Tuesday, December 30, 2008

The Pomo Con

In a eulogy to David Foster Wallace in Harpers, Zadie Smith refers to "pomo relativity" as she and other esteemed commentators gush over DFW's writings. It all comes across like Keith Gessen defending global warming-- hysteria and bluff contradicted by the real world.

This is the point: to pomo thinkers, reality is what they say it is. It's all relative; i.e., made-up.

DFW produced an outpouring of verbiage and was a very sensitive guy, but he was no literary artist. He literally had nothing to say, in that the end of his thoughts was: nothing. Like the solipsistic ruminations of his character on a diving board, his art ends in a void. Is this what the public wants from its writers? Pomo lit is a dead end, a sad waste of effort. The worst period of American literature. It consist of armies of expensively trained writers who like Foster Wallace expend gargantuan numbers of words saying nothing.

How do they get away with it? As their writings are largely incomprehensible, but LOOK impressive at first glance, readers assume they are. That the reader gets nothing from it is his own fault! (So it's thought.) Perhaps a tiny Elect does get something from it-- the pomo gang themselves. A circular argument. "WE are great because WE say we are." A swiftly-spinning spaceship rising higher and higher into the void, away from the general public.

Only in the Lit World

Only in the lit world are standards suspended, so that a nice guy apparatchik can win multiple awards and be eulogized nationally as a great poet while being hardly a poet at all.

It would be like in football if an inept friend of a team's owner were allowed to suit up and run with the ball during a game, and score, real players not permitted to touch him. Hey, he's a nice guy! A good friend of Ms. Thernstrom up in the owner's box. Let's give him the Super Bowl trophy while we're at it.

Isn't this how the lit world operates?

How much of this nonsense are we expected to stomach?

Line up the Academy's most awarded poets, Ashbery on down, I'll pick undergrounders who'll blow them out of the water.

Staying on Course

One of my problems when leading the Underground Literary Alliance was simply this: people joined who wanted the ULA to be what it wasn't. It was never intended to be a go-along-to-get-along organization. It could never adopt the motto of "Don't Make Waves." There are 50,000 other writers groups which fit that category. The ULA was meant to be different: THE MOST RADICAL LIT-GROUP THE ART HAS EVER SEEN. Only when it gets back to that reality will it make fast headway.


What are the foundations of literature's three main intellectual movements?

1.) For the Eggers gang, pomo nonsense.

2.) For N+1, the heritage of Partisan Review, which swung irrationally from Marxism to Neoconservatism, with a dash of CIA tossed in.

3.) By contrast, the literary Rebellion has its roots in American folk writing.

#3 is the better platform.

2008 Wrap-Up

In 2008 the literary Rebellion lost some of its major opponents: Jason Shinder; John Leonard (who referred to the "black flag" of the ULA); and David Foster Wallace, godfather of the Eggers cult.

If we push the tottering facade of the literary Establishment, it will collapse. The way mandarins vanish, I'm afraid of pushing too hard!

I suggest that rather than trying to block the inevitable, they abdicate now. They can live off their royalties, their inflated reputations, and their trust funds.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Times Tribute

I seem to be getting a new flurry of readers-- and anger-- here due to a 12/28 tribute to deceased "poet" Jason Shinder in the 12/28 New York Times written by Melanie Thernstrom. People googling his name have come to this blog.

The Underground Literary Alliance encountered Mr. Shinder in 2006 during our "Howl" protest at Columbia University. He was decidedly in the camp of literary Overdogs. ULA poet Frank Walsh debated Mr. Shinder on a NYC radio show beforehand. ULA clown Eric Jellyboy stood face-to-face with Mr. Shinder on the Miller Hall stage at the event itself.

Here's the point: Jason Shinder was a literary bureaucrat, and hardly a poet at all. Walsh, by contrast, is a genuine poet who does amazing things with the art form-- wordplay, rhythmn, sound, music, in the great tradition of poets ranging from Dylan Thomas back to the Bard himself.

Why has the literary world accepted absolute mediocrity-- so it's trumpeted in the pages of the nation's leading newspaper?

Isn't it right for those of us who retain our common sense and love of literature to speak up?

The literary world apparently is controlled by well-educated brainwashed puppets.

(Interesting bio of Melanie Thernstrom, by the way. She typifies the Insider's Insider. Harvard grad, married at the Harvard Club to a Rhodes Scholar; her parents a "prominent neoconservative" intellectual who works for well-funded foundations, and a tenured Harvard prof. Yes, there IS a clique of well-connected folks who control intellectual thought in America, and have led it into a dead end of stagnant irrelevance. The proof is in front of us.)

Saturday, December 27, 2008


The objective of the ULA was always to create an actual movement. The ULA was put together NOT to be yet one more tepid writer collective or small-press venture, but a dynamic machine of rebellion. The intent was to bond writers to the movement, which is why in its early years we had emphasis on membership; why I cranked out many membership materials, zeens, and newsletters expressing the goals, successes, and doctrine of the ULA.

The movement moved when we had direction and coordination. ALL the historic actions which made it unique were a result of planning. Our historic actions of tremendous excitement created the ULA's legacy.

No movement grows without making demands on its membership: obligations of commitment and loyalty. Did we ask for too much? We didn't ask for enough.

The task is to rebuild a vehicle of literary Rebellion; to find new teammates and new leaders-- leaders willing to lead into new territories of the culture, the art, and the mind, in so doing to create more literary history.

(See also the post "Inertia" at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com)

King Wenclas Promotions

This is the temporary name of a new unit I'll be creating as vehicle for my activities. I hope to work with the ULA on joint ventures in 2009.

I leave open the possibility of placing KWP as wholly autonomous p.r. "action" unit within the ULA, stress on the word autonomous.

KWP is my first step in preparation for a renewed campaign.


The literary Rebellion was in an uptrend until late 2003, with seemingly unstoppable momentum generated by simultaneous articles in Black Book, The Believer, Glasgow Herald, Brown Daily Herald, and many other places.

Early in 2004 the Eggers/Amazon story hit in the New York Times. Membership and interest in our cause were at a peak.

Since then, one could chart a flattening, even a decline caused by the impact of dissension within the main vehicle, the ULA.

The counter-rebellion which was implemented by the ULA's enemies was successful, when one considers that some of the underground's major figures now reside in a ULA-like outfit created by the rebellion's overdog opponents to be a harmless version of the ULA. I believe this was part of an intentional strategy. The counter group's expressed motives fit perfectly with arguments made here by establishment demi-puppets like Daniel Handler ("Jimmy Grace"); chiefly the thesis that DIY means remaining forever marginalized.

The attempt to discredit literary rebels didn't succeed completely-- not yet anyway. There's hope that many writers will open their eyes-- setting the stage for the Rebellion's re-emergence and eventual victory.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Prelude to a Story

IT'S EASY to know when people are hiding and lying. Like with the Paris Review/CIA matter. Every revelation has been dragged forward; grudgingly made.

Richard Cummings said that Peter Matthiessen had been a CIA agent. No one admitted anything. Many disbelieved him. Cummings turned out to be right.

This meant nothing-- literati claimed-- didn't touch the magazine. "There's nothing here; nothing to see!" they blandly insisted while hiding something obvious behind their back, as if dealing with three-year olds. "You're simply mistaken."

Now the admission is made by individuals talking vaguely and quickly that Paris Review was indeed founded with CIA money. Beyond this, no one knows anything. Matthiessen, recent National Book Award winner, is having trouble with his memory, but has come forth with one word: "Fleischmann."
(To be continued.)

Panicked Literature

I wish fellow undergrounders knew the panic reaction I generate every time I prod the literary beast-- panic that's a sure sign of weakness. pampered mainstream creatures like Daniel Handler have studied this blog assiduously, spending far more time on it than I do!

Panic was the reaction we worked to achieve. The rebellion stalled when it panicked its own writers.

Yet-- sustain pressure on the bankrupt literary system and it will give way. It's there for the taking as surely as great Xochimilco was there for bold Cortes and his tiny band. The difference is, we need not arms, but words and ideas.

Will They Do It?

Is there anyone left who doesn't realize the global warming hysteria was a hoax?

There is no extreme global warming. The ice caps aren't going to melt. The weather is what it's always been: variable.

The trendy jet-set New York lit journal N+1 made global warming a centerpiece of their periodical. Will they admit they were wrong?

Saturday, December 20, 2008


The most privileged, most Insider segment of today's literary machine spent much energy and many hours trying to destroy the literary rebellion. They failed.

The Dinosaur

I've landed a blow on the literary establishment, which stands before us like a helpless dinosaur. Are other independent writers willing to follow up?

On Unions

I grew up in a union family. When I was a kid my father took me to his local UAW union hall for their Christmas show. In the summer we younger children were sent to the union summer camp. The diversity of races there showed the diversity of the union movement; a way to bring all classes into the mainstream of America.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations are not a natural part of a free market. They're artificial legal constructs, large abnormalities, which when they become too large inhibit the market's free movement. Industrial unions were created as a way to balance these abnormal growths. Otherwise it'd be the lone individual pitted against the monstrous machine-- a situation in which the individual would be crushed.

There are some in this society of standing and means who wish to break the lower classes; who wage eternal class war against those below them. To them, the labor peace which existed for decades is anathema. Using globalist economics as pretext, they know only how to destroy. This behavior for them is suicidal.

Is not the same mindset present in the literary world?

My Intent

My intent remains to rebuild the machine of literary rebellion. The goal is to make DIY-spawned writers a player in the literary world, as we've been close to doing-- in so doing, to rescue our nation's misguided and moribund literature. This can be accomplished along several avenues.

Through our ideas and our principles we'll sweep all before us. Given our lack of resources, it's in this area where we can best compete. To refuse to engage the mainstream AS FORCEFULLY AS POSSIBLE is to accept defeat before the game's begun. Our ideas are the necessary engine to propel us through the literary maelstrom, against vastly more numerous and better financed competitors-- competitors without character, drive, originality, or vision.

The rebellion needs DIY writers who believe in their art. It's no time for head-in-the-sand hobbyists.

Products have an important role to play in the movement if they're part of a coherent plan, an agreed-to strategy.

Past is past. The literary rebellion will move along the open road if it puts aside past internal disagreements. Trust, cohesion, camaraderie, honesty, loyalty, are the foundations of a successful movement.

The vehicle of this movement, whether the ULA or something new, will be that which best adapts itself to the needs of the cause.

To the Underground

Having no plan is not a plan.
Having no leadership is not leadership.
Having no drive drives you nowhere.
Peace with all leaves you where you are.
A literature of change has to engage the culture it wishes to change.
Ignoring the literary world keeps you ignored by the literary world,
standing at the edge of a forest echoing your words to trees and squirrels.

The Threat

Demi-puppet "Harland" is threatening to "flag this blog" if I don't print his retraction. He says, "I am not any of those people you mention."

But who is "I"?

I'm under no obligation to print anything from an anonymous person; from a ghost like Harland who doesn't exist-- or from anyone.

"Harland does NOT=Handler
Harland does NOT=Moody
Harland does NOT=Eggers."

Which is curious, because I have the "I am Spartacus" Harland post of 9/5 under Handler's ISP#. Perhaps I got the time wrong. I'll double-check.

I have Moody and Eggers as the main suspects, nothing more, as they are. No, I don't know for sure-- if I did I wouldn't have asked the question.

What I know is that Harland was posting from San Fran, then from both Brooklyn and San Fran, then when I confronted Handler with my evidence he dropped, and Harland has been "Brooklyn" alone. I'll dig up the Brooklyn ISP#'s so maybe we can track down his identity, and know for sure.

I know that someone who lives on Fisher's Island was a regular reader when I was focusing on my Literary Mystery saga-- logged onto that blog on 8/31 alone for four hours. Mr. Moody is certainly a suspect.

IF two people on both coasts were sharing Harland, one of them Handler, then the other guy would have to be someone he knows-- like a Moody or Eggers. Daniel Handler himself can answer the question.

Anyway, if "Harland" is NOT Eggers or Moody, why is he so frantic?
What does flagging this blog mean? Will he have it shut down, as happened to www.penpetition.blogspot.com for no apparent reason?

