journalist Andrew Meier, author of Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall, says. According to James Fenkner, a Moscow fund manager, “It was like Facebook. It kind of just hit.”

Ames had spent the first issues maligning everyone in Moscow who’d never given him a job, but in the paper’s second month, when he took on Matt Taibbi—stole him, actually, from a short-lived alternative weekly that Ames had briefly edited, where Taibbi had been hired to replace Ames—it really took off. The son of NBC reporter Mike Taibbi, Matt grew up in Boston, attended Bard College, and graduated in 1991 while at the University of Leningrad. He became infatuated with Gogol, and spent his 20s bouncing between continents, episodes of depression, and jobs that included a stint in the Mongolian Basketball League. Like Ames, Taibbi was tall and good-looking, but in a safer, corn-fed way, with bright eyes and a wide, boyish smile. Unlike Ames, he spoke Russian without constant profanity and was a born journalist, having reported from Uzbekistan for the Associated Press and then in Moscow for the Moscow Times. Owen Matthews called him “the best city and crime reporter the Moscow Times ever had.”

“Before he came I just wanted to destroy journalism,” says Ames. “I learned how to report from Matt.”

What made The Exile so popular, and still makes it so readable, was its high-low mix of acute coverage and character assassination, sermonizing laced with smut—a balance that has also characterized Taibbi’s work at Rolling Stone, where he has been a contributing editor for the last five years. “One of the big complaints we heard for years—really violently angry complaints—was: You cannot mix, in one paper, satire and real investigative journalism,” Ames says. “And we were like, Why?” Taibbi wrote on subjects ranging from Washington and I.M.F.’s policy in Russia to Moscow prisons, labor strikes, and religious cults. He hung out with crime bosses, cops, and rogue politicians and wrote a series in which he lived the lives of ordinary Russians for days and weeks, working as a bricklayer, a miner, and a vegetable hocker and attending a Moscow high school. He was among the first foreign journalists to speculate openly on the connection between a series of suspicious apartment-building bombings and Putin’s ratcheting up of the Chechen War, now a mainstay of the anti-Putin canon.

Taibbi also served as The Exile’s good cop. When its prey had to beg for mercy, they’d turn to him. “There was always that slight fear that Ames would double-cross you,” says Peter Lavelle, an investment banker and journalist in Moscow in the 1990s. “Taibbi was the straight guy. When I met him at an Exile party for the first time, he says, ‘Oh, I lampooned you—I’m sorry. Let me get you a T-shirt.’”

Despite their contrasting personalities, or because of them, soon into their collaboration Ames and Taibbi were inseparable. Working to all hours in the Exile office or from Ames’s apartment in a monstrous Stalinist high-rise, the pair would pore over Russian publications, write, talk with sources, and bullshit, and then stomp through the snowdrifts and ice into the Moscow night, where their confessional columns and towering American swagger had already rendered them luminaries.

Stepping out with the Exile crowd meant invitations to the newest restaurants and nightclubs—including, one surreal night, to the grand opening of the Chuck Norris Supper Club & Casino, where the star of Walker, Texas Ranger and Braddock: Missing in Action III was, apparently, asking why they didn’t show—but Ames and Taibbi usually rejected those to throw their own debauched Exile parties or to get back to their regular hangout, the Hungry Duck, a place Ames, not given to squeamishness, describes as a “vile flesh pit.” Ask Moscow veterans about the bar and the most common response is a long, regretful groan. “Everything you’ve heard about it is conservative,” Peter Lavelle says, a hint of fear in his voice. “That place changed people.”

According to Doug Steele, the bar’s Canadian owner, “at the Duck you got laid even if you didn’t want to.” On Ladies’ Night, the doors opened at seven p.m., but the only people let in were women, as long as they were at least 16 years old. They’d drink for free. At nine, the men were allowed in. It wasn’t until the metro stations opened the next morning that it ended, and in the meantime, anything went. “Orgiastic” is an insufficient description. The only appropriate word seems to be Caligulan, and not just because the Duck was situated steps from Lubyanka, the former prison and Soviet torture chamber that now housed the F.S.B. The action was mostly elevated, according to Vlad Baseav, an early Exile general manager, with women and men alike dancing on the bar and on the tables, disrobing on the bar and on the tables, having sex on the bar and on the tables, fighting on the bar and on the tables, and then crashing in various states of undress onto the floor scrum. “They would get up and continue dancing, blood everywhere,” Baseav says. Steele recalls a night when the deputy head of a Moscow police unit, drunk beyond all reckoning, emptied his pistol into the ceiling and made everybody lie on the floor for three hours. Lavelle claims he saw a man stabbed to death next to him one night. “No one thought it was unusual.”

“Mark and Matt would go there and they’d be celebrities,” Lavelle says. “Especially Ames. People would say, ‘When are they coming, when are they coming?’”

Moving with the Exile guys also meant, if not mainlining cocaine, then at least having access to all the speed and heroin you could imbibe. Ames preferred the former, mixing powdered amphetamine into his drinks, while Taibbi, in a committed relationship for much of his time in Moscow, snorted bumps of white Asian smack.

By most accounts, Ames slept with as many women as any Moscow expatriate of the period. “Russian women liked the kind of sternness and scariness he had that didn’t work in California,” Dolan says.

One of Ames’s first regular columns was “Death Porn,” which rehashed stories of grisly murders and suicides from police reports and Russian media, printing them alongside crime-scene and autopsy photographs. He was most renowned and reviled for his regular “Whore-R Stories,” for which he hired prostitutes and then wrote about them. Like corruption and casual death, prostitution was a reality of Russian life that every reporter saw, often more than saw, but refused to discuss in straight terms.

“Everyone in Moscow at the time—and I mean everyone—used prostitutes. That’s what Moscow was in the 1990s. But no one would talk about it,” Dolan says. Ames seems to have had no need to pay women, and the column appears self-serving only until you read it. Some of the pieces’ poignancy and attention to detail call to mind Studs Terkel’s Working. But Terkel only listened; Ames partook. One memorable Dostoyevskian journey took him into the St. Petersburg night to a ramshackle apartment block whose residents let bedrooms by the hour with a former ballet student. Ames described the blunt safety razor Ira carried in her purse to spruce up for johns.

“I dreaded it, but I knew that it needed to be done,” Ames says of “Whore-R Stories.” “They were migrant workers with shitty jobs. The only way to tell that story was in first person, otherwise you’d end up moralizing somehow.”

“The most refreshing thing about Mark was that he was absolutely truthful, even about the most shameful things in his life,” The Wall Street Journal’s Alan Cullison says.

The honor of being The Exile’s most imperiled writer, however, belonged to neither Ames nor Taibbi, but to Edward Limonov, who embodied The Exile before it existed, from the day Ames first picked up his 1990 novel, Memoir of a Russian Punk, while working in a San Francisco bookshop. By the time Ames moved to Russia, Limonov was his literary idol. At that point Limonov, the son of a Stalinist secret-police man, had already lived several lives, as a thief, an exiled dissident writer, a punk icon, a louche sensation in Paris, a fighter with paramilitaries in Serbia (his memoir about that experience is titled Anatomy of a Hero), and, in his most recent incarnation, an anti-Putin activist and chief of the National Bolshevik Party. Limonov was the first writer Ames recruited, and he agreed to join The Exile on the condition that his spotty grammar and diction not be corrected. His broken English appeared in the paper through its final issue.

Much of the rest of the Exile staff arrived like religious pilgrims. “They represented everything that I wanted to be. They were like me. They escaped from America to escape a graveyard existence,” Yasha Levine says.

“My mother said, ‘Nobody will take you for a job after that,’” Zalina Abdusalamova says. “It was the best time of my life.”

And not just hers. Ames and Taibbi had soon landed an agent at William Morris and a book deal at Grove Press. The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia came out in 2000. Taibbi told The New York Observer he’d written much of it while addicted to heroin. The movie rights were sold to the film-production company Good Machine, now part of Focus Features, before the manuscript was finished.

The Exile offices were furnished with cast-off desks, a few unreliable computers, and boxes of Exile T-shirts, leftover from the last party or awaiting the next one. Ames and Taibbi may have written most of the paper, but it lived or died with Ilya Shangrin, its usually drunk designer, who was at his drunkest around the time they filed, seldom before two a.m. “Ilya would drink a bottle of beer per page that he laid out,” Jake Rudnitsky, an Exile editor, says. “There were 24 pages. By the time we got to the end Ilya was wasted. He’d pass out on his computer.”

Kostantin Bukaryov, the paper’s main backer, was a publisher of Moscow nightlife guides, with sidelines in gentlemen’s clubs. He paid Ames and Taibbi $1,200 a month, and what laughable revenue The Exile generated with its circulation, which never topped 30,000, came from advertisements for nightclubs, restaurants, and, most lucratively, call-girl services. After producing its first issues out of a spare room in, of all places, a defense-ministry building, The Exile landed above a strip club on the ring road, Rasputin’s, where it was situated above the dancers’ changing room. The office next door was outfitted with reinforced steel doors that the Moscow police attempted to batter in every so often.

What The Exile lacked in resources it made up for in ritualistic public humiliation. For one stunt, Ames and Taibbi, armed with forged stationery purporting to be from the St. Petersburg mayor’s office, hired the American public-relations giant Burson-Marsteller to help put a nice spin on the city’s police-brutality problem. Burson-Marsteller, at the time doing a lot of work in Russia on behalf of American companies, happily took the job, and The Exile published the correspondence and phone transcripts. Taibbi masqueraded as an executive from the New York Jets and tried to recruit Mikhail Gorbachev to move to New Jersey to become a motivational coach for the team. Later, reporting from Manhattan, he exposed Wall Street’s complicity in 1998’s disastrous ruble devaluation, bought a gorilla suit, walked to Goldman Sachs’s headquarters on Water Street, and sat down on the lobby floor for lunch, announcing to the security guards, “If Goldman Sachs can make a $50 million commission selling worthless Russian debt, then I can come into their offices in a gorilla suit and eat a sandwich on their floor.” The Exile took overt moral stands, too, vigorously opposing most American military actions, including the bombing of Serbia in 1999, when it published a Moscow city map showing the offices of American defense contractors contributing to the war, with the hope of inciting protests. Ames and Taibbi even staged their own protest near the U.S. Embassy. Taibbi held up a “free mike tyson” sign.

“One thing I couldn’t stand was Westerners who thought they had higher moral values than Russians, these people who came preaching Western civilization and then become connived,” The Economist’s Edward Lucas says. “The Exile exposed them.”

The Exile also ignored or glossed over a lot of important stories, most notably the horrific Moscow Theater siege, the Beslan massacre, and the killings of journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya, and went after people—too often harmless people or friends like Owen Matthews—with an ugly sadism. Taibbi’s press reviews can read like poison-pen letters. He falsely claimed in print that he’d slept with the wife of Russia scholar Michael McFaul, now a special adviser to President Obama on Russia, with whom he’d been carrying on a war of words. There was the cover depicting Condoleezza Rice in minstrel garb, and, during the U.S. presidential primaries, an Ames editorial on Barack Obama saying that his “perfectly bland, business-friendly swagger makes him exactly the sort of African-American who’d earn Trump’s approval,” an admissible argument made less so by the image of Obama’s head on the body of rapper 50 Cent. Ames insisted his real target in both cases was Russian racism.

Nothing won The Exile so many enemies, however, as the attack on the Times’s Michael Wines, a stunt even its allies were repelled by, though the recounting of it was another narrative gem. It launched from the horse’s point of view (“His name was Porobnik. He had never read The New York Times”), described Ames’s bribing of the breeder and Taibbi’s storage of the semen in a special thermos in his refrigerator, where his poor girlfriend had to see it every morning, and then unfurled into a dense indictment of Wines’s career, going back to his tutelage under former Times executive editor Max Frankel and his early dispatches from Indonesia and endorsement of the Kosovo war, and extending up through a recent softball profile of Putin. Taibbi called Wines a “grasping careerist who cheers the bombing of thousands of civilians from the comfort of his Ikea-furnished bedroom many time-zones away.” This ran with photos of a stunned, pie-covered Wines, wiping himself off with an Exile T-shirt. The results were foul but the argument was formidable.

Ames claims he’s not the least contrite about the episode. “We knew we went too far. That was the point, going too far. Everybody errs on some side and almost everybody errs on the side of caution. It was The Exile’s mission to err on the side of incaution.”

In Brooklyn, Ames is still kneeling over the archives. It’s close to five p.m. Anastasia, whom Ames met when she was a 17-year-old Exile administrative assistant, wakes up and emerges from the bedroom and quietly introduces herself. They speak in Russian for a minute. Draped over the Samsonite is the last issue of The Exile, No. 285. The cover depicts Ames, receding into a black background, above the headline good night, and bad luck: in a nation terrorized by its own government, one paper dared to fart in its face.

Puerile to the last.

“It’s kind of terrifying being back here. I find the rules here suffocating,” Ames says when I ask how it feels returning to the States after a decade and a half in Moscow. “I miss the extreme melodrama” of Russia, he says. “Here there are so many horrifying layers of décor and piety. Everything is at stake in this country—in theory it’s Rome, and yet it operates like small-town Nebraska. There’s so little real drama here.”

Yet Ames still sees corruption around every corner. “Maybe it’s from living in Moscow, but he really has a great bullshit detector,” Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel says of Ames. “He has a sense of the absurd and right and wrong and tells it like it is.” This could also be said of Taibbi, whose Rolling Stone coverage and frequent TV appearances (notably on The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher) earned him a reputation as the premier bullshit detector and absurdist on the campaign trail in the last two U.S. presidential elections. He famously followed John Kerry around during the 2004 campaign in a gorilla suit. In 2009, Taibbi made a bigger name for himself with widely read and talked-about columns going after what he saw as Washington’s and Barack Obama’s complicity with Wall Street, particularly his old whipping boy, Goldman Sachs. Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner says of Taibbi that he is “absolutely the first person to come along since Hunter [Thompson] who could be called Hunter’s peer.” Taibbi’s Rolling Stone editor, Will Dana, is more specific. Also comparing him to Thompson, Dana says, “What they share in common is that they hate politicians.”

“When you meet Taibbi and talk to him, he’s this very cheerful, friendly neighborhood kid,” Ajay Goyal, who published Taibbi at the Russia Journal, says. “But he’s unique in that he doesn’t see anything that is good. He just notices the flaws in people.”

And it was not just their intolerance for cant that made Ames and Taibbi work so well together; the pair also shared a raging animus. Where it came from is unclear and probably irrelevant. Asked, Ames allows only that it “starts at home.” Rumors abounded in Moscow then, and continue to circulate in the New York media world now, about Taibbi’s relationship with his Emmy Award–winning father, though no one seems decided whether he’s out to anger Mike Taibbi or please him. Whatever the wellspring of the bile, Ames and Taibbi, at their worst and best alike, evoke Akaky Akakievitch, the civil servant in their beloved Gogol short story “The Overcoat,” bristling with the privileged awareness of “how much inhumanity there was in man, how much savage brutality there lurked beneath the most refined, cultured manners.” It can be too much to bear. One can come away from The Exile depleted from hating. Hating everything. In its eyes, fraudulence is a given. Nothing is pure enough, nothing cool enough. Everyone’s a sellout. As The Wall Street Journal’s Alan Cullison puts it, “I don’t know what their alternative worldview was.”

Chronic contempt may have been a sane take on turn-of-the-millennium Moscow, but in life, generally, it’s an unsustainable one, and eventually, inevitably, Ames and Taibbi came to hate each other. Oddly, the Wines incident seemed to mark the apex of their volatile collaboration and the beginning of its decline. By that point the partying and penury were catching up with them—Taibbi was for a time a full-on heroin addict—and the paper was faltering. “You can’t live like that for that long in a place as intense as Russia and not burn out,” Jake Rudnitsky says. The notoriety made it worse. “I’m sure both of them heard stuff like ‘You’re really good, the other guy sucks.’ Stupid coked-up Aerosmith Steven Tyler–Joe Perry rivalry stuff,” Kevin McElwee says. According to Exile staffers, Ames and Taibbi would get into screaming matches in the office. “Matt and Mark would argue bitterly. Matt would ask him, ‘Why are you so angry?’” one writer recalls. In 2001, Ames escaped to the U.S. for almost a year to do research for a book (Going Postal—Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine and Beyond) and to come down off a four-year speed binge. Taibbi stayed on, reluctantly.

Shortly after Ames returned to Moscow, in early 2002, Taibbi left for Buffalo, New York, to start a new paper, The Buffalo Beast. Ames says Taibbi made it clear he didn’t want Ames’s help. According to some, it was Taibbi’s plan all along to parlay the Exile buzz into Stateside success. “[The Exile] gave him the Western platform he always wanted,” says Andrew Meier. Ames agrees. “I never thought I’d get anything of mine read. Matt never suffered from that worry. It was his birthright to be read,” he says. “He wasn’t ever comfortable with his own anger. Matt’s fate all along was to end up in a privileged space. He knew that and realized that if he could take an unconventional route there it would make him much more interesting once he arrived.” Ames claims that while he was gone Taibbi mismanaged The Exile, running it into debt and embroiling it in a libel lawsuit with Russian hockey star Pavel Bure after Taibbi ran a prank story claiming Bure’s then girlfriend, tennis player Anna Kournikova, had two vaginas. Ames says Taibbi pushed him to take on Bure, a hero among some of Moscow’s less humor-inclined underworld figures, knowing that it might endanger The Exile and Ames’s safety, even his life. “He wanted out of The Exile and he wanted out of my shadow. He was pretty clear that he wanted The Exile to go down,” Ames says.

Taibbi left the Beast after only 18 issues and wrote a political column for the New York Press (where he became best known for writing the uproar-causing “52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope”) and then moved full time to Rolling Stone in 2005. He tried to get back in touch with Ames many times, but Ames refused, because Taibbi “betrayed The Exile. The Exile was incredibly unique and fragile, and it was the only thing fighting the right fight, and when you turn on that, that’s it,” Ames says. “I don’t believe in giving people second chances.”

“I think he knows he became a mainstream caricature,” Ames says when I ask what he thinks of Taibbi’s Rolling Stone work. Taibbi won a National Magazine Award for it in 2008. Ames and Taibbi have not spoken since 2002.

After Taibbi left, Ames became The Exile’s sole editor in chief and its lead reporter, writing investigative pieces on covert U.S. involvement in Georgia and on oil disputes in the Caspian Sea and, in a painful Socratic episode, covering the trial and incarceration of Edward Limonov, in what may be the best work of his career. Jake Rudnitsky filed excellent dispatches from Siberia and the Urals. John Dolan moved to Moscow and started a first-rate literary column in which he was an early outer of faux memoirist James Frey. But The Exile was never much of a business, and Moscow was changing. It had become expensive and clean and was taking on an ominous neo-Soviet flush. The expats had gone home, and journalists, including Americans, were being killed. Forbes Russia editor Paul Klebnikov, whom Ames knew, was gunned down in 2004. “Even the snow seemed archaic and doomed,” says Dolan, who left in 2006. The Exile nearly collapsed in 2007, before a group of private investors bailed it out.

Certain people close to The Exile, including some of those investors, claim Rossvyazokhrankultura did not cause it to fold. They say that Ames was tired of publishing it and that he used the government as a scapegoat. Alex Shifrin, The Exile’s lead investor, whom Ames accuses of abandoning him, would say only, “There are a lot of half-truths as to what happened.” Another investor claims the officials were simply looking for a bribe. “There was no government plot. I think everybody had it out for The Exile to some extent,” he says. But the investors didn’t “want to get involved with a media fight [Ames was] having with the feds.”

Ames flatly denies this.

Nina Ognianova, a program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, who worked on The Exile’s case, says the fact that the Federal Service officials asked repeatedly about Limonov shows “the audit was politicized.” She says, “Now that the mainstream space is cleared, the state has been methodically moving towards auditing and harassing smaller papers and Internet publications.” The irony is that The Exile was always far harder on America than Russia and, by the end, was probably more widely read by Russians than Americans. Finally, politics and finances may have conspired. “The Exile could never be profitable in [Russia],” Zalina Abdusalamova says. “If you want to be profitable, you have to be nice. The Exile was not nice. It was honest, but it was not nice.”

In June, Ames threw one last Exile party. At a strip club. “It was the most depressing party I’ve ever been to,” Yasha Levine says. “It dawned on a lot of people that they were never going to work on something this cool again. The dream had died and we’d be moving on to lamer and more boring jobs.”

They could at least take solace in the fact that The Exile won’t soon be forgotten. “It infuriated an awful lot of people in this town,” The Christian Science Monitor contributor Fred Weir says, “but they did a lot to keep us honest.” Speaking of reporting from Moscow, he then adds, “As a journalist now it’s pretty fucking bad and getting worse. Once again a foreign journalist is regarded as a spy.”

After a series of attempts at adaptation, the Exile movie, a rocky endeavor from the start, was abandoned. Producers Ted Hope and Anne Carey say that while at a meeting at the Chateau Marmont, in Los Angeles, “we had one writer tell us we were morally repellent for trying to adapt this book, particularly Ames’s part of the story.” Eventually a number of drafts were written, and some big names, including Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle, considered the project, but “by the time we got ready to move forward with it, Matt said he’d chosen not to talk about that part of his life anymore,” Carey says. In 2005, Taibbi declined to renew the option.

The treatment that Good Machine wanted to film may have had something to do with this. Depicting Ames and Taibbi as crusading reporters who uncover Russian war atrocities in Chechnya and are killed for their heroism, it bore, aside from the sex and drugs, little relation to reality.

When I first contacted Taibbi for this story, he replied unenthusiastically. “Ugh. No way I can talk you out of this, huh?” he e-mailed. “In the end nobody really wants to read about a couple of overgrown suburban teenagers writing about anal sex and the clap and then calling themselves revolutionaries when some third-world dictator gets bored of letting them stay published.”

He then fell out of touch, re-emerged a month later, and agreed to meet me for lunch at a Manhattan restaurant. I arrived late, and he was visibly annoyed. There was no boyish smile. “I just don’t see why you’re doing this story,” he said. When I told him that Ames was now living in New York he grew more agitated. I mentioned some of the Exile pieces of his I planned to write about, and he said, “That was covered in the book.” I told him yes, that was true, but the book had been published in 2000, and, frankly, I didn’t think it was very good.

“The book wasn’t good?” he said.

“No, I didn’t think so,” I said.

“My book?” he said.

“Yes, the Exile book. I thought it was redundant and discursive and you guys left out a lot of the good stuff you did,” I said.

At this, Taibbi’s mouth turned down and his eyes narrowed.

“Fuck you,” he snarled, and then picked up his mug from the table, threw his coffee at me, and stormed out.

The restaurant was packed with customers, and they all turned to watch as I sat there, stunned, coffee dripping from my face. The waiter arrived with the milkshake Taibbi had ordered. After wiping myself off a bit, I went outside, where Taibbi was putting on his coat, and asked him to calm down and come back into the restaurant. He walked up to me, glaring, beside himself with rage.

“Fuck you!” he yelled. “Did you bring me here to insult me? Who are you? What have you ever written? Fuck you!”

I tried to talk to him, but gave up when he walked away. I went back inside, paid the bill, left, and began walking up Sixth Avenue. Halfway up the block, I turned around, and Taibbi was behind me.

“Are you following me?,” I asked. He walked toward me, raising his arms as though preparing to throttle me or take a swing.

“I still haven’t decided what I’m going to do with you!” he said.

“Are you kidding?,” I asked.

And at that moment I thought he might be kidding. There was part of me that thought it must have been a prank. I half expected some old Exile accomplice, maybe even Ames, to jump out from behind a tree with a camera. Maybe they’d been setting me up all along. Maybe there was horse sperm in the coffee. But the anger in Taibbi’s eyes was genuine, and, after some more glaring, he fumed off. That was the last I saw of him.

Eventually, Taibbi sent lengthy responses to e-mailed lists of questions. “I once considered Mark my best friend,” he wrote. “When I left I never thought I was burning my bridges to The Exile permanently, and being shut out as I have been from all contact with the paper I helped build during these seven years, not even having my letters answered at any time by Mark or anyone else on the paper during that period, this is one of the truly unhappy things that has ever happened in my life. Both The Exile and Mark’s friendship were very important to me, as were the memories of both of those things, and I’ve lost all of that now. That I’m now being accused of not only wanting to harm the paper, but desiring Mark’s maiming or even his death, only deepens my sadness about all of this.” He went on to say that “most people by the time they get old are full of regrets about the things they never got around to doing when they were young, but thanks to the paper I won’t ever have that problem.” But, he concluded, “if you romanticize any of that ugliness, I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point.”

•••••

SELECT COMMENT FROM ORIGINAL THREAD
azazello
May 29, 2011
A stack of “Exile” was always placed next to a stack of “Moscow Times” in the lobby of my Moscow alma mater which used to be a communist party school back in the day. We, young law and journalism students, read both with interest, frequently with a laughter, sometimes with displeasure at the low blows and idioms like “to fuck shit out of somebody (usually local “sluts”).” At its best Exile went beyond the colonial cork-helmet ethnographer stance, frat boy juvenile braggadocio, and pre-microblogging narcissism to capture something very valid about the chaotic Moscow life. There was such a sense of freedom and possibility. We were critical of our past and hopeful about the future. And we liked to party a lot, partly because of uncertainty of the moment, partly because we were young and privileged, partly because we took Baudrillard’s “play among the ruins” maxima close to heart. I’ve seen Ames at the club scene but never spoke with him which i regret now. Fast forward to 2001. The businesses which my family built and protected against gangsters in the 1990s were taken away. After arrests of my relatives (and getting them out), i left Russia pretty much penniless. The new system was crystallizing – and Exile sensed it at least since even the Moscow nightlife could not isolate them from these vibes. There were new sushi bars and coffee shops and cops behaved as if they owned everything again. New bourgeois police state was boring for Ames, i think. Exile died as it became unnecessary – i wish Ames / Taibbi attempted something similar in the U.S. but i know they would be forced to register as agents of foreign power or receive death threats there fairly soon. So it goes. One thing about the article – the lifeless “carcass” metaphor is somewhat misleading. The whole rush was about expropriation of natural resources and assets created by 3 generations of Russian workers (whatever was paid at the auctions was nominal fees at best). Westerners were at least instrumental in cutting out the viable assets from huge soviet-era holdings and shrugging off the social obligations contributing to a huge humanitarian catastrophe as they helped to siphon the money over the ocean. Corruption was functional, it allowed millions to be made out of the thin air, and was much encouraged. Everyone is guilty, myself included. I think that the recent fraudonomics in the U.S. is tied to the modus operandi adopted at the developing markets including the Russia of the 1990s. Putin ascent to power is not accidental either. I am getting my Ph.D. in Las Vegas and nostalgia sets in as years pass. The exile will be missed as a part of the 1990s, when I was young and breathing with a full chest in the adrenaline rush of the Moscow nights. Maybe there was less freedom, but there was definitely more independence.
__________________

APPENDIX
A sample of Mark Ames’ writing

FATWAH / JULY 14, 2008
THE EXILED: WE’RE BACK, AND WE’RE VERY PISSED OFF
By Mark Ames
exileCoatofArms

The eXiled Coat of Arms Is Back With A Vengeance

One month ago, our newspaper The eXile got stomped into extinction by some ham-fisted Russian government officials, who decided that since there’s a new president in the Kremlin who’s talking up some nonsense about a new “liberal era,” what better way to show your boss that you understand what he means by “liberal”—with a big wink-wink—than to shut down the only good thing that Russia ever had going for it.

On June 5, four officials from the Ministry to Defend Russian Culture—one of whom was an FSB lawyer seconded out to ministry—arrived at our radon-poisoned basement office in Chisty Prudy to carry out an “unplanned [ie: ordered] audit” of The eXile’s articles. As the head of the Glasnost Defense Fund NGO told us, we were the first and still only Moscow newspaper to ever be subjected to an “unplanned audit” of our editorial content. What a fucking honor it was.

They came exactly on time, 11am—just like Stalin’s proverbial trains. There they were, all fitted out in their crusty retro-Soviet outfits, subjecting us to a three-hour interrogation about Edward Limonov and the Recession Penis and why did we write the things we write and why do we mock and insult Russia’s great culture and great traditions… The officials were surprisingly polite and by-the-books during the audit, but that didn’t matter, because they still scared the shit out of anyone with an understanding of Russia’s past and present. The Ministry to Defend Russian Culture (since renamed the “Federal Agency for Media and Communications”) is merely the least scary ministry in the extremely-scary Russian state apparatus—so saying that the RosOkhranKultury wasn’t all that scary is like saying that the eyeball-like pits on the sides of a Flecker’s Box Jellyfish’s bell aren’t all that scary compared to its 60 deadly tentacles—which pack the most toxic venom in planet earth’s seas. The slightest contact with one of the box jellyfish’s 10-foot-long tentacles, and you’d wish that you could trade places with one of Mengele’s victims: the box jellyfish’s venom literally sizzles through your flesh like Alien blood, eating its way into your blood vessels, racing through your circulation system like a burning gunpowder fuse, until finally the venom reaches your vital organs and napalms the entire fucking thing like it’s a Vietnamese village, turning your organs into a pot of boiling jelly, and transforming you—brave, chin-up little you—into a screaming, gargling, blood-puking freak—a one-note freak, to be precise—that note being: “PLEASE SOMEONE FUCKING KILL ME NOW! AGGGHHHH!!!!”

So when the four Russian government officials finally left our offices, and we realized we weren’t dead or in jail, at first we were kinda relieved, like, “Hey, we bumped into a Flecker’s Box Jellyfish and all we touched were its slit-eyes, and you know, there’s more to that creature than venom and tentacles.” But then a few hours later we came to our senses and realized, “Um, wait a minute—as a matter of fact, there isn’t much more to that creature than venom and tentacles.” And speaking of venomous tentacles, a Duma deputy (and former Nashi spokesman) Robert Schlegel went on Govorit Moskva radio a few days after the audit and announced, “I don’t have to read The eXile to understand that it is guilty of extremism.”

It was time to get out of the venomous-vermin-infested waters. We’d been spotted by the jellyfish’s eye-like pits. The Flecker’s Box Jellyfish doesn’t have a brain, but it does have four “nerve-nets” connecting the eye-pits to the tentacles. Only a fool would stick around to see how the Flecker’s Box Jellyfish, or its human variant “the Russian government,” will react after it takes a stack of eXile articles for “analysis,” articles which contain lines like “Russian Government is bloody beast eating human flesh” and we “fart in Russia’s face” and “urinate into the president’s mouth.” How does a jellyfish’s nerve-net read lines like that? Does it get angry and want to thrash its venomous tentacles around? Since we don’t want to be the subject of some future Werner Herzog documentary called “Flecker’s Box Jellyfish Man,” we decided to respect Mother Nature and leave the venomous jellyfish to their brainless floating-death world, while we’ll go back to ours. Flee: it’s what our investors did when they pulled a David Copperfield disappearing act on us a week before the auditors rolled into our office…and that’s what we did after the Russian government’s highly-unusual audit of our paper.

And that’s how The eXile died: just as it was born: in sin and in epic glory. We were never like the others: the fake-alternative, fake-angry papers. That’s why our spectacular death has pissed off so many people who never had the nerve to go where we went, and who always wanted to see us snuffed out—quietly, without a fuss. We lived out our name as we lived out everything else. We’re now in true eXile, just as we’d announced from the beginning 11 years ago—and that is why we’ve named the new online webzine that we’re launching today “The eXiled.” It’s now an accomplished fact.

But our job isn’t done. We’ve got a lot of bile yet to be pumped, a lot of unfinished business—and thanks to our readers, we’ve got a little pot of money to fuel our insurgency against what we can only describe as “the fucks.” You know who we’re talking about here.

How will “The eXiled” differ from our now-abandoned Mother Ship, the USS eXile? For starters, we’ve pulled out of Russia for good—we’re not going to stick around there and see what the ministry experts think of our literary golden shower into Medvedev’s mouth. Like the pro-Chechen site kavkaz.org, we’ve moved our servers out of Russia and to a secure location that’s more appropriate. Which in our case means that we’ve moved our operations to Panama.

Yes, Panama. Just because we like the sound of it. Fact is, Russia just ain’t fun anymore. We’re bored of all the overpriced low-quality nonsense that governs every aspect of that birch-infested bog. We’ve moved to somewhere a little nicer, where we can exchange our mud-stained parkas and boots for loose-fitting short-sleeved Hawaiian shirts, and where we no longer get harangued into “bonding” with the locals via their filthy peasant drug alcohol, because we can bond with Pedro and Manuel via their clean pure white rock cocaine, a far superior and more noble substance. I mean, everyone in Panama smiles all the time! A cynic might say “That’s because they’re fucking cokeheads!” to which we could only reply, “Cynic!” Unless we’re on coke, in which case we’d answer, “Haha! Yeah, you’re totally right. In fact, I never thought of that before…”

So, what do you folks out there in reader-land have to look forward to here? Death. But before you die, we at The eXiled will be there to hold your hand and make sure your last days and months on this planet of ours really, really hurt. We’re the doctor who refuses to give you morphine for that tumor eating its way through your pancreas, telling you, “We don’t think it’s right for you to cop out and get high simply because you’re in excruciating pain day and night, and you’ll continue to shriek in pain until you finally die from shock in about four months, which is really three months and twenty-nine days more than any living creature could possibly bear. So, suck it up, you nation of whiners you!”

What sort of pain-enhancing medicine are we at The eXiled prescribing you? All of your favorites from The eXile, and more. With one big difference: instead of being Russia-centric, we’re going to be as unabashedly America-centric as we’ve always bashedly been. Fuck Russia—we’re tired of working out on the second-stringers.

While the focus is shifting, The eXiled staff is essentially the same. The eXiled’s editorial junta consists of: Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, eXile guru Dr. John Dolan, and our latest and bestest addition to our Evil Justice League, Eileen Jones. Most of the contributors will be with us too, starting with Gary Brecher who’ll publish two “War Nerd” columns per month at The eXiled. Reviews and rants—Dr. Dolan’s literary reviews, Ms. Jones’ film reviews, and so on—will be classified under our new “Fatwahs” section. Yasha Levine will be our special undercover Evil Empire correspondent, (thankfully the Russian government’s pit-eye hasn’t trained its nerve-net on Mr. Levine yet). For all of you wondering what happened to Vlad Kalashnikov, so far it looks like he’s agreed to come back again, starting to write for us next week. (Did you hear that, Daniel Allen?) We’ll also have a new feature called “The eXiled Factor,” whereby The eXiled’s editorial junta will conduct a kind of topical McLaughlin Group pundit-riffing.

And just so you know, there will be NO open commentary allowed to readers. That is the first fatwah of The eXiled. You will send letters to sic@exiledonline.com and you will take what we give you and be happy with it. We used to be patient and reasonable people until our paper was shut down. We saw things in people close to us that…well, we’ll never be reasonable to anyone ever again. It’s war from here on out.

You can contact Mark at ames@exiledonline.com.
Read more: Media, Relaunch, The Exile, Mark Ames, Fatwah

 




Conversations on the Arts, Politics and History Between a Russian and an American

“Prologue 3”

Conversations on the Arts, Politics and History Between a Russian and an American

by GARY CORSERI and VICTOR IVANOVICH POSTNIKOV

Round One

Gary-Corseri-aGary Corseri: Hi, Victor. … I hope you’re well in Kiev!  I’ve noticed that it’s just about a month since we last collected our thoughts and had the termerity to post them! Are you ready for another go-round?

 

 

Victor-Ivanovich-Postnikov-Victor Postnikov: Yes, now is a good time! So many thoughts I feel impassioned to share before they steal away!

GC: Last time we exchanged a flurry of notes, the news in the macro-world was much about the US-Russian relationship. All the tension then was about whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, how the former National Security Agent was holed up at the Moscow airport, seeking asylum, and about to “spill the beans” about a lot of things the US considered “Top Secret!” And now, just a month later, this testy US-Russian relationship is once again front and center… but this time it’s focused on our mutual entanglements in the cauldron of the Middle East! This collision-course situation has me very much in a knot… and I wonder what mere poets—or any artists–can do to stop the madness?

VP: Wars happen despite all wailing and protests. No poet has ever deflected a war. But that doesn’t mean that poets stay unconcerned. They speak another language. They’re different. This poem of Jeffers comes to mind:

 

Be Angry At The Sun

By ROBINSON JEFFERS

That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new. That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you. Watch the wheel slope and turn,
They are all bound on the wheel, these people, those warriors,
This republic, Europe, Asia.

Observe them gesticulating,
Observe them going down. The gang serves lies, the passionate
Hunts in no pack.

You are not Catullus, you know,
To lampoon these crude sketches of Caesar. You are far
Political hatreds.

Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.

GC: I know that poem well, having read and taught it decades ago… and I’ve read it many times since. It is one of his great poems. This is Jeffers at his “inhumanist” best, perhaps, turning his back on the “political” frays, wandering among the crags of Big Sur, California. That was one of his “moods” or “modes of expression”; but, at other times, he could be more political, directly critical of Roosevelt or Stalin, for example, mentioning them with scorn in his poems.

I wonder if we have the “luxury” of “turning our backs” these days? Given all that we know, with the new world of the Internet, etc.—and our ability to speak out… even across continents and oceans?

VP: I don’t suggest “turning our backs.”  On the contrary, we must see what’s happening and try to understand why.  But, I would prefer detachment– the more so because this war is male-dominated and ambiguous! This is an agony of the old macho-world of Obama, Putin, Assad and many others.

 

GC: Getting into a discussion like that could open a “can of worms.” But… I think it’s a can that needs opening!  We not only have a “war of words” ongoing between our former Cold War rivals, we have a “clash of civilizations,” as well. Putin wants to hold onto traditonal Eastern Orthodox values—so Russia is not undermined by an avalanche of Western norms and mores that tear at the fabric of that multi-national, multi-ethnic nation. The West’s way of making war seems to be with 5th Columns of NGOs that shout about “democracy,” but really have conquest in mind!

 

VP: It’s well understood. … Since the fall of the USSR, Russia has been desperately trying to adjust to the modern world–technologically, politically, mentally—and, at the same time, to save its historical face. It’s a hell of a job. The greatest problem is the cultural gap. So, I see our mission as trying to narrow this gap–through poetry, art and philosophy. For a long time, I’ve preferred poets who speak the universal language of humanity—poets like Jeffers and Whitman. I saw the closeness of two of my best-loved poetesses–Dickinson and Tsvetaeva. We need to hear their voices today– in our rude, male-dominated world.

 

Hillary Clinton: If she wins the other shoe will drop as far as this couple of phonies is concerned.  Burgo feminists and Obots are already celebrating, of course.

Hillary Clinton: Like many bourgeois feminists, success means embracing and excelling at macho capitalist values. A dangerous hawk, like other women in the current establishment.

GC: Because of the “Feminist Movement” of recent decades, many American women have been “masculinized.” These women crave power for the sake of it! They are in the tradition of Margaret Thatcher of England, Golda Meir of Israel…, and now we have Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Susan Rice or US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers, etc. It’s a very different world than the one in which I grew up!

 

VP: The women in politics mimic men and sometimes look ugly! It has nothing to do with feminism. It’s a surrender!

 

Art may serve a twofold purpose: to detract (from lies); or, to speak truth. Both ways are useful. The important thing is–it ought not be trivial! In fact, we should discuss those two poets–Emily Dickinson and Marina Tsvetaeva.  It’s crucial that we focus on these two female poets in this macho-dominated, war-mongering world. Personally, I consider myself an adherent of “eco-feminism,” a new paradigm that awaits humanity.

 

GC: Emily Dickinson is a long-time favorite of mine. … You’ll have to introduce me, and, I suspect, most of our readers to Marina Tsvetaeva. And, of course, we need to hear more about your ideas on “eco-feminism”! I’d certainly like to get back to the concept of “Mother Earth”—and not raping and mutilating her body with weapons, fracking, and other ecological  catastrophes!

VP: Both of these poets have tremendous power over us because they dont speak trivial things, and, they ignore meanness!

GC: Let’s combine our views on the contemporary, political world with reflections on poets who make us think, as well as feel! The idea is that poetry &/or the Arts can be the steady keel through these perilous waters.

 

VP: Yes!… Before we get into a discussion about them, I’d like to pick up on your note about how culture can undermine a nation’s power structure. I’d like to share this with you:

 

How To Undermine the System

By VICTOR POSTNIKOV

 

Of all things,

the $ystem hates poetry,

especially, the s l o w
p h i l o s o p h i c a l one:
it shudders from metaphors,
chokes from hyperboles,
frets from allusions,
irks from allegory,
enrages from irony,
and breathes its last from sarcasm.

Do write poetry, Children.

 

GC: Thank you! I like it! … I like the way you wrote “$ystem,” and your use of poetic terms to “undermine” it! I like your use of verbs–the strongest part of speech. That’s a fine way to end this Round! Now, for the next Round, let’s consider Tsvetaeva and Dickinson. …

 

VP: It’s a wrap!

 

ROUND 2 (after a couple of days–)

 

VP: Welcome back, Gary! I’m glad you liked my translation of the Tsvetaeva poem… and, thanks for the nuances that you’ve corrected. (Nuances are very important! Sometimes a sole phrase is worth the poem—that’s hermeneutics!) Here is my most recent version:

 

Nostalgia

By MARINA TSVETAEVA

 

Long-exposed!
I’m absolutely pointless
Along the streets of cobble,
I drag myself,
To some unknown barrack
I call “my place.”

I’m absolutely passive
If I must snap
Like a lion captivated
Or, ousted, hide in private,
Like a bear,
Can’t bear innuendos
I won’t be either flattered
By native tongue,
Don’t matter in what language
I’m cursed by one!

 

Those who engage in


 

I’m like a lifeless trunk
All people look alike
To mindless me!

Or maybe even days
I held most dear—

My soul, my precious soul,
Could not secure!

That land was so unfeeling
Even a sleuth
Would not detect a birthmark
Each home, each dome is foreign,
Indiscrete,
But should I meet a rowan
On the street. …

GC: I had to look up “rowan.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a tree in North America!

VP: Rowan” is a very common plant in northern Russia (“ryabina”). I‘m sure you saw it many times in Northern America. Dark red grapes, with sharp bitter-sweet taste. “Ryabinovka,” a popular Russian vodka, is infused with rowan. But the poem is bitter indeed!

 

GC: The ending is as unusual as the rest of the poem. One expects more… but it’s kind of a puzzle-poem anyway. One take-away is, “I’m myself, sui generis. Like Gretta Garbo in the movies–“I want to be alone!”  But, more fundamentally, I think it’s a poem about a lack of “solidity,” a sense of floating in a strange, no-longer familiar world. I think that’s a universal in our modern world—with accelerated change, “future shock” everywhere.

 

VP: Yes… “alienation.”  It was written in 1939, after she returned from exile in Paris, Prague and Berlin (where she lived in increasing poverty) to Russia, with glowing expectations. But she found only the Stalinist regime and the same humiliation as in the West. Her husband was arrested (and later shot by the NKVD), and everyone, including her “friends,” left her for fear of persecution. Russia remained for her only as the bushes of rowan.

 

GC: Your note can add much to the appreciation of this poem. …Didn’t Akhmatova have a similar fate—husband killed, son imprisoned?

 

VP: Yes.

 

GC: I like the poem. … It’s whimsical, tight. I don’t think it’s a “great” poem—as I feel about Jeffers’ poem…, but I’m now curious about Tsvetaeva’s work, and I want to read more. When I was 14, I read an anthology of English and American poetry, edited by Louis Untermeyer, called “Great Poems.” There was much biographical content about the poets, and that material enhanced the poems for me. Later, when I was a grad student in English, I learned about the so-called “New Critics” of the 20th Century—who were adamantly against any kind of biographical references or insights into the nature of the work. As a young Instructor and Prof, I briefly held to that view, but I soon began to develop my present stance: All insights are valid, no matter where derived—biographical, historical, and, of course, what we get from “close reading.” I wouldn’t over-emphasize any kind of input—biographical or otherwise.  I think the important thing is to converse with the work, bring all we can to it… and then, listen to it!

 

VP: Yes! Empathy matters, especially if you are a translator. It’s hard to articulate my reverence towards Marina Tsvetaeva. All the ardour of pain, history, Russia is contained in her beautiful verse. To me, she’s the greatest Russian poetess. An heir to Blok and Mayakovsky.  After she returned from exile to Stalin’s Russia, her life went from bad to worse. She committed suicide on a summer day in 1941. You can look her up on Wikipedia.

 

GC: I just looked her up. She looks delicate, almost pixieish, and sad.  “Still waters run deep.”

 

VP: Generally, “historical” accounts of poets and artists, or philosophers, have an educative and enobling effect on the public. And carry more truths than the “straight” history of an era. My father wrote a fascinating account of this era (1920s – 1990) through the eyes of scientists and poets. (Not historians and politicians). I have editied a Russian edition and published his (and my) memoirs in 2006, in a centenary book. BTW, you can see more translations of Tsvetaeva’s work at http://www.stihi.ru/avtor/transpoetry, or, her original poems in Russian at http://www.klassika.ru/stihi/cvetaeva/. (I hold the copyright for my translations. …)

GC: I think we’ve made a good beginning for “Prologues #3”. If you keep making good beginnings… eventually, you wind up at your goal! (At least that’s the hope!)  I think we have convergent views, and we’re focusing on things worth saying—covering a broad spectrum of politics and the arts, and marking how they intertwine. Our “prologues”are difficult to compose… but, I think they are well worth it!  It is something new! A new approach to criticism: Instead of 1 guy pontificating, there are 2 cerebral chaps engaged in hermeneutics! And various truths may be told this way!

 

VP: Hermeneutics postulate that the meaning/understanding is being exposed, or attained, only through dialogue (or “multi-logue,” I’d say).  For the last few days I’ve been reading and translating some interesting stuff on hermeneutics in Gadamer’s “Truth and Method,” and particularly its liaison with language, culture and history. I found many supporting ideas in this exciting book. For example, it explained how a single line of a poem can convey the meaning better than the whole text.

 

GC: I’ve been re-reading Rilke recently–one of my favorite poets… and that’s certainly true of his work in “Duino Elegies” and elsewhere. There are spectacular lines–images, concepts, wording… and others that actually seem to detract from the totality of the long composition.

 

VP: And, more generally, the totality of poetry is such that some old poets can speak through the ages while others have only a fleeting, immediate effect. As Gadamer writes, understanding occurs through interpreting, and every translator is an interpreter par excellence. For me, as a translator, it became clear: we can understand others through the totality of language. And language is equal to a dialogue, and dialogue is equal to Being. You see, all life is a dialogue. Thus, all wars can be seen as a failed dialogue.

 

GC: I agree!  War as “failed dialogue.”  Let’s continue with these themes in our next “Prologue.”

VP: We haven’t said much about Emily Dickinson, though. … We must talk more about her, too!  I have thought that she and Marina are like sisters. …

GC: She’s such a strange, wonderful person!  A major intellect in 19th Century America. We’ll have to come back to her! This is one of my favorite quotes from her: “Tell all the truth/ but tell it slant.” Roughly interpreted, that could mean: Be honest… and be interesting! Most people can’t take the truth when it comes at them straight-on, in their face. That’s where the artist can work his/her magic. Telling the truth, but telling it slant.

VP: There are lots of reasons why Tsvetaeva appeals to me. Not least, that she wrote socially-minded verse full of bitter irony and force, the verse that we need today. She wrote some stunning “dark” verse. Dickinson did the same. Generally, poetry is dark. Because truth is dark. As Jeffers said, “Consider what an explosion would rock the bones of men into white fragments and unsky the world if any mind for a moment touch the truth.” Any great poet feels this danger of “touching the truth”. Therefore, too many great poets have been killed, or commited suicide–

 

GC: Or died too young—from despair… or just gave up.

 

VP: It takes great effort not to slip and lose balance, as if you are walking on a tightrope. All great poets walk on a tightrope. On a thin line between life and death.

 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Gary Corseri, Ph.D. in English and American Literature, has taught at universities in the US and Japan, and in US public schools and prisons. His books include collections of poetry, novels and a literary anthology (edited). His libretto for the opera “Reverend Everyman” (Salvador Brotons, composer) has been produced on Atlanta-PBS, in university venues, and elsewhere. He has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library and Museum. His prose and poems have appeared at The New York Times, Village Voice, Redbook Magazine, Georgia Review, Counterpunch.org, City Lights Review and hundreds of periodicals and websites worldwide. Contact: Gary_Corseri@comcast.net.

Russian-born poet and poetry translator, Victor Ivanovich Postnikov, received his Ph.D.from Kiev Polytechnic and a D.SC. from the Institute of Electrodynamics, Ukr. Academy of Sciences.  Since the 1990s, he has been a critic of technology and has studied its impact on nature and society. He is a member of the Internet Left Biocentrist Group (a “left wing” of deep ecology). He has translated into Russian and published several key eco-philosophers, such as Fritjof Capra, Jerry Mander, and William R. Catton, Jr. He dedicates his time to writing essays and editing Dandelion Times (http://www.victorpostnikov@wordpress.com), a biocentric journal.  He can be reached at vpostnikov@yahoo.com.




Bezos, Tina Brown and the Looting of the Washington Post

Follow the Money

by LOUIS PROYECT

Glitterati queen Tina Brown, perfect maggot for a decomposing media.


Glitterati queen Tina Brown, perfect maggot for a decomposing media.

Recently two major media sales transactions involved properties associated with the Washington Post. The first was the sale of the Post itself to Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon.com; the other was the sale of Newsweek/Daily Beast to IBT Media. Until its sale in 2010 to high-fidelity magnate Sidney Harman, Newsweek was part of the Washington Post’s media empire. Tina Brown launched the Daily Beast, a center-right version of the Huffington Post, in October 2008, which merged with Newsweek two years later. In a bid to capitalize on the Internet revolution, the print edition of Newsweek was terminated in December 2012 and all efforts were directed toward making the website a success. No doubt its failure had more to do with the stale content that Tina Brown was proffering, something no amount of new media gold sequins could rescue.

On August 6th Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post pundit, made the case for his new boss on Chris Matthews’s “Hardball”.

“20 years from now, do you think we`re going to be dealing with physical newspapers delivered on your doorstep? Twenty years from now, I`m not sure we are. Right now, that`s what, 70 percent, maybe 80 percent of the Washington Post revenue, most print newspapers` revenue.

“So what I think Bezos does is not to slay or get rid of that legacy business. It generates the cash. It generates a lot of money and he`s not averse to cash.

“But the advantage of having somebody like Bezos owning the paper is number one, it`s going to be private. So, we`re not going to have Wall Street analysts, you know, anxious about next quarter`s figures. Number two, he`s got pockets deep enough for use to do the experimentation and the innovation that we need to do on the online side –“

One imagines that Bezos has lots of experimentation and innovation planned for the paper but not exclusively on the technical side. While not so nearly well known as a political player like Chris Hughes, the gay billionaire co-founder of Facebook who bought the New Republic and is now making plans to run for Congress in upstate NY, Bezos will no doubt use the editorial pages of the paper as a bully pulpit for his libertarian politics. As A.J. Liebling once said, “Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

One of the hotly debated topics in the academy is whether the U.S. is “declining”, achieving more urgency with the growth of China as a major economic power. If this debate is not so easily decided given the challenge of weighing massive and often contradictory amounts of data, it might be more easily resolved on the ideological front. In the German Ideology, Karl Marx wrote: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” That being the case, when one puts the propagandist for the ruling class—Tina Brown—and Jeff Bezos, a prominent member of the ruling class, under the microscope, decline is certainly the first word that comes to mind.

Tina Brown, a British citizen, came to the U.S. in 1984 to edit Vanity Fair, fresh from her success editing The Tatler, a magazine started by Richard Steele in 1709. After taking it over in 1979, the 26 year old Brown told the N.Y. Times the secret of her success there: “People love to read about people who have money”. With such a credo, no wonder Newsweek went bust. Today it has an article titled “I had a bird-poop facial”, just the sort of thing an intellectually curious reader can sink his or her teeth into.

After taking over Vanity Fair, Brown rode the crest of the last big upsurge of the American economy when the wealthy one percent was more the objection of affection than hatred. If the U.S. did not have a royalty, like the kind that Brown twitted with a mixture of affection and disdain in her biography of Princess Di, at least it had people like Donald Trump. (If the reference to Trump as royalty seems far-fetched, just remember Prince Harry going to a costume ball in a Nazi uniform.)

Vanity Fair was and is the perfect reading material while sitting in a doctor or dentist’s waiting room. What better way to get your mind off some root-canal work than an article about Jennifer Anniston’s new romance? Landing the top post at Vanity Fair was a sign that you had made it in the publishing world. Not only was it lucrative, it was guaranteed to get you the best table at Elaine’s. This must have been the main appeal to Graydon Carter, who eventually replaced Brown. When he was at Spy magazine, Carter used to refer to Trump as a short-fingered vulgarian. Once he got the job at Vanity Fair, Carter crossed the red velvet rope into the vulgarian’s private club, from whence he has never emerged.

Nobody would have much trouble with Tina Brown running Vanity Fair since she and the magazine were made for each other. However, when publishing baron Si Newhouse decided to reassign her to run the New Yorker magazine in 1992, feathers were ruffled near and far.

Jamaica Kincaid, one of the few Black writers at the magazine, spoke for many other writers (even though she regarded them as “Old white men who went to Harvard or Yale mostly”) in an October 19, 1996 interview with the London Telegraph. When asked if she clashed with Brown, Kincaid said, “I didn’t mind that Tina Brown was a tyrant. I wouldn’t mind if she was a tyrant and smart, but she’s stupid.” For emphasis, she added, “I don’t like stupid people.” In the course of the interview, she also referred to her as “a bully” and “Joseph Stalin in high heels with blonde hair from England”.

Despite increasing the magazine’s circulation (well, H.L. Mencken once said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people“), there were rumors that the magazine was not making the profits that Newhouse coveted. So, in 1998 Brown went on to work for Harvey Weinstein, the very embodiment of short-fingered vulgarianism, in a new media venture centered on a magazine called Talk. You can get an idea for the magazine’s sensibility from the top guests at a party celebrating its launch: Madonna, Salman Rushdie, Demi Moore and George Plimpton. This would have inspired Dante to add a tenth circle in hell.

After Talk, Tina Brown went on to her next Hindenburg type disaster, the Daily Beast. As stated above, she derived the name from a fictional paper in Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, a satire on the newspaper industry. One wonders whether she adopted this name in a rare moment of insight about her role in bourgeois media. Despite his Tory politics, Waugh was quite good at nailing the British aristocracy’s doddering character. In many ways, “Scoop” conveys what life at places like the Washington Post and Newsweek is all about.

The Daily Beast of Waugh’s novel is run by one Lord Copper, whose toadying foreign editor can never answer “yes” or “no” to his boss’s queries but only “Definitely, Lord Copper” and ‘Up to a point, Lord Copper”. Before Hitchens went off the deep right end, he wrote an introduction to a 2000 edition of “Scoop” with these observations that not only make one want to read the novel but mourn Hitchens’s defection to the world of Lord Copper:

“The manners and mores of the press, are the recurrent motif of the book and the chief reason for its enduring magic…this world of callousness and vulgarity and philistinism…Scoop endures because it is a novel of pitiless realism; the mirror of satire held up to catch the Caliban of the press corps, as no other narrative has ever done save Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s The Front Page.”

Probably the less said about Bezos, the better. While Brown is a celebrity-worshipping hack, Bezos is a slave-driving real-life version of the Simpson’s Mr. Burns.

While most readers and I use amazon.com, one would prefer to see it or something like it owned by society rather than private investors. In many ways, it hearkens back to “Looking Backward: 2000-1887”, Edward Bellamy’s utopian socialist novel, one in which the second millennium is already 13 years old. Bellamy is the anti-Luddite, predicating his more just and equitable world on the basis of advanced technology. When I read the book in high school, I did not become a socialist but it certainly opened my eyes to the possibility that people could democratically manage their affairs. When the hero of Bellamy’s novel asked his host from the future world how private ownership could be superseded, the answer suggested a certain Nostradamus capability from the author:

“When innumerable, unrelated, and independent persons produced the various things needful to life and comfort, endless exchanges between individuals were requisite in order that they might supply themselves with what they desired. These exchanges constituted trade, and money was essential as their medium. But as soon as the nation became the sole producer of all sorts of commodities, there was no need of exchanges between individuals that they might get what they required. Everything was procurable from one source, and nothing could be procured anywhere else. A system of direct distribution from the national storehouses took the place of trade, and for this money was unnecessary.”

Of course, there’s that messy job of removing Bezos’s greedy talons from those warehouses…

While Bezos would be appalled by Bellamy’s socialist utopian vision, he is something of a futurist himself. In 2000, the year of Bellamy’s future world, Bezos launched a space travel company called Blue Origin. The initial goal would be to sell thrill rides on rocket ships to rich bastards like him and Richard Branson, who expressed interest in a partnership. But ultimately, the goal would be to create “space hotels, amusement parks and colonies for 2 million or 3 million people orbiting the Earth”, according to a report by Amy Martinez in the April 23, 2012 Seattle Times.

Perhaps that colonizing project reflects a certain anxiety on Bezos’s part about a working class grown resentful of one percent greed, particularly the warehouse workers who were shocked to discover that their boss preferred to keep ambulances outside their workplace to carry heat stroke victims to the hospital rather than install air conditioning. After doing a cost-benefit study, ambulances were the way to go. Such workers might one day decide to use pitchforks on the ruling class and a retreat to safe ground by its members has to be considered.

One must not begrudge any decision by the descendants of Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump to live like kings and queens in outer space just as long as workers are aimed with laser weaponry to bring down any rocket ships bent on counter-revolution.

But the best way to think about the parting of the ways between rulers and ruled is Leon Trotsky’s advice in “If America should go Communist”, a 1934 article that surely would have won Edward Bellamy’s approval even if I have problems with Trotsky’s nod to advertising. If he could have anticipated what someone watching a baseball game on television would have to put up with today, he would have reconsidered his remarks. But the rest of it makes perfect sense, especially the last sentence:

“The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants.

“As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please.”

Louis Proyect blogs at http://louisproyect.wordpress.com and is the moderator of the Marxism mailing list. In his spare time, he reviews films for CounterPunch.




OpEds—Gates of Lefty Hell: The Keepers and Smashers

By Diane Gee

diane-gates

Sure, they are for women’s rights.  They post a ton on legalizing pot.  They hate Republicans, and are anti-war.  They don’t much like fracking, and will sign any cause d’jour that comes by, with little or no due diligence.  The Kony thing comes to mind…But given hard evidence of the feedback loops that have our planet racing to an irreversible ecological change, which will be absolutely unable to sustain human life?

They have to deny, obfuscate, or sing la-la-la with their fingers in their new age ears saying things like (and I quote)

Yes, education / knowledge of what is happening is vital. So too is understanding that our whole solar system is under going a ‘climate change’ phenomenon. You can verify that on space / solar dedicated sites.


Ummm, WHAT?
Let me define some terms for you.

Climate is the pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these variables over shorter periods.

I hate to break it to you, but the solar system has no “climate.”  And your seminars and crystal waving prayer sessions are irrelevant.

Truth is subjective…..

Sack cloth and ash with the sign of its the end of the world … I simply don’t subscribe to.

And “vision” at this point, like Truth, is very subjective.

Hear no evil much?  There is nothing subjective about the North Pole now being underwater, nor 200 species a day becoming extinct.

…there is always the possibility of changing what it is causing this crisis. To point and say science has confirmed out extinction … I have a valid right to question that. What is science one day…. in the shadow of new discovery becomes obsolete the next day.

Ok, rather strange arguments, but just as effective as a right-wing bible thumper in shutting down any intelligent conversation on climate change.  “God said he wouldn’t flood the Earth again, so don’t worry!”  You know, its all good.  Don’t worry, be happy.  New age-ism is just as ideologically blind as their biblical counterparts.  There secular counter-parts are the “science will find a way” people, that truly cannot grasp the idea od “tipping points.”

Because in America, neither the Right nor the Left really wants to hear bad news.  Or bad TRUTHS.

Inevitably, someone breaks out the “community” argument in the Land of the Gatekeepers.  This is always the BEST way to shame a Liberal into shutting up.  You know, its divisive to say anything I don’t want to hear.  It makes me huuuuurrrt!  So, stoooooppppp!

So, when presented with something as emotionless as a series of links to hard-core Scientific Studies, you end up with this:

…we don’t feel like flipping out this morning.

Looks to me like there’s nothing anyone can do about it, based on the science articles provided, so why work yourself into anger and isolation?

I experience it as being pushed or hammered instead of understood and respected as another person who understands we’re all in this together.

You see, to not be isolated, to not be a “buzz-kill” the feel-good lefties tell you to please, please not expose them to things like science, math and facts. Dino-riding Jesus Christ might say the same thing.  Have we become a nation of children?  Where even the self-proclaimed left uses emotional manipulation to end any serious discussion of science?  Or is it that we have seen too many post-apocalyptic movies and magically think we will be fine?

This seriously came out of a leftist’s mouth.

…it dawned on me that I’d be one of the people making cockroach stew out in the woods somewhere taking care of little kids.

There’s a big difference between extinction and evolution.

I wish everyone had read Ishmael because it provides an anthropological framework to discuss Leavers, Takers and Civilization as we know it, or Mother Culture. The thing is that the TAKERS are toast, and although they’ve toasted the planet like we know it – once all that has passed, there will still be Leavers (sort of like tribal peoples) and there will still be this planet.

Won’t look like it does now, but it can still be beautiful.

The world becomes a super heated, waterless barren waste, and it will still be beautiful?  We can evolve past it in 30 years?  What the Fuck?  Thank the ever-loving Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are still those on the Left with the wits to point out:

The takers will have food and water in their bunkers, power, grow lights, they’ll be cooler deep in the Earth. WE will not survive. If we are the tribal people, we will not be making cockroach stew. There will be NO cockroaches. There will be no water.

I guess if you cannot fully deny, then head meets sand is the next best scenario. Or run off and write ill-written, semi-legible screeds on “doomers” and the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure.  Its kind of what my late husband used to say about why the 60’s failed…. too many were there for the party, too few brave enough to make real changes when the going got tough.

And yeah Near Term Extinction  says things are going to get tough really fucking soon.

I find it equally distressing that MSNBC’s talking heads are apologists for Obama and his very right-wing tenure in office.  Mother Jones would be projectile vomiting at the Obama worship her namesake now employs.  She, unlike Obama, was an actual Socialist.  A true Leftist.  But trickle down ignorance has become a flood, mirroring itself in the blogosphere.

Obamabots may be the worst of the Gate Keepers, but they certainly are not the only enforcers of the status quo.

I walked very late into a discussion on Socialism, under a post about Socialism on a supposedly Liberal FB Page.  It ended with me being told, both publicly and in private message, not to talk about Socialism, because it was “too upsetting and divisionary” among the page’s leftists.

It ran a similar gamut to the above climate change, starting from a place of gross ignorance, and ending in the place of emotional manipulation to stop the conversation from taking place at all.

The very 1st reaction?  Pure ignorance.

…if I want to have my own business where I trade services for money that enables me to have a comfortable life – does that make me a clanging cymbal shit head? Back before Walmart, when we had town squares with Mom & Pop soda shops and hardware stores, was that inherently evil? If Mom & Pop were in the Klan, maybe it was evil – but that’s Mom & Pop, not Capitalism as an economic system. And where does that leave family farms?
I don’t get it how I suck balls and should be sent to hell just because I would like to have my own business. Can’t there be people who make a few bucks and take care of the community? If I made a few bucks without raping people and the planet, and contributed to the care of the community – how does that make me shit?

Note the IMMEDIATELY hostile language.  No one called anyone a shithead, or said suck balls.  Of course, when you try to point out that Socialism won’t hurt them, they ignore it.  Even when its NOT about them making a few bucks more than everyone else?  To them it is.

I tried to explain:

Socialism does not mean anything in terms of your personal property. Or your small business or farm. No one is going to take away your creativity or chance to be innovative. If you hire 10,000 workers though? They become partners rather than tools. Socialism says you want your whole community to do well, not just you; conversely that they also look out for your interests.

What it does do is Nationalize NATIONAL assets. Power/Utilities, health, education, as well as sets tax rates and wages.

What it does do is stop mega-corporations from exploiting the labor and allows the workers themselves to “own” what they produce – think profit sharing with the bonus of voting on what is made and how.

Individuals who operate within our system aren’t inherently evil, but there is certainly room for education towards a better tomorrow for everyone.

The idea is that I don’t deserve a better quality of life because I have a high IQ than a person who is challenged. We both deserve nice homes and vacations. The idea is that if I am particularly cutthroat, I don’t get to drive everyone else out of business and hold a monopoly on an item – making them lose their businesses and homes while I dine on caviar on my personal jet – it is that we work together to make all businesses mildly profitable and no one goes without.

This was met with personal insults, and being told “labels are divisive.”  No, actually differing economic theories are divisive, especially capitalism that creates class war and abject poverty.

Then the real truth comes out, like most upper class leftish people, they talk a big game, but are terrified of losing their privilege. They are winners in that class war.

I have to say that it hurts my feelings to hear that people like my father are corrupt to the core. My dad is an entrepreneur in America – ergo: a capitalist. It’s not fair to say that he’s corrupt. Or that I’m corrupt to the core just because I think that most balanced systems are eclectic in nature.

The emotional manipulation to shut down the discussion happened faster than a “Yo Momma” jibe in a rap dual.  You see, if they make it personal about their Daddys?  They expect you to not speak of Socialism again.

Then straight out of the Commie McCarthy Era propaganda machine?  A leftist said this with a straight face:

Yea, kinda difficult to be told your creativity is shit… and everybody is creative.

Note, no where in the discussion had any Socialist addressed creativity.  But the underlying fear that economic equity would lead to personal conformity just reared its tiny head.

Apparently the Left believes that Socialism will take away their small farms and business, make us all automatons in grey, and steal our imaginations!  Our creativity will be gooooonnnnneee!  See what we are up against?

Then they resort to the “its not the system, its the greed” meme.  Because Capitalism served them well.  They have spent a few years in Europe on their parent’s dime.  Or Daddy bought them an upper-side NY flat.  Or they like their McMansion. Or their Trust Fund income…

When people make blanket generalizations, they often step on toes. While I can accept that many people believe capitalism is inherently predatory, I maintain that heartless greed is at the root of the problem. Not some theory.


Some people believe?
 Some?  No, darling predatory IS what Capitalism does.  It extorts the most value it can from underpaying workers, or for the raw materials, so it can make profit off of the end product.  It IS inherently predatory.  One person has to be underpaid for another to be overpaid.

Proof positive of the quip, “The Left is Center, the Center is Right, and the Right is Batshit Crazy.”

When simple definition of terms fails?  Again, emotional manipulation.  From a suicide threat “Talking about socialism makes me want to kill myself…” to this tripe from the person who made 70% of the comments – effectively saying, over and over, anyone who espoused the idea Socialism is good was trying to “dominate her and the conversation”:

The issue I have with conversations like these is not whether or not we label each other a socialist or a capitalist. My issue is that many conversations seek to dominate, (snip – women mostly) …the need to dominate a conversation breaks community.

Sell socialism all you want – as far as I’m concerned, all this is distraction from the real issue of building community and healing each other and the planet.

It’s like nobody even hears me.  And I have that right – no matter which one of you dominates the conversation

Its like a dominatrix bitching because her sub cries too loud.  Seriously?

After the suicide comment, which has since been removed?  The admins came in and said it was harmful to the feelings of “community” to speak further on the subject. As I said above, this is always the final card in the faux-left deck.  Stay within happy-feely centrist memes, or you are breaking the community up!  Now that?  Is enforced conformity, indeed, and illiberal to the max!

Its the Greed, not the “ism” became law of the land of leftiness, their brand, anyway. Economic theory hurts their little heads more than the looming extinction of the planet.  Even if Eco-socialism could save them?  They would refuse to even hear of it.

Talking about Socialism is bad, gotcha… it makes the limousine liberals cry.  They use passive/aggressive bullying techniques, put words never spoken in people’s mouths, then gang up on whomever speaks inconvenient truths.

The Left has been effectively kettled, corralled if you will, by both the keepers of the gate and the smashers of the gate.

One makes us look foolish, and feeds the 1% who would have unbridled power if the government was crushed.

The other makes sure we don’t work for a government more in favor of the working class.

Its a fine mess, and I have no idea what the fuck to do about it. Its the Gates of Lefty Hell.

So, I guess I will continue to be the whisper in the field speaking truth to power about the environment, about empowering people to create a system that is fair and sustainable, and hope someday?  They will hear.


 photo 62454_516200635115087_852666388_n.jpgABOUT THE AUTHOR

Diane Gee’s protean output includes the editorship of two busy political venues, starting with her personal blog, The Wild Wild Left , a Facebook group, Links for the Wildly Left, and a weekly radio program. Despite all this, she still finds time to live life to the fullest, run a household, keep the finances above water, and raise a young son.