User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
Review of 'The Anarchist' by John Smolens
Smolens creates the whole spectrum of 1901 Buffalo, from the garish whorehouses where assassins' plans are whispered, to the elegant residence where the McKinleys and their entourage prepare for the largest crowd that has ever seen a president. But beyond the rich detail of an era rushing from horse-drawn carriages to newfangled automobiles, the novel is very much invested in its ensemble of characters, both real and invented. The relationship between McKinley and his wife is drawn with such tenderness that the dim sepia-toned images of our 25th president -- so long eclipsed by Teddy Roosevelt -- will be forever replaced in your mind. Detective Norris is a striking figure, too, an arrogant, brutally efficient man determined to maintain the Pinkertons' reputation without any qualms about civil rights. But the real hero of the novel is a canal worker named Moses Hyde, whom Norris enlists to spy on an anarchist who's been talking about shooting the president. The Pan-American Exposition has never attained the mythic status of Ford's Theatre or Dealey Plaza, but if you're interested in a historical novel like this, you already know what's going to happen to McKinley in Buffalo, which makes creating suspense a serious problem. Smolens surmounts that challenge by placing the assassination just a third of the way through the novel. While the tragedy plays out with sober inevitability, it's still an extraordinarily gripping scene, slowed to quarter speed and realized in small, intimate details. Leon Czolgosz (Shol-gosh), the calm young man who walks up to McKinley and shoots him twice with a handgun, is a haunting presence throughout "The Anarchist." Convinced that "as long as there are leaders, none of us will ever be free," Czolgosz won't defend himself or help his court-appointed lawyers enter an insanity plea during the cursory trial. Smolens has no interest in exonerating this lost son of Polish immigrants, but he presents the assassin in all his odd contradictions and tragic naivete. The man who sometimes went by the name "Neiman" ("Nobody" in German) is eerily gentle and egotistical, alternately fragile and impassioned, and deeply entranced by the rabble-rousing of Emma Goldman. Seeing the mob trying to break into the prison and kill him, he's pleased: "He had done this," he thinks with pride. "He had caused them to come together. Hatred and anger were necessary to change. . . . Perhaps this one act, assassinating William McKinley, would spark the revolt and thousands of workers would rise up." It's a terrifying example of the danger posed by one lonely, messianic man. "You're perfectly rational," a psychiatrist tells Czolgosz in prison. "People like you will be a great threat in the future." Have you ever cut yourself on a piece of glass without realizing it? Just like that, Smolens slides through gruesome episodes in such muted, unadorned prose that you barely realize what's happened until you see the blood. The genius of this novel is the tension he creates by moving quickly from quiet, moving scenes in the president's sickroom or Czolgosz's prison cell to raw, startling flashes of violence during the criminal investigation. As the country burns with paranoia, anarchists, socialists and communists are rounded up, beaten and detained, while Norris and Hyde race to catch a conspirator who may kill them first. It's an enthralling descent into the dark byways of the criminal mind and the vast system of canals that ran through Buffalo. Here is the crime that launched the 20th century, the unlikely imprint of a lonely man's delusion on the soft metal of the world. Charles is the fiction editor of Book World. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/roncharles. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
Can we say "statist
Can we say "statist propaganda"?
It's become awfully popular to compare anti-colonial, anti-state Islamic zealots to the propaganda-of-the-deed anarchists, and by extension contemporary anarchists.
Unlawful combatants. All
Unlawful combatants. All threats to social peace are barbarians, the new "outside". This is the meaning of the war on terror.
Propaganda-of-the-deed,
Propaganda-of-the-deed, jihad like the attack on the pentagon - HELL YES!
Sharia and halal slaughter and acid-throwing - FUCK NO!
jihadis didn't attack the
jihadis didn't attack the pentagon, no matter how hard they might have tried. clearly the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by forces inside the shadow government of the united snakes (sorry to offend actual snakes), and the pentagon was hit by a missile or a drone or something obviously not a commercial airliner.
sharia is always oppressive to someone, just as other systems of law are. but halal slaughter is no worse than non-halal slaughter, and i would argue that halal (and kosher) slaughter is much more humane (if such a thing is even possible) than the bolt to the head or the electrocution of mainstream slaughterhouses. why pick on muslim methods? a hint of racism perhaps? it's like boycotting british petroleum in favor of texaco. it makes no sense if we wish to abolish the slaughter of our four-legged and winged relatives.
I don't wish to abolish the
I don't wish to abolish the slaughter of four-legged and winged relatives, but I do wish to abolish Islam if such a thing were possible and I certainly wish I could abolish bullshit conspiracy theories that make no sense and do none of us any good. Seriously? A missile? Are you prepared to logically explain how that could have been successfully orchestrated? especially considering the general ineptitude of the US government when it comes to secret ops (remember their dozens if not hundreds of ludicrous and pathetic attempts to kill Castro?). If you are, then you should seriously go into business as a pulp fiction writer pumping out spy novels because you would be very good at it if you could come up with a plausible explanation for 9-11 "truth."
To clarify on the animal thing, I have no problem with killing animals, just a problem with corporate concentration camps which produce mass misery and low quality meat. Killing, especially for food, is a totally natural thing and an attempt to erase it from human behaviour rings of humanist pretensions and moralizing which will inevitably fail. Try hunting sometime, it gives you a wonderful understanding of what it means to be alive, much in the same way that gardening does. Consciousness removed there really isn't much difference between a carrot, a human being, and a deer: they are all part of the same growing/decaying matter we know as life. Don't feel guilty, you will one day be on the bottom of the food chain and no worms or microbes will quibble about the ethics of eating your rotting corpse. Life is suffering and it requires death to continue, something vegans will forever be miserable not being able to accept...
abolish islam? again, why
abolish islam? again, why pick on one manifestation of alienated/mediated consciousness above all others? smacks of nationalism and racism - as i alluded to before. what makes islam more pernicious than christianity or judaism in terms of monotheistic cults? what makes it more pernicious than the more extreme manifestation of hinduism that's responsible for the slaughter of tamils in sri lanka, muslims and sikhs in india, etc? what makes it more pernicious than the explicitly martial religion of shinto in japan? why does islam bug you so much, to the exclusion of other sects? this is a road no anarchist should take.
i do have a problem with killing animals, whether for food or sport. 'corporate concentration camps which produce mass misery and low quality meat' has nothing to do with halal slaughter, and of course you know this, you pathetic demagogue. that is the mainstream methodology (which is not to say that the halal and kosher slaughterhouses don't have their share of scandals...). using the 'natural' argument is totally stupid. sure our intestines and digestive enzymes are capable of dealing with meat in our guts, and yes we have to consume other beings in order to thrive, but there's this great thing we humans (and some other animals also have) called a brain, which allows us to understand cause and effect relationships, consequences of our actions, and extrapolations into the future. free will if you like. we can survive/thrive quite nicely without causing undue suffering to our non-human relatives. your choice is to hunt (and i assume you don't hunt with only what nature gave you - that'd be too natural i suppose), using the tools that others have invented for the efficient dispatch of other sentient beings (arrows, bullets). if you want to really hunt, to really feel what it means to be alive, you must risk death or serious injury in the pursuit of your prey, and kill it with your sharp teeth and strong claws. what's that? you don't have any sharp teeth or claws? i'm pretty confident that you haven't ever run down any deer using a stone knife of your own making either, and i'm equally confident that you've never gone one on one with any predators, since you'd be dead now, pussy.
yeah, we're all part of the cycle of birth, death and decay... so what? just because worms will eat my decomposing flesh when i've been dumped in a pit doesn't mean that i need to eat their relatives and mine before they get a chance to eat me. your revenge against the natural world is palpable. i positively revel in being alive, and am continually amazed at the variety of beings that share my world with me. i prefer them to be able to live out their lives without me (or anyone else) needlessly curtailing their experiences. there's enough suffering in the world without you adding to it just to satisfy some 'natural thing'. 'everything is permitted' is just a shitty excuse for maintaining bad habits.
my 'moralizing' is decidedly anti-humanist, in case you hadn't noticed. i do not elevate humans into some kind of pinnacle of creation or into a fetish that stands outside the natural world. humans are part of nature, with no more inherent value than any other creature. i reject what the earth firsters call anthropocentrism. i tend to think that the world would be better off without humans. how does that make me a humanist? idiot.
as for the attack on the pentagon, here's some pertinent questions for you:
1. why was there no debris consistent with an airliner? even with the catastrophic destruction of the wtc there were seats, luggage, wheels, and other pieces of 747s in the wreckage. nothing of the sort was found at the pentagon. are we to believe that the conflagration in d.c. was so much more destructive than in manhattan? no bodies, no pieces of fuselage, so luggage, no remains of 747 engines? nothing. nada. zip.
2. why has there been no release of relevant surveillance video from the numerous locations around the pentagon? public access to a few non-consecutive frames from a security gate shows (supposedly) jet engine contrails leading up to the explosion at the pentagon. but we all know that airliners make contrails at very high elevations due to the creation of ice crystals in the atmosphere. ground-level jets cannot make contrails. rocket fuel burning at ground level does leave clouds in its wake.
sorry for the reliance on public records to create some wild conspiracy theory out of the attack on the pentagon. it's definitely the weakest link of the official conspiracy theory (the one promoted by the state) right behind the reasons for the collapse of wtc building 7. i do not pretend to know 'the truth' about what happened that day, but there are a slew of unanswered questions, uncomfortable questions, suspicious actions by the state and the shadow state. we know for a fact that the government lies as a matter of routine. but we're supposed to believe everything they say now, this time, in these circumstances because.... why exactly? the idea that the government is inept is a convenient way to be smug when faced with all the mechanisms the state has for social engineering and control. keep it up and let me know how that works out for you in two or three years.
"why does islam bug you so
"why does islam bug you so much, to the exclusion of other sects?"
It doesn't. I said Islam because Islam was the religion mentioned in the comment I was responding to. Obviously I oppose all cults which stultify individuality and necessitate hierarchy. I'm sorry to have touched on a subject that you are clearly very sensitive about.
Animals... I honestly have no problem with you spending your whole life trying to make sure that you never kill or cause undue suffering to anything... Good luck. I think you have a profoundly warped view of life. How do I hunt? As a descendant of the Tsúùtínà (Sarcee) tribe I hunt in the way that my ancestors traditionally have, or is that suddenly a sin because compound bows are more effective than traditional ones? I get incredibly sick of having my culture pretentiously condescended to in the way that you are right now exemplifying. Yes I've used guns and I don't see the slightest trace of logic in your telling me that for me to kill an animal I should have to do it with a "stone knife" or my teeth. Why? Would that make it some how fair or equal? As I've already said I am equal to the things I eat in that my body will one day fertilize the ground they walk on. I have no interest in your pompous, middle class "Rage against the Food Chain." Perhaps you have no idea how ethno-centric this bullshit really is... As for me being a "pussy" for killing animals to survive, what if I am a woman and take pride in being a "pussy"? Although I guess the only way for me to not be one would be to go fucking Davey Crockett on a bear... Jesus you are stupid... And you also have no conception of what "humanism" means if you think this: "elevate humans into some kind of pinnacle of creation or into a fetish that stands outside the natural world", is how it is defined. Philosophy FAIL.
Get over the fact that things suffer. You do, I do, everything does. Or don't. I honestly don't know why I should give a shit what you think when your typing of this stereotypical conspiracy theory bullshit has already demonstrated to anyone reading this thread how stupid you are. No wonder people think of anarchists as irrelevant and out of touch with the world with so many vegans and conspiracy nuts in their midst...
play the race card to end
play the race card to end discussion! well done!
you're not a pussy for killing animals, you're a pussy for not doing it naturally as a human. you rely on tools invented by others to increase your chance of success (virtually guaranteed unless you hunt other predators, which you obviously don't, because if you did, you'd be dead). that's why you're a pussy - you pretend that it's a fair fight when you're a coward.
as much as i didn't know you're a redskin you don't know that i'm solidly working class. we ate meat just about every day when i was a kid and i never liked it. eating meat among most working class americans is a sign of prosperity. it is part of the illusory semiotics (go look it up) of upward class mobility, like a mortgage and having more than a high school diploma. nothing middle class about refusing to eat meat. nothing ethnocentric about it either. as a working class anarchist i have a critical analysis of the meat industry that is tied into class politics and anti-hierarchical principles. if you don't like it fine, but you brought it up so i won't hold my tongue (or fingers). and for the record i am not vegan. prejudice FAIL
i don't know what your definition of humanism is, but since you didn't provide it, how can anyone know if i failed the philosophy quiz?
we can leave the 9/11 stuff alone now since you've proved how credulous you are.
We can continue the
We can continue the discussion as long as you want, although I'm really finding it hard to see any reason in doing so.
"you're not a pussy for killing animals, you're a pussy for not doing it naturally as a human. you rely on tools invented by others to increase your chance of success (virtually guaranteed unless you hunt other predators, which you obviously don't, because if you did, you'd be dead). that's why you're a pussy - you pretend that it's a fair fight when you're a coward."
Since I don't know anyone who would take this statement seriously I don't see any reason to respond to it... but I will anyway. Of course I will increase my chances of success as much as possible. If I see nothing wrong with killing animals then why the fuck would I make it more difficult for myself??? Hunting is not supposed to be a fair contest, it's just how I get my supper. It's not like after I shoot a deer I go "Pwned you in a fair fight, ya little bitch!" I never said it was fair, I just said I see nothing wrong with it. You're not a vegan? Who'd have thought? You moralize and bitch exactly like one. As for Humanism, I wouldn't think it would be a difficult thing to look up, though to me (in this context) it refers to a secular continuation of Judeo-Christian morality which replaces "God" with "Man" and advocates a utopian ideas of non-violence. To me your belief that humans can eventually develop to a point where life requires nothing go through "undue suffering" seems quite humanist IMHO.
"as a working class anarchist i have a critical analysis of the meat industry that is tied into class politics and anti-hierarchical principles."
And I don't? I said I was critical of the meat industry to begin with, we were talking about the ethics of killing animals, specifically animals that have lived their lives free and die free.
It is hilarious that you talk of my credulity when you are the one speaking of the conspiracy theory bullshit. I should have simply said what the other commenter did, "Go away", but I thought your issue with killing animals (sure your not a vegan?) would make for an interesting debate anyway, however I was wrong.
Since my race is apparently a "card" I won't bring it up, but it certainly isn't necessary to call you on your bullshit.
as for the attack on the
as for the attack on the pentagon, here's some pertinent questions for you:
1. why was there no debris consistent with an airliner? even with the catastrophic destruction of the wtc there were seats, luggage, wheels, and other pieces of 747s in the wreckage. nothing of the sort was found at the pentagon. are we to believe that the conflagration in d.c. was so much more destructive than in manhattan? no bodies, no pieces of fuselage, so luggage, no remains of 747 engines? nothing. nada. zip.
It's probably a waste of time showing this to a staunch 9/11-inside-jobber like yourself, but perhaps others are interested:
Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon
No. The "Pentagon hit by a
No. The "Pentagon hit by a missle" hypothesis isn't even accepted by many in your conspiracy cult. It has been proven false time and time again. Go away.
THE JEWS DID WTC LOL
THE JEWS DID WTC LOL
I cast magic missile.
I cast magic missile.
I don't go in for conspiracy
I don't go in for conspiracy theories, but even I find the official 9/11 story rather difficult to believe. Not buying the government's story is skeptical, but buying into the conspiracy narrative is not. Be skeptical of everything you hear; everyone has an agenda.
Acid throwing "honor
Acid throwing "honor killings" have NOTHING to do with Islam!
Just like the murder and
Just like the murder and rape of Muslims in Iraq has nothing to do with Christianity, even though they are funded and carried out by self-proclaimed CHRISTIANS just like acid throwing honor killings are carried out by self-proclaimed MUSLIMS. It doesn't matter if you think they have nothing to do with each other, if someone attacks someone and says they did it because of their religion, then guess what? They did it because of their religion!!! Totally regardless of whether it's a "misinterpretation" according to you. I'm so sick of hearing these pointless arguments used by followers of these cults... Besides I've read the Koran and their interpretation seems more accurate to me than yours...
"Honor" killings and FGM
"Honor" killings and FGM might not be Islamic in origin, but you gotta admit they're practices that dovetail pretty easily with authoritarian religion.