"Meet the New New Left: bold, fun, and stupid, " in TNR

[Peter K.]

G. Fitch:
>noticing during the War in Vietnam that ruling-class bullshit
>is divided into layers, where layer _n_ knows that it is
>imparting bullshit to layer _n+1_ but believes the bullshit
>it receives from layer _n-1_.  (I oversimplify, but you know
>what I mean.)  It's difficult for me to believe that anyone
>who can get to write for TNR for money would be unaware of
>anarchist history in America, or that there is a huge amount
>of anarchist literature in print and on the Net, of every sort
>of quality.  Hence I believe there is a fair chance that the
>article is simply a piece of fraudulence aimed at a certain
>layer of the public, and more sophisticated psywar materials
>are being or will be constructed for the less credulous.

Well maybe your general point about layers is right, but in this
instance I'd bet the other way. Their new editor is a
youngster, under 30, and I saw him on Charlie Rose and was
so impressed that I dozed off. I don't think he's that knowledgable,
although no doubt other writers are, but it's my impression that those under
30 who have sold out are quite unaware of the left's history and have
bought the establishment line, hook line and sinker. Back in college,
I shared some classes with one of The New Republic's new senior
editors, Michelle Cottle - 29 or 30, and she was and is a prolific,
decent writer, but not all that sophisticated. Then again, she never
fell for any of the sophisticated psywar bullshit I layed on her when I
repeatedly tried to obtain her phone number.

As for your point about the less credulous - what's aimed at them/us is
TINA - there is no alternative, i.e., what, you want Dick Armey as the
Secretary of the Treasury?

Peter - who's not discussing the New Republic any more