Below is the front cover and editorial for issue $51 of The American Dissident:
Editorial
Cowardice $ Conformity
Government-Approved Poets
Socially-Approved Artists
Pravda Journalists
My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The
most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected. The ACLU used to hold this viewpoint.
The American Civil Liberties Union, they sued so that legitimate Nazis could march through
downtown Skokie. As soon as you use the word ‘hate,’ that is a very subjective term. Then all of a
sudden it is in the eyes, or it is in the implementation, of whomever has the power.
—Charlie Kirk, assassinated free speech advocate
How not to agree with Kirk’s statement? That is the question, the crux of the
nation, the crux of poetry. Call me a right-wing Nazi. I don’t give a damn.
Trish has done that! To believe in free speech and to actually exercise it openly
has somehow become Nationaler Sozialismus (National Socialism or Nazism) ?
Câlisse ! Insanity rules! Reason and logic croak…
Anyhow, a neighbor friend, artist Bruce Childs, out of the blue or perhaps
alcoholic haze, made an interesting comment: “The job of the artist is to
challenge people’s comfort zones.” And yet it seems like very, very few artists
do that. And so, I thought, why not add to his statement, perhaps also out of
alcoholic haze: “The job of the outsider artist and/or poet is to challenge the
comfort zones of insider artists/poets… and even purported outsider artist/poets
like the “Outlaw Poets,” who are really nothing but insider artists, haters of any
criticism from the outside. Ah, the unbearable lightness of… or rather the
unbearable heaviness of being criticized…
Few, very, very few poets will dare criticize the academic/literary machine
that feeds or might feed them with grants, prizes, recognition, publications,
invitations, fellowships and on and on. That machine serves to buffer the power
structure—the money, its distributors and apparatchiks—from hardcore
criticism. Indeed, on Cape Cod, where I live, there is absolutely no criticism,
apart from mine, with its regard. And my criticism is 100% ignored by the
various apparatchiks of the machine—poets, journalists, editors, curators,
librarians, etc.
Rarely do I receive such criticism, as editor, even though I vigorously request
it, especially with my regard. Bravo again to Trish for daring to pick up the
sledgehammer and pound me. But why will she not do that regarding the
machine cogs?
The American Dissident is listed on Duotrope, which is widely distributed in
libraries. Still, rarely if ever do I receive critical poems from those who consult
Duotrope, which even interviewed me in 2021 (see duotrope.com/interview/
editor/2532/the-american-dissident). Bravo to Duotrope for keeping its doors
wide, very wide, open!
And so, the front cover of this issue criticizes the new poet laureate of the
U.S. Congress, Arthur Sze, praised ad nauseam of course. And of course I
sent it to the targets. Sze and the government apparatchiks, including the
Librarian of Congress Robert Newlen who anointed him, could have at least
responded to the criticism à la Greta Thunberg: “How dare you!” But they did
not deign to respond (see the letter I’d sent in the “Literary Letters” section).
I’ve been critical of the Library of Congress not just for its silence is golden
m.o., but also because it refuses to include The American Dissident on its vast
5taxpayer-funded shelves (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/
search?q=congress). It is astonishing how the bulk of poets simply open wide
and swallow… and do not even wonder who anoints prize-winners like Sze. And
who decides what is “great poetry” and what is not?
As for the back cover of this issue, well, I was going to use the French
aquarelle below, then noticed I’d already done one prior to it and had
completely forgotten about it. Yeah, I know, I’m gettin’ old… but no less bold.
Hahah. The woman behind the podium is a poet journalist or a journalist poet.
She works for Le Devoir, a Montréal daily newspaper. An article she wrote
(www.ledevoir.com/culture/cinema/965628/mains-oeuvres-vie-poesie-tetes-
poetes) incited my critique because it was poetry as usual à la business as
usual: praise, praise, praise for a handful of Québec poets… and in that sense
she was praising herself. What ticks me off is that not one of them would stand
for free expression and simply write a letter to the organizers of the poetry
festival that permanently banned me from reading at it after I’d had the
audacity, as one of 150 invited paid poets, to openly criticize Gaston Bellemare,
the chief organizer, for his decree that debating poetry would not be permitted
during the 10-day festival. Unsurprisingly, not one of the 150 other paid invited
poets would dare risk by supporting my purported right to free expression,
which does not really exist in Québec. Well, from that shite, I’d created a
number of cartoons, poems, and essays (see theamericandissident.org/quebec/
quebec.html)...
In any case, the back cover, the one in English, needs no explanation. It is
clearly a criticism of the MONEY machine running poetry and the bulk of
poets… as well as the inevitable gross hypocrisy. Finally, check out the “Literary
Letters” section for my brief battle with a University of Toronto professor, who
fairly quickly slammed the door shut. Just the same, I have to give the dude
credit for actually responding, though what I’d call a faux response for he did
not bother to address a single point made in the criticism. And so, poets,
where the critical writing???
