Bono and the New York Times

“U2” singer Bono has just spoken up loudly for Obama. He had always campaigned for Obama before, but now it looks like from a few reports that his band mates told him that well-paid rockstars have to be egotists. In Bono’s case, the white nation patriotism is in the open.

We regret having spoken of Bono too often. By rich country standards, MIM is “unspeakably radical.” By speaking of Bono too often, we risked getting Bono in trouble with his market-answering band mates. This is a regrettable strategic regularity of the imperialist countries, because of the unevenness of parasitism. To oppose exploitation it is necessary to be unpopular in the rich countries, but this has the effect of leaving the revolutionaries necessarily isolated.

Fortunately we have the example of many heroes in history who have worked behind enemy lines. Such examples guide us.

More than most people, super-rich man Bono is able to handle the flak from MIM’s talking about him. So we do not feel too badly about it; nonetheless, a mistake is a mistake.

Likewise, though the New York Times has recently quoted an article of its own from 1991 to admit that we are in an infinite loop of Willie Hortonisms, the New York Times is also in a hopeless position of selling papers and answering to the ole’ boys’ network. The New York Times has been fine-combing my sex life for five years and still shows no evidence of any systematic thought.

The most recent book of Michael Sandel argues that patriotism is a special loyalty to one’s people that makes support of welfare states possible. We have always opposed such social-patriotism and we have shown that lately it rests on borrowing money from China and forcing other Third World countries to hold the dollar as reserves.

MIM shares nothing in common with the patriotism of the New York Times, Sandel, Bono, Avakian or Obama. I had stopped reading the New York Times and now return to not reading it. There is nothing but five years of rehearsals for justifying lynching, mostly regurgitating what Avakian told them about “revenge,” “extremism” etc. The New York Times lacks any notion of support for formal procedures to avoid racism and sexism. It is one of the biggest perpetrators of national chauvinism and patriarchy there is by encouraging slander, insinuation, gossip and shutting down of MIM’s website — all to its competitive benefit.

MIM’s bearings come from the Third World. MIMers care not a whit about story-tellers of proven inability. I hope the New York Times can get over its obsession with my life.


%d bloggers like this: