Ep 390 Who Do You Talk To? About What? And Some Lyrics

Episode 390 of RevolutionZ asks would you rather speak to 2,000 people who already agree with you or 2,000 people who might vote for Trump? That choice sounds like a simple preference, but I argue it exposes something deeper: an entire theory of change. If we think a better world is unattainable, it’s rational to aim for narrow wins, entertain friendly audiences, and avoid the hard work of persuasion and unity. If we think systemic change is possible, then we have to communicate to grow our numbers, de-atomize our efforts, and build real solidarity across differences.

From there, I consider an engine of political paralysis: cynicism. I’m not interested in writing it off as laziness or moral weakness. More often than not, it is neither. Often it’s a rational judgment based on different premises than mine and I hope also yours. It believes either (a) better institutions can’t even exist, or (b) better institutions might exist but can’t be won. Extrapolate from those beliefs and you get resignation. Each kind of doubt requires a different response from someone like me, and both demand more than slogans. We collectively need credible compelling shared vision and credible compelling shared strategy that can link urgent immediate fights like stopping authoritarian drift and curbing ecological collapse to a longer trajectory of organizing. How do we most effectively convey that?

But what happens if we turn this observation on me, you, and Revolution Z? After almost 400 hundred episodes, what’s actually working and what’s just repetition or literally unheard? That question connects to the media environment we’re trapped in, where lies, scams, and algorithmic incentives push communicators toward clickbait and cheap degradation. If we reject  that route to communication, what do we emphasize instead? If we don't want to abet a "failure to communicate," if we don't want to contribute to a "communication breakdown," then to organize, how do we communicate?

To close the episode I offer some song lyrics and their approach to communication from John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Carcie Blanton, Joni Mitchell, and Leonard Cohen, as one  way to tell the truth without becoming part of the noise.

But when talking or writing, not songs but prose, what might work better than familiar well trod paths? Do you have ideas about that?

Transcript

Choosing Your Audience

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello, my name is Michael Albert, and I'm the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our three hundred and ninetietth consecutive episode, and this time I would like to make a few seemingly disconnected, but actually quite interrelated arguments bearing on some things people seeking a better world ought to do and some things we ought not do, followed by some song lyrics. First, imagine you have considerable background as a progressive or perhaps a revolutionary activist, and you are a reasonably good communicator about war and peace, fascist trends, class, race, and gender injustices, global warming, ecological crises, and the causes of each. Perhaps less about some and more about the rest, and you happen to live in the U.S. You are suddenly offered an opportunity to speak to a large auditorium of people. You can choose which of the following audiences you would like to address for an extended talk and question and answer session? Would you prefer to address two thousand people, nearly all of whom would describe themselves like you describe yourself? Or two thousand people who would describe themselves as uninvolved or Trump voters or even MAGA members? Which audience would you rather address? And why? How should one even think about such a choice? Or think about similar choices that can of course take related forms. For example, whatever size audience you would prefer, suppose they are broadly with you. In that case, what might you say to them? Might you say things they all agree with, or might you say things that you consider important, but that you know they mostly do not yet agree with, or may even disagree with? Or instead, suppose you are a writer. Consider the same question. Would you want to write what your audience knows and likes, perhaps with a little extra flair, or would you want to write things they don't know or may disagree with and even not like? Suppose, for example, you are invited to publish a piece on a site that has a well defined audience. Do you write a piece that ratifies that audience's views? Or do you write a piece that challenges those of their views that you dislike? Suppose you are a student organizer on a multi constituency campus. Would you rather have as an audience to talk with a dorm known for having views very much like yours, or a dorm known for having views quite hostile to yours? Let's now shrink your audience to five people say, who you meet over lunch, or to one person who you talk with in a conversation over dinner. In essence, my many shaped question is what should we do when communicating as people who seek new policies, new social relations, and ultimately even new underlying institutions in society? Should we prefer to address our allies, our opponents, or people who don't agree with us but also don't quite hate us? Do we want to say things that will generate smiles and cheers from our audience, or do we want to say things that will challenge their views and hopefully generate critical thought and debate? You can of course permute the above options into lots of shapes with detailed, distinguishing features, as there are certainly many variables and lots of nuance and contextual factors that play a role. In light of all those variations, sometimes one approach might make more sense, sometimes another might. But if, as a result, there is no single always correct answer to such questions, then what the hell am I asking about?

What Your Agenda Assumes

SPEAKER_00 3:47

Well, I am asking about our agenda. I am asking about what we ought to try to do. And while there is no single always optimal answer, no one answer suited to all situations, I would like to suggest there may be an almost always applicable right way to think about making choices about who to reach out to and what to try to communicate. Suppose we set aside obviously germane issues of who can we actually reach given difficulties of access and our limited means. We can still consider what we might want to or what we might or what we even ought to do in some possible situations. Suppose we are, as I am assuming, very upset by existing unjust relations and policies. We want to affect wars, poverty, racism, and sexism. We want to resist oncoming fascism, we want to reverse climate crises, and so on. Now suppose as one possibility, we believe that we cannot accomplish very much to affect all that. Moreover, we believe that our community of also upset people, like us, cannot win very much either. Indeed, we believe that no one can win very much, even over extended periods of trying to. Whatever will be will be. In that case, we may decide that our best bet is to seek only some modest time bound, issue bound impact. If we try for that, we reason, we may succeed at least somewhat, whereas we know to go for more will surely fail. So we don't try to reduce pain now but also promote long term vision for new institutions. We don't try to mobilize now but also navigate the difficult task of uniting across different constituencies and priorities. We don't try to spark allies now but also reach people who don't agree with us or who have contrary views. The added interactions would be tense and would take time. We might make mistakes, we might not look so smart, and since we can't win, why bother with fools' errands? So, with that assessment, we would find some like minded folks who are good to hang out with, and we would work to have modest effects on some particular social problem, where we believe we can do some limited good. To even think about more would be painful to no good end. Indeed, to work for more might forego what modest gains we could achieve if we focused only narrowly. So we communicate about the immediate, the narrow with only the immediate and narrow in mind. However, suppose instead that we think we can collectively win a new world if we can only get together enough folks for the task, though we can't win a new world if we are too few. We can't win a new world if we are too atomized into elements that operate without cohesion and without mutual support. We think that if we act in the present to seek some immediate gain, and then later we act again, but we start over from scratch, or we just repeat the earlier steps but we don't go forward, it will be insufficient for our long term aims. In light of those beliefs about our potentials and about what may cause us to fail, our long run hopes, our agenda may be different. For example, we may undertake actions and campaigns, but while we do so, we also prioritize finding ways to unify all who want change. We prioritize finding ways to deatomize our efforts. We prioritize the need to reach out to those who don't yet want to actively seek change. We work to increase our numbers, broaden our focus, unify our energies. We prioritize how our immediate actions yield new actions, and then more actions, and so on into a trajectory that leads toward fundamental change. We work self-consciously to increase our effectivity. We try to develop shared vision and strategy to unify ourselves and to help our immediate choices foreshadow and fit our future desired flow and aims. I am talking about confident reasoning of resistance as compared to defeatist cynicism of subsistence, in hopes that at least in the abstract, some key factors become evident and the difference starts to clarify. We don't like what is. We want to do something to attain better. If we believe we can win another world, even if not quickly, we should prioritize reaching out to increase our numbers, entwining to increase our levels of mutual aid and solidarity, and strategizing so our short run gains pave the way for more gains to follow. We work not only to momentarily mobilize, but to persistently organize and arrive at a shared broad strategy and vision able to keep our efforts growing and on track. On the other hand, if we don't believe we can win another world, then reaching out, trying to become more mutually supportive, and winning anything beyond immediate gains, much less wasting time on unattainable broad strategy and vision, all make no sense. They are hard to pursue, demanding and disruptive. They may even reduce our chances to win the modest gains we believe actually possible. So what's my point? Both camps or tribes, at least as I have envisioned them, behave rationally. Cynicism need not be ignorant or cowardly. It can be sincere. Confidence need not be macho arrogance or delusion. It can be sincere. The difference between resignation and persistent struggle isn't always a matter of courage or not, or a matter of moral concern or not, or rooted in delusion or not. It can and often is instead a difference of perception of possibilities.

Turning Cynicism Into Organizing

SPEAKER_00 10:00

And yet each tendency tends to regard the other as in some degree delusional or demented. Okay, now suppose that like me you are in the revolutionary camp. You feel we can win fundamentally reconceived social relations. You feel we can revolutionize society. What do you do? First off, you don't think the worst of others who don't share or who even attack, ridicule, or ignore your view. You don't assume they are unfeeling, immoral, or irrational. You try to discern the obstacles that cause people to be cynical about prospects, and then you try to overcome those obstacles. That is not a small observation. It has consequences if you really believe not only short run gains, but also long run fundamental change is possible. Then, very often, perhaps more often than not, if possible, you will want to talk to people who are undecided or even hostile, and you will want to urge others to do likewise. You will want to try to get atomized progressive efforts to support one another. To those ends, you will consider why so many people, even among those who do already want change, think that fundamental change is impossible. What causes that doubt? And you will try to reduce its causes. Is cynicism prevalent because many people doubt that a better society with better institutions is even possible? If so, the contrary case needs to be made, and so we need to communicate and inspire vision sufficiently to overcome that belief. Otherwise, that cause of cynicism will indeed make fundamental change impossible. Is cynicism widespread? Instead, because many people believe that though a better society is possible, so that one could exist, a better society is unattainable. We can conceive it, but we cannot win it. If so, the contrary case needs to be made, and so we need to communicate and inspire strategy sufficiently to overcome that belief. Otherwise, that cause of cynicism will indeed make fundamental change impossible. This is not a complicated argument. No fancy calculations are needed. Is it wrong? If so, why? Is it right? If so, what does it mean for you and for me? I will answer, at least as I see it for me. I think the argument means that to the extent I am able to do so, whether by talking, writing, or demonstrating, I should feel motivated to try to conceive, curate, and present vision and strategy able to overcome cynicism about the possibility of winning a fundamentally better world, even as I try to inspire and assist efforts at immediate necessary changes, like stopping Trump, curbing ecological suicide, and generally winning short run gains that can aid people now and foster as well long run fundamental change.

Auditing My Own Approach

SPEAKER_00 13:08

Okay, I guess that may come across as annoyingly abstract. How can I apply it to Revolution Z? This is the three hundred and ninetieth episode. That's a lot. It's a whole lot. The argument causes me to ask if the episodes have accomplished what three hundred ninety hours of communication ought to accomplish. Being honest about this, I strongly doubt it. I have sought to do, indeed, I have felt that I was doing exactly what the above argument says I ought to have done. But well, how much has it accomplished? Not so much, I think. So now what? Is the argument itself wrong or the task the argument deems desirable, worthy, and even essential, in fact, instead unimportant, misconceived, or literally just impossible? I honestly don't think so. Earlier, I wondered if you thought they were. Why did you think that? Perhaps someone will answer. Okay, then maybe it is just that the implied tasks are really hard. But if the argument is right that they are essential, and that without accomplishing them cynicism will persist and victory will be unattainable, then at least to my mind, to accept that they are too hard isn't acceptable. We have to accomplish them or we will lose, and to lose is too catastrophic to accept. But it is also hard to ignore that as the adage goes, to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is a near surefire indicator of cognitive collapse. So in my case, the above argument means what? I have to keep communicating, keep trying to make vision and strategy compelling and effective antidotes to cynicism. But I should try to not do the same thing over and over, expecting it to suddenly bear more fruit than in the past. My conclusion is that I need to keep talking, keep writing, keep supporting immediate change, but also keep seeking shared strategy and vision able to sustain persistent struggle and to foster unity, but somehow do it differently. That sentiment birthed the book coming out shortly, titled The Wind Cries Freedom. That book tries to do what I have long tried to do, but differently. I hope it gets read and assessed and that its claims and insights are found worthy. I hope that it helps counter cynicism and helps inform activism. More, for parts that are found wanting, I hope it inspires creative correction. For any of that to happen, the book will have to get read, which is itself an uphill battle, I think. Will those who doubt the efficacy, even the sanity of long run collective aims and methods read a seriously long book about the possibility and worthiness of revolution? Will cynicism bend a bit, and then maybe more? But what is next for Revolution Z? Perhaps you will offer suggestions as comments. Maybe you will tell me I should get all manner of new people onto Revolution Z, or I should go on to other people's shows. But for the most part, that advice while sound, if doable, is not really going to help. I have invited others, and I accept all invitations. Not much more I can do to get better results on either of those fronts, I think. What I think may help some reorientation is if you offer ideas for how episodes can address broad vision and strategy, even while they also address current situations and efforts, but in new ways. What would work well for you? I also write articles, as you're perhaps aware. What works in such texts? I can't write in mainstream outlets, they won't have me. So reaching read really widely isn't in the cards. I can write for Zenat to sometimes also appear in other left venues. What new approach may work? What is worth doing? What isn't just repeating, just looking for applause, but is instead also effective? Ideas? Let me be blunt. I and countless others write for progressive and left outlets. Of all the piles and piles and piles of pages that we produce, what approaches make a difference? Not an academic difference, but a difference in what people feel, think, and then in what people do. Ideas? Okay, all work and no play. So now I'm going to offer some lyrics. Who knows? Maybe people will actually listen to some of these songs, and maybe that will impact culturally through some barely understood process of percolation. In other words, it's a new way to try same old thing. But first, a brief word about our context.

Truth Decay And Communication Ethics

SPEAKER_00 18:05

We now live in an insane asylum that is deteriorating daily. This is probably true elsewhere, but certainly true in the US, except, of course, that the word true has itself become an empty term, meaning that someone somewhere said something, and it may be an actual person or an AI or a combination of the two, and it may have some resemblance to reality or be entirely fabricated to appear to be real when it actually isn't. As but one example, do you use YouTube often? If so, then like me, you are looking at reports or analyses or entreaties that are intended only to collect your payment for junk or fees paid by companies for access to your eyeballs or your personal information. But wait, what's new about that? This, like so much else nowadays, is different from earlier, mainly in its level of alienation. Lying fabrications and scams are now so normal as to be literally unavoidable, almost entirely acceptable. And of course, media abets it all. And then Trump sets the pace. He can threaten to destroy civilizations and even blow up the world, and media says, if not nothing at all, ho hum, how do we make a buck off that? Really? That's where we are. So the problem of how to communicate as a revolutionary is complexified a step beyond my above ruminations. For example, should we use clickbait titles or not? If we do, we are lying and manipulating. If we don't, our words are less likely to be read. Should we attack in every direction, preferably personally and to degrade? If we don't, our words are less likely to be read. In fact, in both cases, less likely to even appear. So when I ask for ideas about communicating, I am not looking for those type ideas. Being part of the problem in order to overcome the problem is the real fool's errand. So what is a wannabe communicator to do in a world like ours? Maybe try a song. I can't sing, and I ain't no poet, but I can at least listen. The following selection of lyrics are good when read, though better when heard. But of course listening on top of reading would take more time, and who has time for more than well as little as possible? Maybe you do. We need to. As I convey lyrics below, I may interject a bit now and then, if I am not intimidated out of it by the flow of the words from others.

Gimme Some Truth

SPEAKER_00 20:52

First, considering truth, here is one by John Lennon, entitled Gimme Some Truth. I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short sighted, narrow minded hypocrites. All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth. I've had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig headed politicians. All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth. No short haired, yellow bellied son of a tricky dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocket full of hope. Money for dope, money for rope. No short haired, yellow bellied son of tricky dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocket full of soap. Money for dope. Money for rope. I'm sick to death of seeing things from tight lipped, condescending, mamma's little chauvinists. All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth now. I've had enough of watching scenes of sit of schizophrenic, egocentric, paranoia, primadonna. All I want is the truth now. Just give me some truth. No short haired, yellow bellied son of tricky dick. Dicky is gonna mother harbor soft soap me with a pocket full of soap. It's money for dope, money for rope. I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites. All I want is the truth now. Just give me some truth now. I've had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig headed politicians. All I want is the truth now. Just give me some truth now. All I want is the truth now. Just give me some truth now. All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth. So does that not speak to now? It actually goes well as a song. Listen, you'll see. Second, here is a song you may not know from Dylan.

