roachboy

it is obviously difficult to present anything like a depth of research or complexity of argument on a messageboard.

sometimes, you simply have to applaud someone--in particular host---who tries to push at what i take to be formal limitations of this type of forum and present a detailed case for a given position.
there is alot of material above--it is organized quite well and you can use the organization to sort it. the only problem with the organization is that it centers on migration of rhetoric, of moves, on highlighting forms of repetition across a number of sources in order to emphasize the co-ordinated nature of the far right's defense of their boy karl.

i usually post here when i am drinking coffee in the morning and/or when i decide to avoid other projects that i should be doing. my worklife is such that much of it finds me sitting at home in front of my computer writing. i mention this because on the other side of the mirror, there is another limitation on debates in these forums:
the ways in whcih folk interact with the board--when they do it, whre they do it---many are wedging interaction with this space into a work day and are necessarily distracted, or have short timepsans in which they feel like they can divert attention from what they are doing in 3-d to this.

these amount to limitations on the quality of political discussion that can be had---particularly if the content of that discussion diverges from the packaged narratives you get in the press. they are not limitations that i see any use in complaining about, and i am not doing so here: they simply outline some of the conditions that shape what transpires on this board (and others like it)

from time to time it is good to run into these limits--it is good to know them, and to consider their effects on debate here. and maybe these limts explain why it seems that positions do not move. maybe they do not move because the whole space--and spaces like this--is based on recycling truncated information, rehearsing positions based on truncated information and so are less debates than exchanges of coded messages based on antagonistic sets of truncated information/sources.

on the material posted above:
it is interesting to see the extent and detail of the right's ability to co-ordinate the political line of its operatives. they work in a way that i think lenin would have approved of--what mattered for him, in a pre-revolutionary situation, was clarity of line and--in particular--drawing a clear distinction between inside and outside the vanguard. the idea was that as conditions slid into crisis, what would matter was less the content of the line (which should be internally consistent) than the clear distinction inside/outside.
it is funny to see such a comprehensive usage of lenin on the part of reactionaries--such is the danger of publishing texts in revolutionary organization--anyone can read them.

funnier still to think of the "left" in the states falling into the traps that the mensheviks did.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite