Tuesday, August 30, 2022

Chelsea Manning’s Wicked Beats

Chelsea Manning’s Wicked Beats


The WikiLeaks source preps for her first public d.j. set in fifteen years, at a club in Brooklyn, where she chats about electronic dance music (“how I survived prison”) and being more than just her Wikipedia page.


By Nathan Heller



Chelsea Manning—the military leaker turned trans icon turned onetime Senate candidate—hadn’t publicly been behind a d.j. booth in fifteen years when, the other day, she decided to give her former hobby a fresh spin. She booked an appearance at a Brooklyn club, for a Friday night, and prepared by practicing her cueing. She combed through her library and assembled a new set. With a long, strange summer mostly gone, she reasoned, people needed music of remission and release. Or, as she put it when her night started, “The theme of this set is very much ‘The world is burning down, so let’s party while we can.’ ”

She was sitting in a greenroom in the club Elsewhere, a small haven of youth and coolness within the larger haven of Bushwick. Feeling playful before the mirror, she began to try on headwear for the night: a twinkling pair of kitten ears; round, rose-colored glasses of librarian severity. In 2013, Manning was found guilty of multiple criminal charges relating to her release of hundreds of thousands of classified or sensitive files to WikiLeaks while working in Army intelligence. The day after her sentencing, she came out as trans, and on her release from prison, in 2017, following a sentence commutation by President Obama, she reëntered civilian life as a part-time activist and a full-time lightning rod. A primary run for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Maryland followed; so did, by her account, “a lot of therapy.” In 2019, after defying a subpoena from a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, Manning was jailed for contempt of court, and by the time she was freed, in March, 2020, the world was locking down. “In this post-Trump, post-covid era, I’m needing a break,” she said. “And I want to make sure I capitalize on my dreams before I reach middle age.”

Musically speaking, Manning, who is thirty-four, is a drum-and-bass and trance person, though she also claims affinities for electropop, early dubstep, and house. “Electronic music is how I survived prison,” she said. The interest, though, predated her incarceration. In her teens, while living in southwest Wales, she helped manage several sort-of-almost-famous punk bands, and went on to d.j. in Greater Washington, D.C. (an area, she notes, that was “not known for its electronic dance music”). The turntables spun down as her work spun up, but even when life spun out of control—most recently, the pandemic killed the speaking gigs from which she made a living—music always helped.

“I know that I’m not going to be a huge d.j.,” Manning said, nervously unzipping a large gray backpack (“This is travelling light for me”) and extracting a MacBook that she always totes around. “But the only way you’re going to get good at doing live shows is to do live shows—I’m trying baby steps.”

Among her terrors? “Hitting the wrong button.” Fair enough. In the black-painted club space, Manning looked small and mouselike before the three-screen panel. “I hope I don’t suck,” she’d worried before giving the hardware a practice whirl.

Back in the day, Manning used to work with a turntable, a mixer, and a laptop. Now everything is digital, and by club-kid standards she’s an Old. “House music came from within the queer and trans community, and there’s quite a bit in this set, because I think younger people need to be reminded,” she said, embracing a prim seniority. Her memoir, out this fall, is called “readme.txt”—a title that, if it doesn’t quite scream sex and drama, also can’t be accused of revealing too much. An early draft, she said, was redacted by instruction of the U.S. government, and the final looks beyond state secrets, toward secrets of the soul. “I’m a lot more than the first three sentences of my Wikipedia page,” Manning said. “My friends know that, my Twitter followers know that, and the people tonight know that—I hope.”

The club’s doors opened at ten. One dancer sported elf ears and trousers with huge thorns protruding. There were the usual angel wings and devil horns, as well as, less traditionally, fishing caps and eyeglasses with spiky frames. Half an hour past midnight, Manning appeared, to applause, and dropped the bass. She wore her kitten ears and glasses with an all-black outfit: leather pants, a tulle blouse, a silk vest, and a Diane Keaton tie with small red stripes. She played a broody remix of “Toxic,” by Britney Spears, and a driving version of “Hot in It,” by Charli XCX and Tiësto. The dancers had their hands in the air and their phones in the air, and the lights changed color—purple, blue, green, red.

A clubber named Niko Vaude, dressed in a mesh shirt and a police cap that read “I’m a Mess,” danced his heart out. Vaude is a music producer in his mid-twenties, but has spent much of adulthood locked up for the pandemic. “Everything I admire is people being unapologetically themselves, and Chelsea is,” he said. “This is amazing, but”—he grinned in sudden shyness—“I’ll also be happy to get home, have a shower, and get back to reading Jane Austen.” ?

 

Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Donald Trump and the Sweepstakes Scammers

Donald Trump and the Sweepstakes Scammers


In the eighties, an eclectic group of con artists dominated the market for promotional games and rigged them—till it all came crashing down.


By Jeff Maysh The New Yorker



Illustration by Lily Lambie-Kiernan

It was nighttime in Atlantic City. A man with a tight Afro and a broken ankle hobbled on crutches toward the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. On the covered driveway, bathed in neon light, sat a Cadillac Allanté convertible—the grand prize in Trump’s 1987 Drive-In Dreamstakes. The contest had been designed by Charles (Chuck) Seidman, a gregarious, boundlessly enthusiastic pitchman who called his business C.B.S.—short for C. B. Seidman Marketing Group—in the hope that the television station would sue him, giving him free publicity.

By the late eighties, America was in the grip of a sweepstakes mania. The industry had grown to an estimated value of a billion dollars, and every company, from Toys R Us to Wonder Bread, seemed to be running giveaways and promotions. Even Harvard University’s alumni magazine was offering ten thousand dollars in Sony electronics. C.B.S. had a unique business proposition: it would come up with the promotion, print the entry forms, and even deliver the prizes. Brands hoping to capitalize on America’s obsession would pay C.B.S. one fee for a turnkey operation.

One of those brands was Donald Trump. To entice larger crowds to his flagship casino, he had built a thirty-million-dollar parking garage. But not enough people were using it. Seidman suggested printing half a million promotional parking tickets. If visitors collected enough validation stickers, in the right combination, they could win prizes, including Walkmans, cash, an “Eternity of Vacations,” or even a Cadillac.

The Allanté cost fifty-five thousand dollars, about as much as a family home in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, where James Parker, the man on crutches, lived. Parker was a hypnotist and a magician, and he spoke with a stutter. He greeted the parking attendant and handed over his ticket. “Look, why don’t you play?” the attendant said. “You only need one more sticker. Who knows. You might win!”

The attendant applied the final sticker, scratched off the gold coating, and offered his commiserations. Then he did a double take—Parker had won. He was ushered into a promotional booth, and, over the next twenty-four hours, Trump’s P.R. machine began to whir. The attendant reappeared wearing a tuxedo. A photographer from the Trump Today newspaper popped a flashbulb. Parker held up the key and tried not to overdo his excitement. Those were his orders.

Parker was no lucky winner. He was part of a staggering scam that involved some of the biggest brands of the eighties: Ford, Holiday Inn, Nabisco, Royal Desserts. If you entered a sweepstakes competition in those years, it was likely run by C.B.S. You had no chance of winning—Seidman had built a sprawling network of “paper winners,” including a kung-fu master and a pet psychic, who helped him steal millions of dollars in cash and prizes, pulling off the biggest sweepstakes fraud the country had ever seen.

Chuck Seidman got into sweepstakes because they were the family business. During the sixties, as a teen-ager, he went to work at his father’s promotions company, in Philadelphia. Jack Seidman had been a communications expert with the Army’s Signal Corps during the Second World War, and had pioneered the rub-off game card, using gold leaf to conceal a prize message. His company, Spot-O-Gold, created early lottery games for 7-Eleven and Kellogg’s, and swiftly dominated the sweepstakes market. He hoped to hand down his business to his son.

Chuck Seidman, who had been forced to leave four separate high schools for showing up to class on drugs, was not an ideal successor. He became addicted to heroin and once was arrested during a methamphetamine sale; Jack had to persuade a judge to let him off. “I was in seven detoxes and none of them worked,” Seidman later told a court. In desperation, Jack hired Steven Gross, a friend of Seidman’s in the grade above him, to come work at Spot-O-Gold. “Jack knew that I didn’t drink or do drugs,” Gross told me. “So he asked me if I wanted to come to work with him, to keep his son on the straight and narrow.” But that was impossible. “Chuck was the kind of narcissistic personality—you couldn’t tell him what to do,” Gross said. He added, “Chuck was fun to hang around.”

Gross, who was sixteen years old, discovered that he had a knack for promotions. When he wasn’t looking after Seidman, he worked in the development department, and pitched a “Cone-O-Gold” for Baskin-Robbins, among other campaigns. Spot-O-Gold delivered tamper-proof rub-off cards to supermarkets, in armored Brink’s trucks, but light-fingered Seidman stole piles of two-dollar winners. He spent the cash on the Atlantic City boardwalk, hitting on girls. Gross was his designated driver.

Gross eventually left for college, then sold lingerie, and later cars. Back home, Seidman’s addictions consumed him. By twenty-five, he was spending three hundred dollars a day on cocaine. Dealers at a local Lebanese restaurant blackmailed him to steal prizes. “I stole a thousand-dollar game ticket from my father’s company to pay that cocaine debt,” he later confessed. “That was the first time.” In 1984, Jack paid off sixty thousand dollars in drug debt for his son.

The following year, Jack discovered that Seidman, now thirty-four, was regularly stealing winning tickets, and a fistfight broke out. “He went to hit me. I blocked it,” Seidman later recalled. During the spat, Jack crumpled to the ground, cracking his ten-thousand-dollar Rolex. Seidman penned a poisonous letter to his father: “I will fight you with everything and anything I have with a promise to God that whatever happens, you will not walk away from this a very happy man.”

His first act of revenge was to purchase several VCRs and televisions on his father’s charge account, and sell them for cash. “He had no autonomy whatsoever,” Gross told me. “He felt like he was really under his father’s thumb.” Not long afterward, Seidman called Gross to pitch an idea. They would start their own sweepstakes company and beat his father at his own game.

One by one, Seidman lured away his father’s clients with ingenious pitches for new sweepstakes. (He had learned to hide his drug use, and to harness psychedelics for out-of-the-box thinking.) Having grown up coveting his father’s gaudy displays of wealth, he specialized in conceiving elaborate prizes. For Alpo, a dog-food brand, he suggested giving away a luxury holiday to one lucky winner—and forty-nine of their closest friends and family members. He leased a cramped office in the basement of an apartment building, and hired an assistant.

“That’s when we ended up getting company American Express cards,” Gross told me. “I started to see why his father couldn’t deal with him.” Seidman spent thousands of dollars on designer suits and purchased sixteen season tickets for Philadelphia Eagles games. He also opened a distribution arm of the company to handle mail-in promotions for brands. To run it, he hired two teen-agers he had met in the parking lot of a Wawa sandwich shop, Timothy Dagit and Louis Mazzio, and encouraged them to work for little money, calling it “sweat capital.” (Neither Dagit nor Mazzio agreed to an interview.)

Out from under Jack’s watchful eye, Seidman and Gross realized that they could pilfer some of the prizes. Gross conspired to rig a Royal Desserts competition to win ten supermarket-sweep trips to Toys R Us. At the time, there was little regulatory oversight for sweepstakes. No single set of laws governed contests, and the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission couldn’t make up their minds, or work together on enforcement. “To be honest, I looked at it as a victimless crime,” Gross told me. The brands still got their publicity.

Seidman encouraged Gross to buy a limousine so that the pair would “look successful” when they attended meetings. Soon, Seidman co-owned a company, called Ride in Style, that had three. (The limos looked new, but, under the hood, they were falling apart—someone had disconnected the odometers.) Seidman wore cowboy boots and got a Rolex, which he had “won” in a competition, to match his father’s. He had terrible credit; when he wanted a BMW with a portable phone inside, and a luxury Cadillac, Gross signed the leases. Seidman started carrying a .357 Magnum around the office in a holster.

By the mid-eighties, Jack and Spot-O-Gold were in trouble. Competitors had rendered Jack’s patent on the rub-off obsolete. “Somebody worked around it and did the scratch-off,” Fred Sorokin, who worked for Spot-O-Gold, and later for C.B.S., told me. “It’s a different process. I’m sure Jack was furious about it.” This unfortunate turn compounded the pain of losing his relationship with his son. “I think Jack probably had a broken heart,” Sorokin said. In May, 1986, during a walk in Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square, Jack collapsed and died of a heart attack. Without its charismatic owner, Spot-O-Gold shuttered and Seidman stole its remaining clients.

C.B.S. was taking off. It rented an office in the same luxury tower where Charles Barkley lived. Gross, who took smoke breaks by the pool, would see him lying in the sun. “I got kind of tight with Charles,” Gross told me. Dr. J and the rest of the 76ers often hung out in the lobby. Meanwhile, Seidman’s substance abuse accelerated. “I was on ten Valium pills or Xanax pills a day, and several tranquillizers,” he later recalled. In desperation, his wife, Susan, dialled a random hypnotherapist from the Yellow Pages. It was James Parker. “I get this phone call from this frantic woman,” Parker told me. “ ‘I need you here—it’s an emergency. My husband is on drugs or drinking. He’s so messed up. We are about to lose everything.’ ” Parker had started studying hypnosis after watching a carnival stage show when he was seven years old. (He bought a hypnosis book, hoping to control his parents.) By his early twenties, he dreamed of becoming a famous stage hypnotist. In May, 1987, he arrived at Seidman’s home. Parker put Seidman in a trance; when Seidman woke up, he announced that he was cured. (Susan declined my requests for an interview.)

Seidman promised to make Parker the most famous hypnotist in America. He said that he’d book him on Oprah and Johnny Carson, and even get his image on the front of a Wheaties box. But, before all that, Seidman had a favor to ask. He needed Parker to pose as the lucky winner for the Trump Plaza sweepstakes. According to Parker, Seidman assured him that the scheme, though “not the most ethical,” was completely legal.

Parker had no problem taking from Trump. In the seventies, Trump and his father, who owned an enormous portfolio of rental buildings in New York City, had been accused of refusing to lease apartments to Black people. Parker’s mother was part of an investigative team assembled by the city’s human-rights division to expose the practice. “They would send a Black couple into a Trump property to rent something,” he told me. When the couple were told that there were no vacancies, a white employee would soon follow, and would be welcomed with open arms. Gross also found a way to justify the sweepstakes scheme. He knew that Trump “was screwing over all these people who worked on the casinos, and put a number of small businesses out of business,” he told me. “He was a con man.” (Trump did not respond to numerous requests for comment.)

Seidman sent his mistress, a legal assistant he’d met at a TGI Fridays, to the casino to get the required stickers. “We had to obtain them at different times so that it didn’t look like somebody went in there four days in a row,” Gross explained. They gave the fixed ticket to Parker, but there was a snag—he had crashed his motorbike while performing a skid, and his leg was in plaster. Driving to Trump Plaza would be difficult. Seidman and Gross also worried that his stutter might make him seem nervous. “We told him to act excited, but not to go crazy like people on game shows do, you know, jumping and screaming,” Gross said.

Three days after Parker’s win, a catastrophic stock-market crash sent tremors through the American economy. Gross had instructed Parker to sell the Cadillac and open a new bank account to deposit the proceeds, but, after Black Monday, there were no buyers for a fifty-five-thousand-dollar luxury car, especially one featured in United Press International’s annual list of “ins and outs.” (Donald Trump was in; the Allanté was out.) Eventually, they sold it to a dealer for half off. Parker kept four thousand dollars, but, unbeknownst to him, he was on the hook for taxes on the entire prize value. He booked a flight to Paris, where he had a date with a touring opera singer.

In December, 1987, Seidman enlisted Parker to help rig another contest, the Coronet Great American Giveaway Game, for the paper manufacturer Georgia-Pacific, which offered winners Renaults and Jeep Cherokees. “I told him that there were eight cars to be won in the program,” Seidman later testified. He asked Parker to recruit eight people to agree to “win” and split the profits with C.B.S. That year, Seidman also persuaded Anthony Dandridge, who had once installed cable television in his home, to pose as the winner of a big-ticket contest for Alpo dog food. (Dandridge declined to comment for this story.) He didn’t even own a dog, but he had recently opened a kung-fu school in Richmond, Virginia, and Seidman vowed to make him the next Bruce Lee. If Dandridge “won” the two-hundred-thousand-dollar Alpo prize, he’d get to keep twenty-five thousand in seed money for a nationwide martial-arts academy. Seidman would pocket the rest.

C.B.S. had outgrown its tiny office, and filled a fancy new building with assistants, managers, and salespeople poached from Spot-O-Gold. But Gross and Seidman had started to argue about how much they stole, and how much Seidman drank. “You’re destroying yourself,” Gross warned him, as their trust disintegrated. And yet they couldn’t stop. Dandridge and Parker recruited a growing network of prize-winners, acquaintances who would pretend to win and give kickbacks to C.B.S. Seidman didn’t believe that there was any supervisory body monitoring sweepstakes—not even the I.R.S. He was almost right.

Around the time that James Parker was vacationing in Paris, a telephone rang on the second floor of Philadelphia’s Bulk Mail center, a large office that houses the oldest law-enforcement agency in the United States. When Agent Daniel (Carl) Smires took a job at the United States Postal Inspection Service, in 1970, the organization was nearly two hundred years old. Smires felt that people underestimated the U.S.P.I.S., confusing its agents with mail carriers. Few knew that he carried a gun.

On the telephone was someone from the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s office, who had heard from a woman claiming to be involved in a sweepstakes fraud. This piqued Smires’s interest. He loved to see his name in splashy newspaper articles that raised the profile of the U.S.P.I.S. Smires was a devout Methodist whose mother taught Sunday school for forty-five years; he wouldn’t have boasted about it at church, but he had recently won a medal for busting a series of supermarket-coupon frauds. He drove straight to the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s office, where he met Katherine Wojciechowicz, Louis Mazzio’s girlfriend.

She told Smires that Mazzio had arranged for her to win Alpo’s fiftieth-anniversary sweepstakes. “She was a young person who felt that she was aware of something that wasn’t right,” Smires told me. “Just concerned that she was involved in something that wasn’t on the up-and-up.” He agreed to investigate the company behind the promotion: C.B.S.

In his office, Smires studied entry forms for various contests and mailed subpoenas to brands. He had spent his early career auditing post offices in one-horse towns in the Midwest, and loved to lose himself in tedious tasks. “It’s kind of, like, a slow build,” Smires said. “Let’s see what we got.” He met Trump staffers involved with the Drive-In Dreamstakes—his first time setting foot inside a casino—and what he learned there was “eye-opening.” The gaming industry was fiercely regulated, yet these trips to Monte Carlo, the Cadillacs, the “Eternity of Vacations”—no one was making sure that the winners of these opulent prizes were legit.

Parker was running out of friends to turn into winners. He started to call random people he had met at a Tony Robbins seminar in Palm Springs. One of them was Renate Perelom, who worked as a pet psychic in Florida and was interested to hear about what Parker called a “financial business opportunity.” He had clients who had won sweepstakes, he told her, but who were “going through some transition period in their lives,” making it complicated to claim their prizes. Perelom, a sweepstakes nut, agreed to pose as a winner in several competitions. Months later, she won a Jeep Cherokee, but, when Parker called to pick up the car and split the profits, she claimed to have forgotten their conversation.

“I understand you want this car,” Parker told her. “You can purchase it, if you would like, for eight thousand seven hundred dollars. It’s worth at least fourteen thousand.” Gross called Perelom to try to smooth things over, but she kept the car. (Perelom could not be reached for comment.) Other winners were playing games, too. Parker persuaded an old college friend in South Carolina to “win” a contest and exchange the prize for a thousand bucks, but she shook him down for two thousand. Seidman’s bartender had recruited someone to win a car, but he refused to turn over any cash at all.

Seidman was unravelling. When Gross discovered that Seidman had removed him as a signer on the company accounts, he reinstated himself. “That’s when he really started threatening to kill me,” Gross said. Seidman turned up at Gross’s home. “He had gone off the deep end,” Gross said. “I sent my wife and two kids away. I kind of knew that Chuck wasn’t Chuck at that point.” He repossessed Seidman’s BMW and Cadillac, both of which were in his name. Gross wanted out, but the only money left in the company had been obtained illegally. Lawsuits were flying in from former employees and disgruntled clients. In March, 1988, Gross left C.B.S. and started his own promotions outfit. When he persuaded Louis Mazzio to join him, Seidman threatened Mazzio’s father, a live-in gardener on a sixty-seven-acre property that belonged to the Campbell’s Soup family.

Meanwhile, Dan Church, a former newspaper reporter now managing public relations for Alpo, was struggling to get people to pick up the phone. Part of his job was to conduct promotional interviews with sweepstakes winners, but one person, Katherine Wojciechowicz, had tersely refused to participate in any press. (Wojciechowicz died, in a plane crash, in 2002.) Another, Anthony Dandridge, was avoiding him. Then Church got a call. It was Agent Smires, of the U.S.P.I.S. He had reason to believe that the Alpo competitions had been compromised, he said. When Church finally reached Dandridge, Alpo relayed the responses to Smires.

In April, Smires travelled to Virginia to look for Dandridge, who had told Alpo that he planned to renovate his kung-fu academy using the two hundred thousand dollars in prize money from the dog-food contest. What Smires found didn’t look like much of a renovation. “It was an empty floor,” he said. “There was, like, a desk in there, maybe a chair, and maybe a couple mats. I was thinking, Wow, there’s not much going on here.” Dandridge told Smires that he had received only ten thousand dollars.

When Smires asked about C.B.S. and Seidman, Dandridge suddenly clammed up, and said that he feared for the safety of his family. Not long before, he had confronted Seidman about his broken promises, and Seidman had threatened him with Mafia connections. Smires promised Dandridge that the government would look after him. The kung-fu master had only one question: “Am I in any trouble?”

Next, Smires summoned Parker to the U.S.P.I.S. office. Parker thought that he might have tried to mail a letter with insufficient postage. Then Smires started talking about serious criminal charges. Parker was convinced that he hadn’t done anything illegal, and he offered to take a polygraph test, or to wear a wire. Smires turned him down. He had more than enough evidence.

A year and a half later, Seidman, Gross, Dandridge, Parker, and Mazzio were all charged with mail fraud. They faced sentences of up to thirty years. Gross and Seidman pleaded guilty, but the others decided to go to trial. In a diary entry read aloud to the court, Seidman blamed everything on Gross: “I was incredibly manipulated from the beginning when he came walking into my life, when I was strung out on drugs and alcohol, and he directed me to do this whole thing.” He had written that Gross was “the devil.” On the stand, however, Seidman had trouble defending his actions. (He also admitted to taking LSD four hundred times.) An opposing lawyer asked if he was the devil, and whether his “whole life has been a lie.” Seidman said yes.

Parker, Dandridge, and Mazzio were found guilty, sentenced to five years’ probation, and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in restitution. Parker and Dandridge also got a few months of house arrest, with exceptions made for going to work—performing stage hypnosis and practicing kung fu. “I made a mistake,” Mazzio told the court. “It has just been tough on me and everyone involved, and it is a great shame that I have to carry around.”Attorneys estimated that Seidman and Gross stole nearly two million dollars in cash and prizes. (That would be worth more than twice as much today.) They were ordered to pay more than a million dollars in restitution to the companies that they had ripped off, and both were sentenced to two years in prison. Seidman took a job serving inmates ice cream.

Seidman and Gross were banned for life from the sweepstakes industry, but Seidman couldn’t resist. By the time he was sent to prison, in 1990, he had already set up a new company, and he’d even brought back one of his old clients: Donald Trump. It is unclear how many competitions he ran for Trump, or how many were crooked. But, that year, before a Mike Tyson fight, Trump handed brand-new car keys to a lucky sweepstakes winner, Richard Surmick. Surmick was the president of LizRick tours, a bus company that Trump had used for an earlier contest, which involved picking up gamblers all over Pennsylvania and dropping them off at the casino in Atlantic City. Surmick later went to prison for running a three-million-dollar check-kiting scheme. He died in 2021.

After a string of scandals, public faith in promotional competitions waned. In 1989, Kraft had bungled its “Ready to Roll” promotion, printing five hundred thousand winning cards instead of one, resulting in four million dollars in compensation payments. The following year, the F.T.C. threatened to crack down on contests. Steven W. Kopp, a professor of marketing at the University of Arkansas, who studies sweepstake scandals, told me that the F.T.C. and state agencies implemented tighter regulations and amended existing laws to make it more difficult to pull off scams. In Florida, for example, promoters offering prizes valued at more than five thousand dollars have to provide a surety bond—a written agreement to abide by competition rules. The number of contests dropped, and, according to Kopp, many players switched to lottery scratch-offs, and later to online gambling and video games, for “that same little shot of dopamine.”

In March, I met Parker in Las Vegas. He arrived at a Cheesecake Factory in an orange Tesla with a vanity license plate that read “HYPNOS.” He said that Seidman had ruined his life, but also admitted that, “without Chuck, maybe I wouldn’t have become as successful as I am today.” (In the late nineties, he headlined his own hypnosis show on the Strip as Justin Tranz, which he has adopted as his legal name.) Using sleight of hand, he conjured a business card out of his cell-phone screen. In recent years, he has pivoted to hypnotizing N.B.A. players struggling with confidence problems. (He also hypnotizes EuroLeague players with the more acute confidence problem of not being good enough for the N.B.A.)

The last time Parker saw Gross, he was on TV as a guest on “The Jerry Springer Show,” telling a fake story about his love life. “I just did it for the experience,” Gross told me. By then, he was running Daydreams, a successful Philadelphia strip club. Dandridge has expanded his kung-fu academies to fifteen states.

During the first Internet boom, Seidman pivoted to online sweepstakes and pioneered the Web-based scratch-off game. The Philadelphia Business Journal described the concept: “The player holds down the button on his mouse and moves the cursor over the specified area, which disappears to the accompaniment of a scratching sound.” He partnered with Microsoft, hired a staff of ten, bought Prizes.com, and claimed to have earned seven-figure revenues annually from clients including Dunkin’ Donuts and Old Navy.

Gross told me that he had run into Seidman in late 1995 at a “not quite legal” strip club, where Gross was scouting for dancers. He was preparing for a fight, but, instead, Seidman tried to reconcile. “We kinda hugged it out,” Gross said. “I heard that he was driving a Porsche and he was doing well.” Seidman had put on weight, which Gross took as a sign of sobriety. (He had replaced booze with cigars.) In Gross’s recollection, Seidman apologized for how things had turned out, and mentioned wanting to get back into business together. They never managed to make it happen. Seidman died on August 10, 2009, from liver cancer.

By 2011, Trump had driven his Atlantic City casinos into the ground, but he didn’t give up running sweepstakes. On the campaign trail, he’s awarded more than a hundred prizes in fund-raising contests. Supporters typically donate five or ten bucks for the chance to win a trip, all expenses paid, to meet him. Recently, his political-action committee sent an e-mail with a new offer: “Contribute ANY AMOUNT RIGHT NOW to be automatically entered to have dinner with President Trump in New Orleans.” He probably raised a lot of money; according to the Washington Post, similar contests have brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the trip to New Orleans came and went, and no winner was announced. A representative for Trump explained that there had been an “administrative error.” ?

 

Thursday, August 11, 2022

Alex Jones and the Wellness-Conspiracy Industrial Complex

Alex Jones and the Wellness-Conspiracy Industrial Complex

By Farhad Manjoo NY TIMES

When Owen Shroyer, an anchor and reporter for Infowars, took the stand late last month in the defamation trial of his boss, the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, he was asked about the many health products for sale on Jones’s site. Among them: diet pills, fluoride-free toothpaste that Jones once claimed “kills the whole SARS-corona family at point-blank range” and InstaHard, a supplement whose purpose I probably don’t have to spell out.

“Do you know if any of it’s been tested to see if it’s effective or any good at all?” asked an attorney for Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“Well, we test the products for ourselves,” Shroyer said.

“You mean you take them?”

“Yes.”

“And you’re still here, so it must be OK?”

“Yeah. It works for me.”

The Jones trial was a spectacle, full of bizarre asides from Jones and embarrassing mistakes by his lawyers, and I was not surprised when Jones lost big. He has claimed for years that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax — a false-flag operation staged by the left to bolster the case for gun control. His lies compounded the grief of the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook; last week, in the culmination of this first of several defamation cases brought by parents, a jury in Texas awarded Heslin and Lewis nearly $50 million in damages.

But it was what the trial revealed about Jones’s finances and how Infowars operates as a business that I found most intriguing. In particular, we saw just how staggeringly lucrative Jones’s schtick can be and, despite the parents’ victory, how difficult it might be to shut down the money that flows to conspiracists like Jones.

The problem lies in the symbiotic relationship between bogus, unregulated health products and bogus political claims. Call it the wellness-conspiracy industrial complex. Jones produces an incessant barrage of outrageous, thinly sourced or wholly mendacious content in the hopes that some of it will go viral. When people click on the stories and land on his site, they are bombarded with ads for snake oil. He claims to be offering people truths that they won’t get in mainstream media, but that’s backward. The conspiracy theories are better seen as a marketing tool for his real products — InstaHard, BodEase, Diet Force and all manner of oils, tinctures and supplements.

Jones was one of the pioneers in connecting out-there cures to out-there political claims, but he is by no means alone. Over the past decade — and especially during the pandemic — the internet has been overrun with influencers who peddle what some researchers have called conspirituality, a worldview that meshes New Age-y ideas in alternative health with a Trump-era penchant for alternative facts. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that lefty-seeming wellness circles in California had become fertile ground for the QAnon conspiracy theory. The crossover has been especially obvious in the anti-vaccine movement. Today, vaccine skeptics are more at home on the MAGA-loving political right, but some of the movement’s earlier proponents, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were more closely aligned with the left. As Rolling Stone put it, “the anti-vaxxers got red-pilled.”

The coziness between wellness ideas and conspiracy theories sounds odd, but when you dig into these movements, you find considerable overlap. Matthew Remski, a journalist who has covered the nexus, has argued that wellness philosophies are rooted in the beliefs that “nothing is as it seems,” “everything happens for a reason” and “everything is connected.” That set of beliefs, he wrote, “rolled out a cognitive and psychological welcome mat for conspiracist fascinations, up to and including QAnon.” 

Stephanie Alice Baker, a sociologist at the City University of London who has studied wellness influencers, said that there is a quest for “purity” and “raising awareness and consciousness” at the heart of wellness culture that makes it particularly vulnerable to conspiracy thinking. She told me that she noticed that practices that were prevalent in wellness — things like doing a cleanse, taking supplements to rid one’s body of vague “toxins” and experiencing “ascension” or “awakening” — shared an underlying moral framework with political slogans like “Drain the swamp” and “Make America Great Again.” People who refused to get Covid vaccines often point to a feeling of being clean; some even called themselves purebloods.

Then there is a shared distrust of elites. Many of Jones’s conspiracy theories ask readers to be skeptical of mainstream media and government authorities. His health products make similar claims; many are touted for their origins in Eastern medicine or because they are upsetting to the Food and Drug Administration, Big Pharma and multinational biotech companies.

In both politics and health, these influencers see themselves as “providing a refuge from the mainstream, which they see as being compromised and corrupt and associated with compliance,” Baker said.

But beyond the philosophy is the money: Selling unregulated health products is very big business. Bernard Pettingill Jr., a forensic economist hired by the plaintiffs in the Jones trial, testified that Free Speech Systems — the legal entity under which Jones operates Infowars — made an average of $55 million in annual revenue from sales in the Infowars store from 2016 to 2019.

In 2018, Facebook, YouTube, Apple and other tech companies kicked Jones off their services, but if deplatforming reduced Jones’s reach, it didn’t really hit his business. Lawyers for the plaintiffs presented text messages from his employees — part of a cache of messages that his attorneys mistakenly sent to the plaintiffs — that showed the company sometimes making $700,000 or $800,000 per day after deplatforming. Free Speech made $65 million in revenue in 2021, Pettingill testified.

The numbers also suggested that a lot of the money was profit. A text message from Infowars’ operations manager revealed that of $110,000 in sales of packaged survivalist food — you know, to eat when the new world order takes over or something — almost $70,000 was “pure profit.” Jones testified that margins varied by product. “Some products make 20 percent. Some products make 60 percent,” he said.

The plaintiffs’ attorney argued that the only way to stop Jones’s spree of lies was to hit him with a judgment high enough to put him out of business forever. But I’m not sure that’s possible. For one thing, there is a question about how much Jones will actually be made to pay — Texas’ strong antitort laws might significantly cut down the jury’s damage award. But even if Jones is stuck with a multimillion-dollar punishment, he can always set up shop again. 

A more permanent solution to Jonesian lies would be to go after the huge market for alternative health products. Current law prevents the Food and Drug Administration from regulating a wide range of supplements, and even where they do have authority, regulators have been lax in enforcing the rules. Jones is a one-man argument for drastic change. By better policing the market for alternative health, regulators can cut down on two scourges at once.

 

Monday, August 08, 2022

Josephine Baker Was the Star France Wanted


Josephine Baker Was the Star France Wanted—and the Spy It Needed


When the night-club sensation became a Resistance agent, the Nazis never realized what she was hiding in the spotlight.

By Lauren Michele Jackson NY Times

A chameleonic gift for moving among identities aided Baker’s turn at espionage.

The Negro, historically, has always been in the espionage business. Subalterns survive by being watchful, warily gathering intelligence about those for whom they labor. The flight from servitude, even from an identity, involves spy craft, too. Harriet Tubman was called Moses for a liberator who slipped the confines of caste when his mother placed him undercover among the reeds in that pitch-daubed basket. Brown skin could be cloaked in soot and stereotypes or in learned airs. George Harris, one of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s high-yellow fugitives, attained an inscrutable foreignness with the assistance of walnut bark: “A slight change in the tint of the skin and the color of his hair had metamorphosed him into the Spanish-looking fellow he then appeared; and as gracefulness of movement and gentlemanly manners had always been perfectly natural to him, he found no difficulty in playing the bold part he had adopted.”

In this respect, Josephine Baker, who clowned her way into the heart of les Anees folles—France’s Roaring Twenties—and played the civilized primitive when she got there, might have been the smoothest operator of the twentieth century. A dancer, a singer, and the most celebrated night-club entertainer of her era, she was at once inescapable and elusive. She first captivated Parisians in 1925 when she appeared on the stage of the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées, nude save for her feathers. The next year, at the Folies Bergère, audiences saw stretches of brown skin intersected by pearls and a skirt strung with tumescent bananas. As her star rose, Baker was known to stroll the streets of Paris with her fellow-performer Chiquita, a cheetah collared by a rope of diamonds. Without actually laying eyes on the woman, a visitor to Paris would see her everywhere: in photographs and on those Paul Colin posters, as a doll in a shop window, in the style of Parisiennes palming their heads with Bakerfix pomade.

Who was she, really? Baker homages are usually unsubtle and beatifying, embodied by contemporary Black denizens of the arts who managed to do what Baker couldn’t: carve out stardom on American soil. Diana Ross, Beyoncé, and Rihanna have played in her silhouette; Lynn Whitfield received an Emmy when she starred in HBO’s “The Josephine Baker Story” (1991). In “Frida” (2002), Baker has an affair with the title character, a nod to the free sexuality of each; she rumbas through “Midnight in Paris” (2011). Cush Jumbo staged an acclaimed tribute show, “Josephine and I,” in 2015, and Carra Patterson recently played her, with strange showgirl malaise, in an episode of the horror series “Lovecraft Country.” Ruth Negga and Janelle Monáe are now slated to take their turn, in a pair of TV series about her. Last November, Baker was inducted into the French Panthéon, the first woman of color to grace the hallowed monument, among such figures as Victor Hugo and Marie Curie. “Stereotypes, Joséphine Baker takes them on,” President Macron said. “But she shakes them up, digs at them, turns them into sublime burlesque. A spirit of the Enlightenment ridiculing colonialist prejudices to music by Sidney Bechet.”

Even if Baker’s career had been restricted to her role as an entertainer, it would have had the allure of a thriller. The racecraft of the day was bound to give rise to spycraft: all identities are impostures, and Baker had a chameleonic gift for moving among them. But during the war years she was also—as a new book, “Agent Josephine” (PublicAffairs), by the British journalist Damien Lewis, chronicles with much fresh detail—a spy in the most literal sense. There was, after all, little that La Bakaire didn’t understand about resistance.

“This is not a book telling Josephine Baker’s life story,” Lewis cautions. His saga, though it stretches across five hundred pages, is mainly concerned with Baker’s service as a secret agent, and mainly confined to the years shadowed by the Second World War. There’s another sense, too, in which it isn’t her life story: the account is largely told by an assemblage of third parties. Lewis’s bibliography and notes make clear how deeply he has drawn on interviews with veterans, memoirs by agents, the private family archives of a British spymaster, and the wartime files of intelligence bureaus, some of which were not made available to the public until 2020. But Baker maintained a code of silence about the seven years she spent fighting the Nazis and, Lewis writes, “went to her grave in 1975 taking many of those secrets with her.”

She could be sly about other facts, too. Like many colored women intent on arranging their destiny, Baker subjected her origin story to copious revisions. “I don’t lie,” she said. “I improve on life.” Her autobiographies can generously be called loose collaborations: “Les Mémoires de Joséphine Baker,” published in 1927, when she was twenty-one, and updated in later years, was in drafts before she and her co-author, Marcel Sauvage, shared a language. And once they did? “It would then be thoroughly funny—and at times, very difficult,” Sauvage wrote in the book’s preface. “Miss Baker does not like to remember.” Her third autobiography, “Josephine,” was published in 1977, two years after her death, produced from folders of notes, press clippings, documents, and the rough draft of a memoir that her last husband, Jo Bouillon, pulled together with the assistance of a co-author. The resulting Baker is another assemblage, an “I” laid alongside the testimony of others who were enlisted, as Bouillon writes, “whenever there was information lacking.” More candid was the biography “Josephine: The Hungry Heart,” published in 1993 and written by her adopted son Jean-Claude Baker with the journalist Chris Chase; the effort to sort through his mother’s various fictions is notated in its pages. “Josephine was a fabulist,” he writes. “You couldn’t hold her to strict account as you could a tailor who measured slipcovers.”

She had her reasons. “A black childhood is always a little sad,” Baker told Sauvage. Hers began on June 3, 1906, in St. Louis, when a dance-hall girl of local renown, Carrie McDonald, delivered a baby whom she named Freda Josephine. The baby was plump, and came to be called Tumpy (for Humpty Dumpty), a moniker that persisted well after poverty had thinned her into a ragamuffin. The identity of her father remains disputed, and became an opportunity for Baker to improvise. Lewis notes, “She had variously claimed that her father was a famous black lawyer, a Jewish tailor, a Spanish dancer, or a white German then resident in America.” The shifting myth was mirrored in the ethnic promiscuity of her on-screen roles: the tropical daughter of a colonial official, possibly Spanish, in “La Sirène des Tropiques” (1927), a Tunisian Eliza Doolittle, in “Princesse Tam-Tam” (1935).

Little Tumpy wanted to dance, but opportunities were scarce. By 1921, Baker had fled her St. Louis life and her second husband—she was all of fifteen when she married the man, William Howard Baker—and was performing as a comic chorine among the Dixie Steppers, a travelling vaudeville troupe. Aiming higher, she booked a one-way passage to New York, where she ended up working as a backstage dresser for the all-Black revue “Shuffle Along.” When a member of the touring cast fell ill—it was just a matter of time—Baker stepped in with fizzing style. After the show’s successful run, she landed a role in the 1924 Broadway musical “The Chocolate Dandies,” playing a blackface version of Topsy. She was nineteen when she was recruited by a society woman and impresario named Caroline Dudley Reagan for a new production across the Atlantic. “La Revue Nègre” opened at the Champs on October 2nd that year. That evening, a vedette was born.

You surely had to be there. Reviewers tripped over gerunds in their efforts to commit the wriggling thing to print. In the jungle dreamscape “Danse Sauvage,” Baker, wearing little more than a feathered loincloth, entered on the shoulders of her male dance partner, upside down and in a full split. André Levinson, perhaps the foremost ballet critic of the day, wrote:

It was as though the jazz, catching on the wing the vibrations of this body, was interpreting word by word its fantastic monologue.?.?.?. The gyrations of this cynical yet merry mountebank, the good-natured grin on her large mouth, suddenly give way to visions from which good humor is entirely absent. In the short pas de deux of the savages, which came as the finale of the Revue Nègre, there was a wild splendor and magnificent animality.

He was sure he had glimpsed “the black Venus that haunted Baudelaire.”

At a certain point, her efflorescence seems to depart from linear narrative, demanding a form suited to the artistic flights of the era: collage. The appeal of La Joséphine—in Europe, at least; America never ran quite as hot for her—exhausted hyperbole. “The most sensational woman anyone ever saw,” Ernest Hemingway pronounced. “Beyond time in the sense that emotion is beyond arithmetic” was E. E. Cummings’s estimation. Le Corbusier, a lover of hers, dressed himself in Baker drag, blackening his skin and wearing a feathered waistband. George Balanchine gave her dance lessons; Alexander Calder sculpted her out of wire. Adolf Loos, after a chance meeting, started sketching an architectural wonder to be called Baker House, with viewing windows cut into an indoor swimming pool. But Baker’s power wasn’t a matter of being hoisted upon the shoulders of great men; she regarded most of them with equable indifference. In a 1933 interview, she flubbed the name of a notable Spanish painter: “You know, Pinazaro, or what is his name, the one everyone talks about?” As Margo Jefferson has observed of Baker, “She was her own devoted muse.”

By the thirties, Baker had refined her visual signature. The show “Paris Qui Remue,” at the illustrious Casino de Paris, made this plain. The feathers were gone. Writing for this magazine, in 1930, Janet Flanner reported, “Her caramel-colored body which overnight became a legend in Europe is still magnificent, but it has become thinned, trained, almost civilized.” A Paris critic announced, with greater enthusiasm, “She left us a négresse, droll and primitive; she comes back a great artist.”

Not everyone was entertained. Austrian headlines denounced the “Black Devil” touring the country’s cities; at the Theater des Westens, in Berlin, Baker was hounded out of town three weeks into a scheduled six-month engagement. In the late nineteen-thirties, her face appeared on a leaflet issued by the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, as a potent representative of degenerate, untermenschlich art. Shortly thereafter, Benito Mussolini banned Baker from Italy. Such enmity was intense, and intensely reciprocated.

How could a named target of the Fascists serve as a secret agent? Her very celebrity would provide camouflage, or so the theatre manager Daniel Marouani argued when he brought up her name with the French counter-intelligence agency, the Deuxième Bureau. For certain Bureau officers, the prospect called to mind the case of Mata Hari, the Dutch dancer who was recruited by the French during the First World War and then executed by them when she was revealed to have been a double agent for the Germans. Fame coupled with inexperience could prove costly.

Still, the Deuxième Bureau was in dire straits: cash-strapped, understaffed, and, worse, ignored by political officials. “It was far easier to gather intelligence than it was to get those in power to act upon it,” Lewis writes. Counter-espionage would require the deployment of amateur, loyal, and—vitally—unpaid sources, who were designated Honorary Correspondents.

If Baker has a co-star in Lewis’s book, it’s Captain Jacques Abtey, an agent at the Deuxième Bureau. He was thirty when, in September of 1939, he went to meet La Joséphine. His mission was to determine whether she was willing and able to be entrusted with undercover service. Arriving at her mansion in the posh Paris suburb of Le Vésinet, he found her wearing not the expected finery but a felt hat and faded trousers that were suited to her current task—scrounging for snails in the garden to feed to her ducks. Soon enough, though, champagne was served, and Baker made a toast: “To France.” Abtey was taken by her fierce French nationalism and, Lewis writes, by “her almost childlike quality, at turns playful and pensive, and her schoolgirlish habit of wrinkling her forehead when lost in thought.” He was also “struck by the dichotomy of this superstar: her split life.” The agent did not seem to consider an alternative geometry, in which she wore many more than two faces.


After he anointed her “one of us,” she was asked to exploit her Italian and Japanese contacts for any useful information they might let slip. Four years earlier, Baker had expressed support for Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, believing that it would emancipate the country’s enslaved people. That otherwise unfortunate show of faith gained her the devotion of a loose-lipped attaché at the Italian Embassy. “She’d realised the best way to pump him for information was to provoke and contradict him, in response to which he had fallen into the habit of whispering reassurances into her ear,” Lewis writes. Whatever she learned, she passed along to Abtey.

It was the start of a partnership, professional and romantic. Both Baker and Abtey were married; both were at least nominally separated. Abtey had sent his wife and child to the French countryside as the war heated up. Baker’s situation was more honorable. In 1937, as the bride of the French industrialist Jean Lion, she cast off her U.S. citizenship and renounced her flashy life style. “I have finished with the exotic,” she told the press. She was prepared to be “just plain Madame Lion.” But domesticity on patriarchal terms didn’t suit her. After learning that Lion was catting around, and spending her money, she filed for divorce in 1939.

As Hitler’s troops advanced, Baker maintained her life in and around Paris for as long as she could, making use of her piloting skills—flying lessons had been a gift from Lion—to transport aid to refugees in the Low Countries, and performing for troops along the Maginot Line. Early in June of 1940, Baker, prompted by Abtey, left her beloved city, days before German troops stalked its avenues. Her car carried petrol-filled champagne bottles, along with an elderly Belgian Jewish couple, fugitives she had taken in.

Her destination, the Château des Milandes, overlooking the Dordogne, was a place she had leased three years earlier as a country idyll. The fifteenth-century castle now became a fortress once again, harboring a ragtag Resistance group. Amid mobilizations for de Gaulle’s Free French forces, Baker and Abtey found time to take lazy canoe trips along the river. He also taught her how to use a pistol, and equipped her with a cyanide pill in the event of capture.

Although Milandes was situated in the “free zone” of Vichy, the terms of armistice required that all French security forces report to the newly throttled government. Officially, there was no longer a Deuxième Bureau; unofficially, its agents had simply gone to ground, including the crew at Milandes. One fall day, as Baker met with two former Bureau agents, a group of Nazi officials arrived at the château. Baker, after shooing her résistantes into hiding, struck her pose as the lady of the house, hotly impatient with the German intrusion, especially once a search warrant appeared. In Lewis’s account, drawn from the writings of a Resistance veteran named Gilbert Renault (nom de guerre: Colonel Rémy), her sheer effrontery assuaged suspicion. She acted as if she had nothing to hide.

Baker and Abtey could not lie in wait forever, though, and a former commander at the Bureau, Paul Paillole, had a job for them. He had already set up a shadow network in the city of Marseille, under the cover of an agricultural service. But he urgently needed to reëstablish lines of communication with Great Britain. Otherwise, whatever intelligence he gathered couldn’t be put to use, and Britain would be left ignorant of the enemy’s movements on the Continent and in North Africa. He compiled a dossier, which included details about Nazi airbases across France, known Abwehr agents roaming Britain and Ireland, and Axis plans for taking Gibraltar. The information was to be transported by someone who could move freely, and who knew how to use her incandescence to cast shadows.

Shadows had long been a Baker specialty. In the 1934 film “Zouzou,” Baker, in the title role, discovers her immense, dancing shadow against the back wall of a stage. She is entranced, and then so are we, as the camera strays from the human in favor of a thrown silhouette that remains unmistakably Baker’s. What we’re watching “is neither pure illusion nor authentic embodiment,” the scholar Anne Anlin Cheng writes in a book-length study of Baker’s art. Cheng nicely describes Baker’s idiosyncratic method—enlisting shadows, gold lamé, animal hides, and her own golden skin—as “disappearance into appearance.”