America’s Blues And Its History

SPEAKER_00 22:47

It's titled Blind Willie McTell. The music is hauntingly incredible if you listen to it. The story is America. Dylan is on piano. Mark Knopfler is on acoustic guitar. That's it. Recorded during the Infidel Sessions, that's one of his albums, in the early 1980s, Dylan chose not to include it in that album or later. We got it by bootleg, but now it is thought of as one of his finest works. Here are the lyrics. I see the arrow on the doorpost saying this land is condemned all the way from New Orleans to Jerusalem. Well I travel through East Texas where many martyrs fell, and I know no one can sing the blues like blind Willie McTell. Hm, I've heard that hoodal singing as they were taking down the tents, the stars above the barren trees was his only audience. Them charcoal gypsy maidens can strut their feathers well, but nobody can sing the blues like blind Willie McTell. See them big plantations burning, hear the cracking of the whips, smell that sweet magnolia blooming, see the ghosts of slavery ships. I can hear them tribes moaning, hear that undertaker's bell, and I know no one can sing the blues like blind Willie McTell. There's a woman by the river with some fine young handsome man. He's dressed up like a squire, bootleg whiskey in his hand. There's a chain gang on the highway, I can hear them rebels yell, and I know no one can sing the blues like blind Willie McTell. God is in his heaven, and we all want what's his, but power and greed and corruptible seed seem to be all that there is. I'm gazing out the window of the old Saint James Hotel, and I know no one can sing the blues like blind Willie McTell. It presents America as a racist wasteland in melody, words and rhyme. Give it a listen.

Songs For Organizing And Class Rage

SPEAKER_00 24:54

Third, here's one from our times, Carcy Blanton's song titled FBI Well I went down to the rally just to exercise my rights. Some joker I ain't never seen was yelling and starting fights. He's talking trash, flashing cash, making my comrade cry. I said don't pay him no mind, honey, he's probably in the FBI. In the FBI and the FBI and the CIA and the CIA working for the feds to fight the Reds on behalf of bourgeoisie bourgeoisie. When working people work together, it's good for you and I. And if someone says that they know better, they're probably in the FBI. Well I went down to the Union Hall to sign my union card. Some joker I ain't never seen was picketing in the yard, and he said this union's problematic, and he wouldn't tell me why. Well, that don't sound too democratic. He's probably in the FBI. In the FBI and the FBI and the CIA and the CIA, working for the feds to fight the Reds on behalf of the bourgeoisie. When working people work together, it's good for you and I. And if someone says that he knows better, he's probably in the FBI. Well it's gonna be a real fast century. We got no time for calling names, got no time to tear each other down playing identity games. We got to organize, don't criticize, got everybody on our side. If someone tells you otherwise, they're working for the FBI. In the FBI and the FBI and the CIA and the CIA working for the feds to fight the Reds on behalf of the bourgeoisie. When working people work together, it's good for you and I, and if someone says that he knows better, he's working for the FBI. I said organize, don't criticize. Quit working for the FBI. Since if you are old like me, you may not know of Carcy. Here is another one from her titled Rich People. Seems like bad news all the time. We got floods and fires and wars and crime. They try to tell me who I ought to blame, but I know who it is 'cause it's always the same. Don't be ashamed if you get confused. When you talk to your friends or you watch the news, they try to tell you where it all went wrong. Now you don't have to argue, just sing this song. It was rich people stacking the deck, rich people with big fat checks. Rich people they're having a ball. Rich people been fucking us all. Back in nineteen seventy nine, the Western world was in decline. So Ronald Reagan and Thatcher too, they fixed it right up, but not for you. Just for rich people stackin' the deck, rich people with big fat checks. Rich people having a ball, rien fucking us all. Who runs the world? It ain't the Jews. Rich people don't pay no dues. Who did the crime it ain't the blacks? Rich people don't pay no taxes. Who took your job it ain't immigration? It's rich people with corporations. Who threw the vote? It ain't rednecks. Rich people with big fat checks. Rich people stacking the decks, ri people with big fat checks, rich people having a ball, ri people been fucking us all.

Shine Through Climate And Collapse

SPEAKER_00 28:17

And here is one from Joni Mitchell, a poet's poet called Shine. Oh let your little light shine, let your little light shine. Shine on Vegas and Wall Street, place your bets, shine on all the fishermen with nothing in their nets. Shine on ri Shine on rising oceans and evaporating seas. Shine on our Frankenstein technologies. Shine on science with its tunnel vision, tunnel vision, shine on fertile farmlands buried under subdivisions. Oh let your little light shine, O let your little light shine. Shine on the dazzling darkness that destroys us in deep sleep. Shine on what we throw away and what we keep. Shine on Reverend Pearson who threw away the vain old god, and kept Dickens and Rembrandt and Beethoven on fresh flowered sod. Shine on good earth, good air, good water, and a safe place for kids to play. Shine on bombs exploding a half a mile away. Oh let your little light shine, let your little light shine, shine, shine. Shine on worldwide traffic jams honking day and night. Shine on another asshole passing on the right. Shine on all the red light runners busy talking on their cell phones. Shine on the Catholic Church and the prisons that it owns. Shine on all the churches they all love less and less. Shine on a hopeful girl in a dreamy dress. Oh let your little light shine, shine, shine, shine. Let your little light shine, shine on good humor, shine on good will, shine on lousy leadership licensed to kill. Shine on dying soldiers in patriotic pain, shine on mass destruction in some god's name. Shine on the pioneers, those seekers of mental health. Craving simplicity they travelled inward past themselves. Let their little lights shine, may their little lights shine. And finally, after all, how much music without music can anyone

Desolation Row And Cultural Breakdown

SPEAKER_00 30:18

take? In our time, when chaos reigns and an upside down world is now inside out. One more, and if this wasn't written yesterday, well why not? It is a troubling question, I think. So here is Dylan's Desolation Row, a song I immersed in with many others many years ago. They're selling postcards of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown. The beauty parlor is filled with sailors, the circus is in town. Here comes the blind commissioner, they've got him in a trance. One hand is tied to the tightrope walker, the other is in his pants. And the riot squad they're restless, they need somewhere to go, as Lady and I look out tonight from Desolation Row. Cinderella she seems so easy. It takes one to no one, she smiles, and puts her hands in her back pockets, Betty Davis style. And in comes Romeo, he's moanin'. You belong to me, I believe, and someone says you're in the wrong place, my friend, you better leave. And the only sound that's left after the ambulances go is Cinderella sweeping up on Desolation Row. Now the moon is almost hidden, the stars are beginning to hide, the fortune telling lady has even taken all her things inside. All except for Cain and Abel and the hunchback of Notre Dame. Everybody is making love or else expecting rain. And the good Samaritan he's dressing, he's getting ready for the show. He's going to the carnival tonight on Desolation Row. Now Ophelia she's neath the window, for her I feel so afraid. On her twenty second birthday, she already is an old maid. To her, death is quite the romantic. She wears an iron vest, her profession's her religion, her sin is her lifelessness. And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow, she spends her time peeking into Desolation Row. Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood, with his memories in a trunk, passed this way an hour ago, with his friend a jealous monk. He looked so immaculately frightful as he bummed a cigarette. Then he went off sniffing drain pipes and reciting the alphabet. Now you would not think to look at him, but he was famous long ago for playing the electric violin on Desolation Row. Dr. Filthy keeps his world inside of a leather cup, but all his sexless patience they're trying to blow it up. Now his nurse, some local loser, she's in charge of the cyanide hole, and she also keeps the cards that read have mercy on his soul. They all play on penny whistles, you can hear them blow if you lean your head out far enough from desolation row. Across the street they've nailed the curtains, they're getting ready for the feast. The Phantom of the Opera, a perfect image of a priest. They're spoon feeding Casanova to get him to feel more assured. Then they'll kill him with self confidence after poisoning him with words. And the Phantom shouting to skinny girls, get out of here if you don't know. Casanova is just being punished for going to Desolation Row. Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do. Then they bring them to the factory where the heart attack machine is strapped across their shoulders, and then the kerosene is brought down from the castles by insurance men who go, check to see that nobody is escaping to Desolation Row. Praise be to Nero's Neptune, the Titanic sails at dawn, and everybody's shouting which side are you on? An Isra Pound and T S Elliot fighting in the captain's tower while calypso singers laugh at them and fishermen hold flowers. Between the windows of the sea where lovely mermaids flow, and nobody has to think too much about Desolation Row. Yes, I received your letter yesterday about the time the doorknob broke. When you asked me how I was doing, was that some kind of joke? All these people that you mentioned, yes, I know them, they're quite lame. I had to rearrange their faces and give them all another name. Right now I can't read too good. Don't send me no more letters no, not unless you mail them from Desolation Row. I'd comment on that, but I think I'd unravel if I tried. Okay. Not done yet. After Desolation, how about democracy?

