Frances Bolton opines:
> > Theodore Kaszynski, who lives relatively nearby and has 0 money problems.
> > No, I'm serious. Recently I was reading through his manifesto for the
> > first time in 2 years; once past his peculiar "leftism" constructs
> > (obviously derived from vicarious observations during the '60s) one finds
> > perceptions for which the left may legitimately, if conditionally,
> > claim him.
>
> I'm not sure why you'd want to claim someone as a leftist who hates the
> left. This is sort of like those postie marxists who all celebrated the
> work of nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt.
I don't know how my casual comment connects with the odd peregrinations of
Schmitt through German law and language 60-70 years ago or the current
Schmittforschung on which copious newsprint is being sacrificed, however,
there are here-and-breathing quasi-nazis of varying textures and flavors
all over the Northwest who might profit from an earnest discussion with you
(Kaszynski wasn't even one of these, but a recluse who never hooked up with
a dissident group even there in the richly supplied state of Montana).
Individuals may arrive at Marxism, or at any doctrinal corpus, via a tipsy
journey of contradictory thoughts and blind stumbles. And they may feel
themselves fully arrived, only to become vessels of antagonism vis-`a-vis
some comrades nevertheless: witness the war between Louis and Boddhi.
Well, I wasn't really suggesting that Michael solicit a furlough/speaking
date for Kazsynski, for obviously there will be no takers at the BoP,
but was just spotlighting him as the stuff of a most instructive event:
an encounter with someone who is partly us, partly something else.
I just think that frozen paradoxes are awfully wasteful, both for us and
for them, and I'm unwilling to concede to Wall Street such a lavish gift.
valis