Now, in November of 1940, Baker and Abtey made their way by train through Franco’s Spain, with Baker wrapped in furs and Abtey, as Lewis writes, “lurking in her shadow.” The cover story was that Baker was touring again, assisted by “Jacques Hébert,” her nondescript tour manager. Alongside costumes and makeup, her trunks held Paillole’s dossier, written in invisible ink among the notes on Baker’s sheet music. As Baker disembarked, nobody concerned himself with her luggage or with the man attending to it. Instead, Lewis recounts, French, Spanish, and German officials “crowded around Josephine, desperate to see, to feel, to touch; to bask in the radiance of that famous smile.” In Lisbon, as Baker drew attention—“I come to dance, to sing,” she told reporters—Abtey saw to it that the files passed from the British Embassy there into the hands of Wilfred Dunderdale, a spymaster in London’s Secret Intelligence Service. “Her stardom was her cloak,” Lewis writes.

In the summer of 1941, Baker and Abtey were in Morocco, having gained, Lewis says, another vital link to Britain, this time through a group of wily American diplomats. Then Baker fell ill. She was diagnosed with peritonitis and was essentially bedridden for more than a year. According to Lewis, her sickbed, in Casablanca’s Comte Clinic, became a rendezvous point, as contacts arrived as “visitors” to give their best to an ailing performer. “Josephine Baker’s celebrity was global, which meant that practically anyone might want to pay a visit,” Lewis tells us. It made for an ideal intelligence hub.

The toll her illness had taken was apparent, though. Baker grew “bone thin,” her nurse recalled, and had fits of weeping when she wasn’t putting on a show for visitors. One day, Maurice Chevalier, a quondam co-star of hers who happily performed in Occupied Paris, showed up at the Comte Clinic but was turned away. Afterward, Lewis recounts, he spun the story of Baker “dying in a small room of a Casablanca hospital.” As word spread, Baker received memorial tributes, including from her friend Langston Hughes. On December 6, 1942, a month after the Allied invasion of North Africa, the Times ran the headline “josephine baker is safe.”

After her recovery, Baker resumed performing for Allied troops, in a fund-raising and morale-boosting tour alongside the likes of Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. She and Abtey also assembled a final docket of intelligence for Free France. As she performed in Alexandria and Cairo and Damascus and Beirut, hobnobbing with the beau monde, the energy of the region was clear. Europeans were not the only ones seeking freedom.

Baker and Abtey’s romance scarcely outlasted the war. She later wrote that he was someone she could have settled down with. But, Lewis tells us, Abtey confided to a friend that “he could not countenance being ‘Monsieur Baker’; in other words, living in her shadow.” In 1947, Baker bought the Château des Milandes outright and married the French composer Jo Bouillon. Still, she and Abtey continued to support each other throughout the next decades, testifying to the heroism of each other’s exploits, with Abtey even returning to reside at Milandes. Did his stories about those exploits improve on life? It’s impossible not to wonder: deception, manipulation, and pretense were, in various ways, part of his and her professional repertoire. But French officials made their own assessment. In 1957, Baker was awarded the Légion d’Honneur for military service.

For her, there were battles still to be waged. She had promised the Black American G.I.s. she encountered on the African front that a war on segregation would follow the war on Fascism. Throughout the nineteen-fifties and sixties, Baker reasserted her racial egalitarianism, refusing to perform in segregated clubs, and shaming establishments that declined to serve Black patrons. Manhattan’s Stork Club was one such establishment, and, on a fateful night in 1951, Baker made a show of walking out of the place. (So did Grace Kelly, in solidarity.) The newspaper columnist Walter Winchell, who was present at the club, did nothing, and Baker reproached him for condoning discrimination. Winchell, a staunch supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy, responded in print, accusing Baker of harboring “Communist sympathies.” Her visa was revoked, returning her to France. The F.B.I., once the recipient of intelligence facilitated by Baker’s wartime activity for the Resistance, opened a dossier on her.

Baker sometimes described herself as a fugitive from injustice: “I ran away from home. I ran away from St. Louis. And then I ran away from the United States of America, because of that terror of discrimination, that horrible beast which paralyzes one’s very soul and body.” Yet she thrived on the tension between shadow and act. As a cabaret performer, she played to the colonial imagination even as she declared her own independence. Both artist and fetish, she was a chorine who evaded Jim Crow’s reach for the embrace of la négrophilie—then placed that fetishized body in the service of liberation. She was fifty-seven when she spoke at the 1963 March on Washington, one of two women (the other was Daisy Bates) who were permitted a speech that day. She came dressed in the stately, decorated uniform of the Free French Air Force.

“I am not a young woman now, friends,” she told the quarter-million people gathered on the Mall. “My life is behind me.” She pledged to use her ebbing flame to light a fire in them. But although her performance schedule had slowed to a crawl, and her finances had grown tight, she embarked on the creation of a new race, adopting a dozen children from various continents and countries. She called them the Rainbow Tribe, summoning them either to another dreamscape or to another form of resistance. In a Christmas card, she wrote of “twelve tiny tots who were blown together by a soft wind as a symbol of universal brotherhood.” (Unsurprisingly, Jean-Claude Baker describes a distinctly chaotic mode of child-rearing.) In 1975, she managed to perform at a Paris tribute revue, celebrating a half century in entertainment. When she died, a few days later, of a cerebral hemorrhage, she became the only woman from America whose funeral saw full French military honors.

What most beguiles us today is the sense that a proud revolutionary lurked beneath the winsome savage, the snowy smile. Spycraft wasn’t so much what Baker did as who she was. The most public of figures in her heyday, she pulled off the trick of vanishing into visibility, of disappearing into the limelight. She still does. Now as then, however, the silhouette remains.

Monday, August 01, 2022

On Being An Asshole, On Being A Woman



On Being An Asshole, On Being A Woman

 BY DEANNA KREISEL 3 Quarks Daily


A little while ago my friend Bethany requested that I write an essay on the following topic: “Can/should pedantry be reconstituted as a virtue, maybe particularly for women.” I filed it away on my list of possible future essay ideas, but like a previous topic suggested by this same crafty, devilish friend, it got stuck in my brainpan and has been rattling around in there ever since. I’ve decided to fish it out and look at it, if only to stop the infernal racket.

First of all, I have to confess that I already have a dog in this fight. I am definitely a pedant, and a pretty irritating one at that, so I have a vested interest in rehabilitating the practice of nattering on about arcane ephemera and correcting people’s grammar (unasked). It would be convenient for me if it suddenly became cool to know—and to trumpet one’s knowledge of—all the African capitals, say, or what an anusv?ra in Sanskrit is, or what economic and political pressures led to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.[1]

But then I started wondering: is it possible to be a pedant without being an asshole? I’m not sure I’m ready to sign up for the latter. The word “pedantic” is clearly pejorative; a pedant is defined as someone “who excessively reveres or parades academic learning or technical knowledge” (Oxford English Dictionary, a.k.a. The Pedant’s Bible). The word has been in use in English, essentially as an insult, since the late 16th century. When my friend asked me to consider reconstituting pedantry “as a virtue,” she clearly had this history in mind. Would it be possible to tease apart the erudition from the obnoxiousness implied in the word “pedantic”?

Or is it always in bad taste to display one’s knowledge and education? (Note that these perquisites do not require being rich or privileged—pedants, I think, are just as likely to be autodidacts as Oxbridge-educated snobs. Maybe more likely.) In other words, why is it such a bad thing to flaunt one’s learning? I can’t think of any analogous epithets for those who go around acting all athletic or beautiful. Sure, those people may also make us feel bad about ourselves, but we don’t blame them for just being themselves. Indeed, we often pay them lots of money to display their gifts before us while we eat popcorn and suck in our abs.

When we start looking (in true pedantic fashion) for literary role models,[2] we find only negative examples of pedantry. Middlemarch’s Mr. Casaubon, for example, is both the greatest literary pedant of all time and a complete asshole. Selfish and self-absorbed, manipulative and petulant, and focused only on his own grand intellectual project, he openly exploits his young wife Dorothea, forcing her to be his unpaid amanuensis with no regard for her separate personhood or sleep schedule. But elsewhere in the same novel we have several other pedantic characters, all of whom are arguably not assholes: first and foremost Doctor Lydgate, who is undertaking his own quixotic search for the “primitive tissue” that is the building block of all life; but less obviously Dorothea’s Uncle Brooke, a harmless prattling fool fond of “going into” a myriad of subjects; the mild-mannered Reverend Farebrother, obsessed with mollusks; and perhaps even the mansplainer Will Ladislaw, eager to push his way in the world, who (SPOILER ALERT) ends up marrying Dorothea after the death of Casaubon, and is thus the closest thing the novel has to a romantic hero.

Note that none of these characters is a woman. Mary Garth and her mother know a lot of stuff in a schoolmarmy kind of way, and Mrs. Cadwallader is an inveterate busybody, and even Dorothea herself has intellectual pretensions, but none of them gets to display actual erudition. Which is really freaking weird when you consider that the novel’s author, George Eliot, a.k.a. Mary Ann Evans and most definitely a woman, was arguably the most learned and erudite person in Great Britain in the nineteenth century. She was born into a middle-class-ish family (her father was the manager of an estate, which put him in a liminal position between the working classes and the gentry) and given a solidly respectable education at local girls’ schools, where she was clearly a total smarty-pants. Her formal education ended when she turned 16, however, and she was called home to care for her dying mother. For the next five years she acted as her father’s housekeeper, a position that at least gave her access to the huge library of Arbury Hall, where she could auto-didactify to her heart’s content. Her father also paid for music and language tutors for his teenage daughter, thereby giving her an education nearly unheard of for a young Victorian woman.

And she repaid that investment big-time. By the age of 26, she had published a translation of Strauss’s Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined), which caused a sensation by considering the life of Jesus from an historical perspective, scandalously arguing that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical. (Apparently the Earl of Shaftesbury at the time called her translation “the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell.”) By the age of 32 she had moved to London and was editing the left-wing journal The Westminster Review while hanging out with all the leading intellectual and literary lights of the period. After a series of aborted love affairs, she hooked up with theatrical-impresario-turned-marine-biologist[3] George Henry Lewes, who was trapped in a loveless marriage, and flouted all social conventions of the time by living with him for decades in a loving (and apparently pretty sexy) intellectual partnership. Along the way, she decided to start writing fiction, and promptly churned out several of the most influential and accomplished novels ever produced in the English language.

And yet, and yet. She could not imagine such a life for any of her heroines. Perhaps because her own intellectual journey was so utterly improbable, she figured it would strain credulity to depict anything like it in her fiction. Granted, her female protagonists all get to be smart, but none of them gets to have the glittering life of literary salons and worldwide recognition that she herself enjoyed. The heroine of her first novel, Adam Bede, is a Methodist preacher whose ministry ends when the church forbids women from preaching in 1803. Heroines of subsequent novels throw away their intellectual gifts on their husband’s stupid-ass editing projects (Middlemarch) and throw away their intellectual gifts in marriage to assholes (Romola, Daniel Deronda). Eliot’s only heroine who is anything at all like her—spunky, rebellious, smart AF, and a total little pedant[4]—is Maggie Tulliver of The Mill on the Floss. I cannot speak of her here, for my pen falters and my eyes are dimmed with tears. If you haven’t read that novel yet then for god’s sake do so immediately. What else are you doing with your life?

If Mary Ann Evans/George Eliot cannot depict for us a happy, attractive, emotionally and intellectually fulfilled female pedant, then who on earth can? It’s not like subsequent centuries are bristling with examples. Dorothy Sayers did bring us the sexycool Oxford-educated detective Harriet Vane in the 1930s, but she is one of pop culture’s very few examples of an attractive female pedant. While female sidekicks often get to be annoying know-it-alls (hello Velma), and they are instrumental to the resolution of many a plot or caper, their knowledge and intellectual accomplishments render them unfit for full heroinehood. Both Laura Holt and Veronica Mars had to hide behind male detective beards, and Buffy was bored by math. Meanwhile, Endeavour Morse, Gregory House, and even Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes are thoroughly pedantic assholes who still get plenty of tail.

At one point while researching this essay, I decided to look up the Google Ngram Viewer statistics for the terms “pedantic” and “pedantic woman,” just to see what the overall usage trends have been for the past couple centuries. (Looking up terms on the Google Ngram Viewer is second only to looking up terms in the OED on the grand scale of pedantic activities.) Here is what we find for the generic term “pedantic”:

I suppose the overall downward trend is not surprising, if you subscribe to the theory that as a culture we are getting dumber and more anti-intellectual. However, given that “pedantic” is a negative term, then we might also read this graph as evidence that we’re growing more tolerant of showy erudition since we are insulting one another for it less. Either that, or fewer and fewer people know what “pedantic” means.

Here is the graph for “pedantic woman”:




Now this is really all over the place, but the giant swoops become pretty meaningless when we notice the miniscule sample size in comparison with the word “pedantic.” Even though for centuries it was barely worth noticing pedantic women, when authors deigned to do so, they went in for the kill: “A pedantic woman is detestable; how much less to be borne with are such obsolete sentences of morals and stuff coming from the mouth of a Plebeian” (1800); “a pedantic woman is to me almost as disgusting as a silly woman” (1804); “a pedantic woman—the greatest curse upon earth” (1807); “I cannot endure either a masculine woman or a pedantic woman, and to possess these united qualities would render the most beautiful girl on earth odious in my eyes” (1859); “ a pedantic woman is a discord” (1926); etc. etc. etc.

But the real point of my including these usage trends is to share what I unearthed along the way. First of all, the completion prompts that Google produced when I typed “pedantic w—” into the search bar. Apparently the mere idea of a pedantic woman is, once again, simply beyond the purview of the average Google user:



And secondly, most hilariously and confusingly, the results of a Google image search for “pedantic woman”:



I had been hoping to unearth a funky old woodcut of an 18th-century scold I could use as the main illustration for this essay, and instead…. I don’t even know what to do with these. If anyone has a theory, I would love to hear it.

I can’t remember how old I was when I figured out that my own pedantry rendered me unlovable, but it was probably (sigh) right around puberty. Up until the age of 13 or so, I was relatively untroubled by my utter lack of coolness (and up until I was around 9 or 10, by my utter lack of friends). By the age of three I had taught myself to read[5] and at age four was packed off to kindergarten, where I was systematically tortured by my classmates. Granted, I was an unpleasant brat a lot of the time. I scoffed at people (including adults) who didn’t know the meaning of a word I used, expressed incredulity at classmates who couldn’t read something I could, and crammed my everyday speech with SAT-level words (often mispronounced). My earliest memories of grade school are of standing at the bus stop with the hood of my parka bundled around my face in an attempt to drown out the sound of my classmates barking at me. The ringleaders, R.K. and R.Z.,[6]would also hurl what they thought were insults at my muffled head until the bus arrived. (“Brainiac!” “Nerd!” “Bookworm!” “Teacher’s pet!” Were these epithets supposed to hurt my feelings?)

My mother’s photographic evidence that I “looked down on her” as a young child

One of the kindest things my father ever did was to sit me down one day and tell me that I should never, ever act dumb in order to make friends. I think this was ultimately good advice, although it did delay my social development by a solid decade or so. Unfortunately, his intervention was undermined by the messages I received from my mother, who was deeply insecure about her own failure to finish college and liked to tell me that I had looked down on her from the moment I was born. In order to stave off the blistering insults and barbs from my (by the way, extremely intelligent) mom, I learned pretty quickly to dumb things down around her. It was a confusing mish-mash of conflicting signals, which I think makes me a pretty typical woman.

So let’s do it. Enough of the mish-mash! Let’s try to rehabilitate pedantry for female-identified people. Let’s not just tolerate it; let’s actually try to find it admirable, inspiring, and even attractive. Let’s celebrate women who are kind of assholes the way we do men who are really assholes. Let’s imagine a world in which Maggie Tulliver gets to edit an influential literary journal. Let’s make Maggiesplaining a thing! Let’s make “I have a plan for that” not just a political rallying cry but also a manifesto for female busybody know-it-alls the world over. Fellow female pedants, unite! You have nothing to lose but your eyeglass chains.

Vive la différance! Vivent les connardes!