Stay posted.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Curious, Isn't It?

The literary establishment doesn't want people reading this blog. It's not linked by major lit sites like Arts and Letters Daily, nor by leading lit-blogs. It's generally considered beyond the pale.

Yet members of the lit-establishment themselves are among my most avid readers! I couldn't chase them away with a crowbar.
What's the solution? It's up to YOU independent readers of Attacking the Demi-Puppets to get the word out. Tell two friends, and have them tell two friends. . . .

What's good enough for Overdogs should be good enough for everybody.

Who Is It?

One main demi-puppet remains to be unmasked-- the individual who's been sharing the "Harland" identity with Daniel Handler. The major suspects:
1.) Rick Moody, Poster Boy of Literary Corruption.
2.) Dave Eggers, who has a history of this kind of behavior.

Enough people already know the answer. Anyone talking?

End Game

This blog may be nearing an end, as Detroit nears an end and I'll have to scramble to survive. (I should be able to keep posting until January.)

At least ATDP is close to winning the intellectual battle against the corruption of the established literary world.

The two main rivals to the literary rebellion have been discredited.

N+1 is exposed as ridiculous while record low temperatures and ice storms spread across America from west to east. N+1 embraced the most extreme panic-theory of global warming. At the hand of nature, their theories have collapsed. Worse, they're unable to question them, and so need to stop calling themselves intellectuals. They have no credibility.

Neither does the McSweeney's gang, a collection of liars and dirty tricks artists. A harsh statement, but wholly accurate.

Behind these groups stands the corrupt literary establishment, which embraces a cover-up of the CIA stain that spread through the American literary world for fifty years, including major journals like Paris Review and Partisan Review-- and is a symbol of restrictive puppet-master control of American literature.

The solution is to junk it all and start over.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Keep It Simple

Here's the outline:
-Daniel Handler posting here as Jimmy Grace.
-Mole X connected to Handler fake letter story.
-X splits from ULA in 2007 to distract from Jimmy Grace and Paris Review/CIA stories.
-Handler attacks me late November '08 to distract from Paris Review/CIA story.

Bottom line: Much effort spent by literary establishment to derail this blog.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

The Mole Plot

Keep in mind that Dave Eggers was conducting a dirty tricks campaign against the ULA from as far back as 2004, when he himself was caught posting anonymous comments against the ULA on Amazon, as outlined then in a New York Times story.

IT APPEARS that the Eggers camp placed an operative within the ULA, who could be triggered at an appropriate time to cause dissension within ULA ranks.

That triggered event was when five ULAers broke with the outfit early in 2007. This occurred because I was pushing forward on two stories: 1.) The Paris Review/CIA connection; 2.) a ULA "Monday Report" on the identity of Jimmy Grace, a demi-puppet.

Can we tie the mole-- "X"-- to these two stories as motivation for his behavior?

-"Jimmy Grace" turns out to be millionaire author and Eggers friend Daniel Handler. (My speculation had Grace as Handler's good friend Stephen Elliott. I was close-- too close for comfort.)

-Handler has showed his concern over the Paris Review matter by sending me an e-mail with attached faked message purporting to be from me. This was in fast response to my recent post about Peter Matthiessen's National Book Award. (Matthiessen is at the center of the CIA controversy.)

-The person, "Quilty10," who sent me a warning about Handler's fake Ruminator letter in 2005 can be traced to a then ULA member-- the same ULAer who triggered the walkout from the ULA in 2007.

-We thus have the mole, "X," connected independently to Handler. We have X, in his own words in 2007, upset by my Paris Review and Jimmy Grace stories. We have Daniel Handler upset by the same Paris Review issue now, and BEING Jimmy Grace.

(Incidentally, Daniel Handler was a host at the recent black-tie National Book Awards, presenting an award not to Matthiessen, as he falsely claimed to me in his e-mail, but to the Youth category winner. He stands at the heart of establishment literature.)

The smaller story is the concentrated effort by some of the richest, most connected writers in America to harass and destroy the ULA.

The bigger story is the lit-establishment's frantic concern over the Paris Review/CIA matter, to the extent of having a major literary figure posting hundreds of anonymous remarks on my blog and sending me harassing e-mails.

Some of the evidence I have about this will be posted below as comments.


Detroit and Michigan are in the midst of an economic tsunami. The populace is filled with despair and anger.

As this was happening I heard on the radio "Blood and Roses" by the Smithereens, one of the best rock bands of all time. I thought of the movie "Smithereens," an overlooked masterpiece from the early 1980's.

Detroit is in smithereens.

What escape is there when the world collapses but to plunge into art?

What I Hate

Worst is the Elvis Presley/Amy Grant "White Christmas," with Amy Grant's tiny voice intruding on an outstanding Presley vocal performance.


The noteworthy point about the new generation of intellectuals is that they QUESTION NOTHING except that which they are directed to question. Which is how they can seriously discuss global warming in the middle of a snowstorm. Which is how N+1 can publish a story of solipsistic nonsense like "Your Name Here" and scarcely anyone raises a whisper of protest.

Some of them want to, you know, but they're waiting for the right sign, the correct wink or nod: a proper signal from someone appropriately designated as a trendy and approved spokesperson.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Model of a Movement

In hindsight, it was naive of me to expect honesty and truthfulness from McSweeneyites, when truthfulness is the antithesis of everything they stand for. Not telling the truth is their aesthetic and philosophical foundation.

The Philosophy of the Lie. For readers like me who seek the truth from literature, fictionalized or not (fiction is often truer because it digs deeper), the past ten years of mainstream lit has been an utter waste. The many books, journals, ultra-expensive and thick copies of McSweeney's produced by this crowd has nothing to offer. Their literary era has been a lost decade: a gigantic accummulation of posing, lies, UNwisdom; untruthfulness. It may as well be consigned to a trash bin, the entire mountainous overpriced mass of it, for all its worth.

In hindsight, McSweeneyism is the perfect parallel to what's happened in this nation's financial realm: a massive expense of money; a brief, glittering Manhattan lifestyle, resulting in: nada. Nothing. No value. Utter worthlessness. Worthless bonds. Worthless literature.

The face of their literary movement should be John Hodgman, since his work so perfectly embodies it: anti-truth. The intentional Lie. The complete artistic and intellectual Fraud.
Unlike the Hodgmans and Handlers of the world-- whose every feckless and childish thought finds print-- I've had very little actually published. One essay I wrote in 1994 for North American Review I'm particularly proud of: "Detroit: Among the Lower Classes." In it I tried to speak the truth about a major American city. The essay gives necessary background for what's happening in Detroit now and is MORE relevant today than when it was written, which should be the goal of literature.

Note to a Mole

I'll get to a number of points of this (counterrebellion) story, trying not to overwhelm the reader with a mass of data I've accummulated. The best way to do it is to remain focused on the story's key points:
A.) The Bigger Story.
B.) Moles.

"B" is important because it has implications for the ULA, past and future. Right now the question is one mole, who I've called "Guildenstern" at Literary Mystery.

There may be no more scorned figure in literature and life than the turncoat, for good reason. He's disliked by everyone-- disliked most by those who employ him. Noteworthy to me is how little the person ever gains-- while losing so much in self-respect and reputation.

I think of an earlier mole, "Rosencrantz," who left the ULA with a splash of outrage, received a brief write-up by ubiquitous Maud, then returned to the status of literary pariah.

What motivates these people?

Two things. 1.) Lack of faith. 2.) Ego.

Benedict Arnold, for instance, didn't believe the colonists could win. Temporary setbacks encouraged his pessimism. At the same time, being fairly brilliant, he had contempt for Washington's abilities. George Washington wasn't the sharpest guy around, in that age of brilliance, but he trumped others with his steadfastness and his honesty-- the very qualities Benedict Arnold didn't have.

Ego: many who came into the ULA weren't impressed with me. I have many failings. They didn't feel it just that I'd received so much publicity, when they were clearly more capable.

