Sunday, September 5, 2010

Moral Inversion and Party Invitations


I do not typically address politics or social etiquette in this blog, yet at the same time, I rarely refrain from doing so.

This weekend I attended a party. At one point I was accosted by an acquaintance, perhaps the last stalwart of Boston's loony-left who still engages me in a friendly manner. Note: I am using "loony" in reference to a tenuous grasp on reality, logical coherence, and facts combined with a tenacious grasp on the party line of the faction of one's choice: I regard the left's guiding principles of liberté, egalité, fraternité [et sororité] as valid.

This acquaintance stated that he had told a friend about the party, and that I had some past conflict with this friend and wanted me to behave myself and not cause trouble. Those of you who are unfamiliar with my reputation for starting altercations at parties needn't worry: There is no cause for such a reputation. So who was this tag-a-long?

This guy:
Rolde67cropped
This is David Rolde protesting an April 26, 2009 staged reading of my play Total War. Notice that he's a Hamas supporter and that he opposes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Also notice that Total War does not discuss any aspect of the middle east conflict beyond a single line of dialogue. I recounted this bizarre incident in greater detail:

The oddest thing about Rolde's "protest" was that Total War is not about any aspect of the Middle East conflict: it's about Jews and Catholics. However, this did not stop Rolde from shouting "Jewish murderers!" as nauseum in a whiny voice while partially blocking the footpath between Outpost 186 and the sidewalk. I suppose he takes his street performance anywhere there might be an event that could be termed "pro-Jewish."
Eventually, I decided to invite him inside to attend the reading. Predictably, since it would have required him to have sat down and quietly listen to actors reading dialogue for a couple of hours, he did not accept.

So why the personal animus directed towards the playwright?
BAZA0435croppedR16
Here's a photograph from an earlier encounter, October 7th, 2007 at a rally for the people of Darfur who have been been murdered and displaced by the Sudanese government and the militias it supports. The speakers were survivors of a number of the 20th century's most infamous genocides and mass murders, who despite there different ethnicities, religions, native-languages, and country of origin had come both to share their own experiences but also to speak out against the horrors in Darfur.

Rolde and company were not only holding up a crudely painted cartoon which seems to insinuate that Israel engineered the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, but also heckling the speakers, many of whom had lost their entire families to genocide before coming to the United States, often calling these survivors "liars." They believed themselves to have come to protest "a racist pro-war rally against Sudan organized by the [...] Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston."
BAZA0437croppedR20
And so, here I was at a party where there was an expected party-crasher with a past of heckling genocide survivors, supporting terrorism, spreading hatred and conspiracy theories, yet, I was the one being asked to not cause any trouble.

"So, Dan, have you ever known me to start an altercation at a party?"

"No, but..."

"David does some evil stuff and you're asking me to behave myself?"

"Well, he has no self-control and you do."

"Then maybe you shouldn't be inviting people like that to parties, or think about the friends you keep."

"Sometimes he drives me places."

It seems to almost like an allegory or a satire or perhaps a farce.

In the end, Rolde never actually showed up.

8 comments:

Rachy said...

"Sometimes he drives me places".

Says it all really.

isaac butler said...

yikes, what a racist douchebag.

I find that I have certain lines that I tend to work out in my head during parties about when i will or won't behave myself. For example: Anne and I were going to a friend of her family's house for dinner who we know is ultra-conservative. I said, basically, "I'll behave myself, but if the Cordoba Center comes up, things might get heated". And I certainly don't think that behaving oneself means not expressing one's viewpoint (even passionately) or debating someone if they say something you think is incorrect or objectionable.

btw: thanks for clarifying your use of "loony left". I'd still be cautious about using it, as its origins are pretty much "anyone who opposed the war in IRaq" as if we were all members of International ANSWER.

Ian Thal said...

I don't run in the sorts of social circles where I meet that many people right-of-center. So my interlocutors, whether I agree or disagree with them, range from centrists to liberals to leftist.

For the record, Isaac, I was opposed to the Iraq War primarily because of the false causae belli offered by the Bush and Blair governments, the attempt to seize control of the Iraqi oil fields, and general disregard for forging a stable civil society during the first years of the occupation, though I shed no tears for the collapse of the Ba'athist regime and I applaud the liberation of the Kurds.

So, in retrospect legacy of that war has become quite ambiguous.

However, as someone "of the left" I think that the revolutions of '89 should have been a call for all people of conscience not only to dissociate ourselves from the loonies, the unrepentant communists, the knee-jerk anti-Americans, and the terrorist apologists, but to keep their rhetoric and talking points from entering our discourse.

My larger point is that these "racist douchebags" frequently insert themselves and their ideas into liberal and leftist discourse, and so even if few will be as extreme as Mr. Rolde, many unwittingly disseminate watered down versions of the hate he spews, thinking that just because they voted Democrat or Green (or Labour or Liberal Dem for my readers in the U.K.) that they can't possibly be supporting racism, antisemitism, misogyny or homophobia.

isaac butler said...

I think we're probably in agreement, although you probably tack closer to the center than I do (I tend in sympathies towards the Scandinavian form of social democracy, preferably minus the ugly nationalism), at least judging by your rhetoric. Each of those terms you use is essentially a right wing (and occasionally New Dem) term of art that's used to villify people who, for example, favor any expansion or protection of the social safety net ("unrepentant communists"), critique how we use our power abroad ("knee-jerk anti-Americans"), or criticize the state of Israel ("terrorist sympathizers"). Both sides have their fringes, I don't know what social circles you're running in, but the people I think you're talking about have no real place or influence in our political discourse, except occasionally on college campuses. At the U of M yesterday, for example, there were people tabling for the World Worker's Party. I'm not too worried about The World WOrker's Party influence on the Democratic party (whom they loathe) or leftist discourse, where I don't see them having a lot of impact.

Ian Thal said...

It happens that my views regarding totalitarianism, and the use of violence happens to be informed by history as well as an an academic grounding in political and social philosophy. As a consequence, it's very hard for me to reconcile the nostalgia for the socialist aesthetic with the reality of tens of millions of political murders, or the thrill of "revolution" with the often vulgar hatred that underlies it.

(I grasp the ideals that hammer & sickle are "supposed" represent, but I also know what they mean to people who grew up in a Warsaw Pact nation.)

My problem is that some liberals, progressives, and supposedly anti-totalitarian leftists, don't live up to their ideals of liberté, egalité, fraternité, and become apologists for totalitarian regimes, terrorism, or racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, and homophobic regimes and movements.

That's not a right-wing critique, Isaac. That's a left-wing critique (and to be fair, it applies more to Europe than it does to America.) The point is keeping the left honest.

As I said, unlike you, I don't run in social circles where I meet people from the right-of-center (at least not since I finished my masters degree.) Though when I do, I do let them have it.)

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ian about the man's psychiatric status. He sounds pretty unstable. I think that inviting him into your reading was a great way to diffuse the situation. Perhaps if his friend whom he "drives places" could encourage him to obtain some psychiatric care (in the nicest of ways), it would ultimately reduce some of his anger so that he could engage in a rational and positive manner. Unfortunately, this is an unlikely scenario, just hopeful.
Victoria

Ian Thal said...

Hi Victoria!

The problem is that the friend who gets his rides from Rolde is an enabler. Sometimes (not those times I am describing however) actually carrying signs for and otherwise ceding leadership to Rolde. Indeed, if you follow the links to my earlier encounters, you'll note that for several years, the Massachusetts Green Party was content to let Rolde serve as a member of the party leadership.

The point is that so long as a sizable and vocal faction of the left is dedicated to the delegitimization of Israel,it legitimates antisemitism and opens welcoming doors to supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas, and ultimately enabling the pathological hatred of genocide-deniers like Rolde.

So while he's quite likely mentally ill, there are demagogues and activists who find this sort of mental illness politically expedient.

Robert Platt Bell said...

I enjoy your blog immensely. This posting in particular was hilarious.

And a bit scary as well.