Democracy Coming Through The Cracks

SPEAKER_00 35:04

This one's from Leonard Cohn. It's coming through a hole in the wall, from those nights in Tiananmen Square. It's coming from the feel that this ain't exactly real, or it's real and it ain't exactly there. From the wars against disorder, from the sirens night and day, from the fires of the homeless, from the ashes of the gay, democracy is coming to the USA. It's coming through a crack in the wall on a visionary flood of alcohol, from the staggering account of the Sermon on the Mount, which I don't pretend to understand at all. It's coming from the silence on the dock of the bay, from the brave, the bold, the battered heart of Chevrolet. Democracy is coming to the USA. It's coming from the sorrow in the street, the holy places where the races meet, from the homicidal bitchin that goes down in every kitchen to determine who will serve and who will eat. From the wells of disappointment where the women kneel to pray for the grace of God in the desert here and the desert far away. Democracy is coming to the USA. Sail on, sail on, O mighty ship of state, to the shores of need, past the reefs of greed, through the squalls of hate. Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on. It's coming to America first, the cradle of the best and of the worst. It's here they got the range and the machinery for change, and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. It's here the family's broken, and it's here the lonely say that the heart has got to open in a fundamental way. Democracy is coming to the USA. It's coming from the women and the men, O baby, we'll be making love again. We'll be going down so deep the river's going to weep, and the mountains going to shout amen. It's coming like the tidal flood beneath the lunar sway. Imperial, mysterious, in amorous array. Democracy is coming to the USA. Sail on, sail on I'm sentimental if you know what I mean. I love the country, but I can't stand the scene. And I'm neither left nor right, I'm just staying home tonight, getting lost in that hopeless little screen. But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay. I'm junk, but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet. Democracy is coming to the USA The USA home of the best and the worst. Remember I preceded all these lyrics with a bit about current context, mentioning how Trump, the worst, is able to rant about blowing up the world and ending civilizations and no one saying much, save perhaps to make a buck off it. Well, I have to offer just one more song, I promise, just

Highway 61 And A Request

SPEAKER_00 37:58

one more. It is titled Highway sixty one Revisited, and it's on Dylan's album of the same name, which, by the way, is in my humble opinion, arguably the best album ever recorded. And Highway sixty one, well it runs from roughly where Dylan was born in Minnesota all the way down to New Orleans. The song goes like this. Oh God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe said, Man, you must be putting me on. God said no. Abe say what? God say you can do what you want, Abe but the next time you see me comin' you better run. Well Abe said, Where do you want this killin' done? God set out on Highway sixty one. Well Georgia Sammy had a bloody nose. Welfare department, they wouldn't give him no clothes. He asked poor Howard, where can I go? Howard said there's only one place I know. Sam said, Quick man, I got to run. Oh Howard just pointed with his gun and said that way down Highway sixty one. Well Mac the finger said to Louis the King, I got forty red, white and blue shoe strings and a thousand telephones that don't ring. Do you know where I can get rid of these things? And Louis the King said, Let me think for a minute, son. Then he said, Yes, I think it can be easily done. Just take everything down to Highway sixty one. Now the fifth daughter on the twelfth night told the first father that things weren't right. My complexion, she says, is much too white. He said, Come here and step into the light. He said, Hm, you're right, let me tell the second mother this has been done. But the second mother was with the seventh son, and they were both out on Highway sixty one. Now the Roven gambler, he was very bored, trying to create the next world war. He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor. He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before, but yes, I think it can be very easily done. We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun and have it on Highway sixty one. And all that said, this is Michael Albert, signing off for Revolution Z until next time. When I can hopefully try some new ways to communicate that you all suggest. Let me know your thoughts to sisop at z mag.org That's my email sisop s op at z mag.org.