It's been sad then to see both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern stumble about in what I call the ULA-Replacement Inocuous Nonentities Enterprise (U.R.I.N.E.), which is a kind of ULA without the activism or the noise. It's a home for declawed hobbyists. Everyone wears a smiley face. Nobody makes waves-- ever. Not quite the forum for R. and G. to display their own leadership abilities. One doesn't lead a cause among those who reject any cause.

"Fantastic! Great!" In such a place, compliments and plaudits have no meaning, because they're given to everybody.

Oh: About "A." I'll discuss the bigger picture another day.
It occurs to me that if Guildenstern related his history of being a mole, then for once he'd have a story to tell.

Friday, December 12, 2008

The Main Player

The main person behind attacks on myself since 2005 has been best-selling author Daniel Handler. It seems insane on the surface that he'd waste his time in this way, but the documented evidence speaks for itself. One possible motivation is that he's good friends with Dave Eggers and Rick Moody, who've been two of the ULA's major targets.

Handler began in 2005 with the Ruminator fake letter. (Search this blog for info.) Completely fake: the original and its envelope never presented; the Ruminator curiously shutting down shortly thereafter. This was, in fact, fraud; possibly libel.

Handler, though, didn't stop his game-playing. Here's an e-mail I recently received, FAKED e-mail attached purporting to be from me. (Written not in my voice, but a caricature of my voice.)
Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:41 PM
"Daniel Handler"
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. I gave the NBA to the author I thought deserved it most. If you actually read the book I think it would please you. As usual, my offer of a drink and a debate stands.

Date: Friday November 28th 2008 2:12:14 PM PST
To: Daniel Handler
Subject: We're watching.
Saw you at the National Book Awards giving the prize to the CIA. If you were as brave as you say you'd take our challenge but you're a coward like all the rest.
--King Wenclas
Note the exchange's topic and timing. An obvious attempt to intimidate me-- which led me to other revelations.

The Handler Problem


There's a funny thing about the Internet. Contrary to what the anonymice who lurk on it believe, there's no privacy on the Internet. None whatsoever. Every post can be tracked. Every sent e-mail leaves fingerprints pointing to its source, and if there are no fingerprints, it wasn't sent. Every attempt to delete or change the fingerprints leaves its own fingerprint.

The Handler problem is that he's been circulating faked e-mails which aren't from me. Any attempt to prove them real would instead demonstrate their fakery. Forgeries can be shown to be forgeries. He would only dig himself deeper.

I've had few dealings with the person-- an exchange of a dozen or so e-mails (and reading masses of his anonymous blog postings)-- but even with that find him to be a pathological liar; in his intrinsic corruption, the living embodiment of everything this blog stands against. His mendacious personality proves every point about the literary world I ever made. His friends, those who know him, have to also know his personality and what he's been doing.

Who are these friends, you ask?

Why, his famous colleagues; literary luminaries like Mr. Eggers, Mr. Moody, Mr. Sedaris, and Mr. Elliott. One or more of them may have even been involved with the childish children's author in his childish games.

How far do they want to go down the path with him? Do they want to go down with him?

That's for them to decide. As for myself, I'd say the game is up. It's time to turn on the lights.

Eye Opener

The last few months have confirmed for me that both the Right and the Left are anti-populist, and act against the interests of the American people. We won't have true intellectual freedom until we destroy the tops-down scam of the yin-yang Right-Left paradigm.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Unmasking a Demi-Puppet

Here is one small part of a widespread assault.

This past summer an anonymous person went onto my wikipedia entry and made a personal attack. (Not the first time this happened.) The individual's ISP number is clearly visible on the log (posting history):

I was able to trace this number to its source: one Terri Wilson of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Who is she? How does she know me? I have no idea.

It seems an indication of the extent to which opponents of this blog will go to discredit it: using unconnected third parties. It's scary.

I've e-mailed Ms. Wilson several times, and left a message on her voice mail, to no response. No explanation. No denial.

What's her motivation? Was this done on her own? If not, who put her up to it?

Counter-Rebellion Goals


The goals of the counter-insurgency against the literary rebellion-- which I've been writing about in fictionalized form at the Literary Mystery blog (yes, I'm behind on it)-- were several. One of the objectives was to discredit me with the larger literary community, and also with the ULA itself.

