Okay, I signed up – with reservations. J
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 5:58 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What's with the Guardian?
lawrenc,e one source which is w/out paywall and all that Scheisse is
prospect
givenn the pandemic crisis, the collapse of readership and the ~0 sales at news
stands it is free on the webpage
Kerem jojjenek maskor es kulonosen masho
הִשְׁתַּדֵּל הִזְדַּקֵּן
Debéis las mujeres colaborar, en hermosa obre de la humanidad;
mujeres, mujeres, necesitamos vuestra unión el día que estalle nuestra grande
revolución.
Hermanas que amáis con fe la libertad habéis de crear la nueva sociedad...
El sol de gloria que nos tiene que cubrir a todos en dulce vivir. Por una idea
luchamos, la cual defendemos con mucha razón. Se acabarán los tiranos, guerras
no queremos ni la explotación. Debéis las mujeres colaborar, etc.
Todos nacemos iguales, la naturaleza no hace distinción; comunistas
libertarios, luchad con firmeza
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:54 PM Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Torgeir,
Some good points. And I am interested in “the viewpoints of the former
imperial centre”; however, I thought I was getting them by means of the TLS and
the London Review of Books to which I am a long-time subscriber.
I’ll have to think about this further. If you notice me quoting from the
Guardian in the future, you’ll know I succumbed. ;-)
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:47 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What's with the Guardian?
Lawrence,
When the population is startled governments can get away with measures they
otherwise wouldn't. William Hague, former Foreign Secretary, author and
scholar, notes that, whatever quirky theories one may hold about the origin and
purpose of the current *global* condition, there is one regime that appears to
make greater gains from it than others. Writing in The Telegraph he finds that
The greatest irony of the coronavirus crisis is that it shows every sign of
working to China's geopolitical advantage. Six months from now, the country
where the virus was born and that initially suppressed the news of it has every
chance of being more powerful. There are many reasons for this. The most
immediately apparent is that the Chinese economy looks likely to recover more
rapidly than that of any nation in the West. The very same totalitarianism that
led to cover-up and denial at the beginning has permitted ruthlessly effective
suppression of the virus once its potency was acknowledged. China has managed
to confine the infection to certain areas, while any hope of doing that in
Britain or America has been abandoned. The initial data suggests a quick
rebound in Chinese industrial production, while every week of lockdown makes
that less likely here. (William Hague in The Telegraph, 7 Apr 20)
Since the rest of Hague's appropriate and well-formulated analysis is behind a
pay wall a subscription is required to read it. The good thing about The
Guardian is that readers with a *moderate* interest in the viewpoints of the
former imperial centre is allowed access. However, if one's personal opinions
is to direct one's reading habits, and said opinions do not conform to those of
a particular medium, then there is always the option to subscribe to a
qualitatively different outlet.
Stay in touch, and take care.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/> : taking you to who you are ~~
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 18:15, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Torgeir,
I can’t recall who all referenced articles from the U.S. edition of the
Guardian in the past, but its robot has noticed that I have “read more than 8
articles in the last four months.” Earlier I put the robot to the test after it
convicted me of having read more than 7 articles in the last four months. Just
now I revisited the same article and it declared I had read more than 8. The
reason it does this, it says in yellow highlight is to work upon my conscience
to “Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. Thank
you.”
Be that as it may, while dutifully sequestering myself during the covid-19
pandemic, I have subscribed to a few additional publications. I have not been
terribly impressed with the British edition of the Guardian in the past, but as
long as I am being importuned I might as well give it some thought. It seems
very critical of American news reporting of any sort and declares itself, in
effect, “more robust.” But if they are so robust why do they need my “from as
little as $1”? [not quite sure about the grammar of this request – maybe it’s a
British thing].
Does the U.S. edition of the Guardian operate from within the U.S., or does it
observe us from afar?
I took some time after reading the Guardian article to consider
anti-establishment movements of the past. I suppose I’ve always been critical
of them because the “movement” I grew up being interested in was World War II
and couldn’t wait (literally) to join the Marine Corps (I tried to quit school
at age 16 so as not to miss the war in Korea, but the Marines found me out and
told me to come back when I was 17 – with my mother’s approval). Thus, after
serving only one hitch, I left USMC with the rank of sergeant to enter college
and encounter the “Beat generation.” Perhaps that sentence is enough to
explain why I never took that counter-cultural movement seriously. I did read
Kerouac’s On the Road and tried a bit of Ginsberg’s Howl but they seemed poor
fare. This movement was apparently absorbed by the Hippies [there was Vietnam
in the midst of that – maybe absent Mike Geary we don’t need to revisit that].
I can’t recall if there was anything comparable between Hippies and Punk.
With earlier movements I felt obligated to come to terms. I couldn’t simply
dismiss them without having justification, but I apparently overcame that qualm
in the case of the Punks.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 3:32 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] The man without a theory
We read in the mass media about the eminently practical (and thence, at least
to *some* poster at this list, truthful) Malcolm McLaren that he, in the end,
would preface his performance thus:
I have been called many things: a charlatan, a conman, or, most flatteringly,
the culprit responsible for turning British popular culture into nothing more
than a cheap marketing gimmick. This is my chance to prove that these
accusations are true.
A truly perverted approach!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/06/the-life-and-times-of-malcolm-mclaren-by-paul-gorman-review-punks-king-of-chaos
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/> : taking you to who you are ~~