The latter was accomplished in a couple ways.

A.) To make it look like any stalls in group progress were due to the noise I was making. (Never mind that the ULA gained a national profile through such noise.)

An example of this was blogger Dan Green combining an attack on myself with a positive review of ULA books. This created the illusion: "If only. . . ." If only Wenclas wasn't around, the books would be a great success. I knew the implications as soon as I read his post-- that my days of activity with the ULA were numbered.

B.) The use of at least one mole within the ULA.

The ULA campaign, which assumed strong blowback against us, could work only if the team was completely united. It was a short-cut up the mountain, but an extremely difficult short-cut. To have individuals within the group, plants or not, questioning every aspect of the campaign created fingerpointing, backbiting, and doubt-- especially among those who'd been hesitant about the strategy and tactics from the start.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008


If there's nothing to the Paris Review/CIA matter, why is it an issue no one wants me to discuss?

For a related story see my post at


"The Great Reaction: The Attack on American Literature from Within."


For all their supposed differences, the McSweeney's and N+1 gangs intersect at the literary power center of Columbia University, which serves as a base for both camps. (The Believer's staff was/is dominated by Columbia grads, with relatives on the faculty.) What the two groups represent are different masks for the same literary establishment.

Will the mock-revolutionaries at N+1 look into the Paris Review/CIA story? Of course not! One of their sponsors is Robert Silvers, co-founder of New York Review of Books. (Originally a creation of Random House, according to Richard Kostelanetz. See R.K.'s Crimes of the Culture.) Silvers was a good friend of George Plimpton's, and for a time an important Paris Review editor.

These various literary groups, so alike in members, demographics, temperament, and voice, will go through contortionist philosophical analyses of the intellectual import of trendy issues like global warming. Will they analyze the workings of the literary machine; the wheels of literary culture? Never! That would be to shine a flashlight upon themselves.


There has in fact been a harrassment campaign against me and the ULA-- starting at least as far back as 2005. I've been delaying posting about it for two reasons.:
1.) I don't fully understand the motivations of those directly involved, and so wonder if others are behind them.
2.) I'd prefer if one or all of those involved came forward on their own.

The harassment campaign is manifested by fraud and dishonesty. Its ultimate goal is to derail opposition to things-as-they-are in the literary world.

Stay tuned.

Monday, December 08, 2008

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Phony Dissent

FROM the stooge team at the intellectually bankrupt journal N+1 there's an air of unreality as well as much unintentional comedy.

An example of this is a recent post at editor Keith Gessen's blog-- www.keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/61136531/walzer-afterthoughts-- in which Jet-Setter Gessen lauds Michael Walzer of Dissent magazine as a "Menshevik."

Now, hold it a minute. This is game-playing. The real Mensheviks were underground radicals who spent their activist careers on the margins; harassed by authorities; their ideas shut out by their society. Many of them were imprisoned or lived in exile.

Michael Walzer on the other hand is a house intellectual who writes for a jargon-filled journal which is a threat to nobody. As a 501c(3) it's approved and regulated-- funded by rich people-- an organ of the state.

When the ULA did its "Howl" protest at Columbia University in 2006-- an event staged by real outsiders-- "Menshevik" Walzer wouldn't leave his nearby office to see what we were doing. To the system pet, we grubby undergrounders would've appeared and sounded completely alien.

Wake up, Keith! Do you have any sense of reality? You're one of the culture's most approved writers, part of a staff of New York salon intellectuals who wear their academic credentials like the badges of conformity that they are. Some of us out here aren't approved and aren't posing.

Say what you will about me, but what you get on this blog is the genuine article-- an authentic samizdat writer.

Thursday, December 04, 2008


From the perspective of the industrial Great Lakes states, and the nation as a whole, the prospect of losing the three U.S. auto companies is an impending cataclysm.

This is a huge subject which ties into the theme of the literary rebellion, which began in 2000 with the creation of the Underground Literary Alliance, whose founders were from Detroit and related heartland areas.

Our theme from the start was the monopolistic dominance of New York in literature and the arts. We showed again and again in our writings and actions the immense power and wealth of Manhattan compared to the heartland; the chasm in standing and attitude.

We see with the financial mess-- SPAWNED ON WALL STREET yet destroying our nation's industry-- that the chasm has widened. Wall Street gets $700 billion and more with no strings and no questions. The already devastated heartland gets not a fraction of this.

A related story is whether ideological greens want to destroy the auto industry, and maybe all industry, which is why I've questioned the insane philosophy of the New York lit journal N+1.
(Here's the contrast in a nutshell: I'm the son of a Detroit autoworker and I've been an autoworker. As a literary promoter and writer I've been strictly Do-It-Yourself. I've received hardly a penny from anyone-- save the occasional free beer or ten-spot. The face of literary corruption on the other hand, Hiram F. Moody III-- recipient of unending promotion and taxpayer-subsidized largesse-- is the son of a powerful New York money center banker. Could the divide be greater?)
I invite New York media people and literary intellectuals to visit and tour Detroit, to see the enormous tragedy which has already happened here because of the folly of globalist economics.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Watch for It

This blog's major opponents-- and it has major opponents-- will be making renewed attempts to discredit me.


I've had a nice e-mail exchange with the Nation's Laura Flanders, who informs me "RadioNation" will be going off-the-air, so she won't be able to step down as requested anyway.

I hope she understood my point that average American people need to start representing themselves.

Aristocrat types eager to speak for the bottom half of society do so for one of two reasons:
1.) They think we're dolts incapable of coherent speech.
2.) They take the "Citizen Kane" approach that it's safer for themselves if they speak for us.

If the Nation begins to acknowledge the print underground, DIY writers and ideas, they won't have us as opponents. It's their choice.

The so-called Left, so dominated by the upper-class, makes a huge strategic mistake when it pushes away the very working class it professes to represent.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Pass the Word

Spread the word about this blog, which is going again full-bore. I have some awesome posts upcoming in the next few weeks, entertaining and informative, like nothing you've read.

The most striking literary criticism to be found is: right here.

Cracks in the Castle

From the start all I've wanted is the truth.

The U.S. literary scene is rotten to its core, a tottering tower of corruption. I've known this for years. Through my efforts with New Philistine and the ULA I've uncovered a lot but have barely scratched the surface of rot which runs through the house of literature.

If elite writers had a hunger for truth-- which every writer as job description should have!-- the problem would be solved overnight. Take a few bricks from the decaying structure and the thing will collapse. Those inside the castle seem to believe this, because they refuse to break ranks to save their own character, honesty, and honor.

What they're doing is prostituting themselves for short term gain while smearing their permament reputations-- because the truth will come out. The truth always comes out.

Step forward! Be ahead of the curve. At some point all gain goes to the whistleblower.


The biggest problem of today's literary world is its moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

I can give multiple examples of intellectual and moral cowardice, beginning with the Bennington Summer Writers Conference of 1995 when Liam Rector publicly destroyed copies of an anti-corruption issue of my zeen in full view of many of the biggest names in the lit-biz. None of the sterling figures present said or did anything. (Two of them, along with a student who was there, privately informed me about the incident.)

Another example was in 2000/2001, when NOT ONE of 300 prominent literary names the ULA sent its Moody Protest to would sign it, though many agreed with it privately, as documented by the N.Y. Post.

I encountered more moral and intellectual cowardice from lit-bloggers in 2005 over the matter of plagiarism in Harper's mag-- a matter eventually resolved by the magazine with an essay from much-awarded lit-stooge Jonathan Lethem defining the word plagiarism out of existence. (Esteemed members of the intellectual community were okay with this.)

Harper's Editor Roger D. Hodge, an icon of corruption, last month came out publicly in favor of Machiavellian lying, and again, not a whisper of disagreement from literary jellyfish.

As big a problem is that established literary writers have no moral compass, and so are able to lie and cheat at will-- and always able to rationalize it.

Even the underground showed weakness when the ULA lost five members early in 2007, at a time when I was pushing hard on two separate fronts. Those same two matters are in front of us again. How many undergrounders now are willing to rejoin the battle?