OVO

Marx’s terrible picture of the economy of his time is only too true. But his law that misery must increase together with accumulation does not hold. Means of production have accumulated and the productivity of labour has increased since his day to an extent which even he would hardly have thought possible. But child labour, working hours, the agony of toil, and the precariousness of the worker’s existence, have not increased; they have declined. I do not say that this process must continue. There is no law of progress, and everything will depend on ourselves. But the actual situation is briefly and fairly summed up by Parkes in one sentence: “Low wages, long hours, and child labour have been characteristic of capitalism not, as Marx predicted, in its old age, but in its infancy.”

Unrestrained capitalism is gone. Since the day of democratic interventionism has made immense advances, and the improved productivity of labour – a consequence of the accumulation of capital – has made it possible virtually to stamp out misery. This shows that much has been achieved, in spite of undoubtedly grave mistakes, and it should encourage us to believe that more can be done. For much remains to be done and to be undone. Democratic interventionism can only make it possible. It rests with us to do it. [...]

Thanks to Marx’s prophecy, the Communists knew for certain that misery must soon increase. They also knew that the party could not win the confidence of the workers without fighting for them, and with them, for an improvement of their lot. These two fundamental assumptions clearly determined the principles of their general tactics. Make the workers demand their share, back them up in every particular episode in their unceasing fight for bread and shelter. Fight with them tenaciously for the fulfilment of their practical demands, whether economic or political. Thus you will win their confidence. At the same time, the workers will learn that it is impossible for them to better their lot by these petty fights, and that nothing short of a wholesale revolution can bring about an improvement. For all these petty fights are bound to be unsuccessful; we know from Marx that the capitalists simply cannot continue to compromise and that, ultimately, misery must increase. Accordingly, the only result – but a valuable one – of the workers’ daily fight against their oppressors is an increase in their class consciousness; it Is that feeling of unity which can be won only in battle, together with a desperate knowledge that only revolution can help them in their misery. When this stage is reached, then the hour has struck for the final show-down.

This is the theory and the Communists acted accordingly. At first they support the workers in their fight to improve their lot. But, contrary to all expectations and prophecies, the fight is successful. The demands are granted. Obviously, the reason is that they had been too modest. Therefore one must demand more. But the demands are granted again. And as misery decreases, the workers become less embittered, more ready to bargain for wages than to plot for revolution.

Now the Communists find that their policy must be reversed. Something must be done to bring the law of increasing misery into operation. For instance, colonial unrest must be stirred up (even where there is no chance of a successful revolution), and with the general purpose of counteracting, the bourgeoisificalion of the workers, a policy fomenting catastrophes of all sorts must be adopted. But this new policy destroys the confidence of the workers. The Communists lose their members, with the exception of those who are inexperienced in real political fights. They lose exactly those whom they describe as the “vanguard of the working class;” their tacitly implied principle: “The worse things are, the better they are, since misery must precipitate revolution,” makes the workers suspicious – the better the application of this principle, the worse are the suspicions entertained by the workers. For they are realists; to obtain their confidence, one must work to improve their lot.

Thus the policy must be reversed again: one is forced to fight for the immediate betterment of the workers’ lot and to hope at the same time for the opposite.

With this, the “inner contradictions” of the theory produce the last stage of confusion. It is the stage when it is hard to know who is the traitor, since treachery may be faithfulness and faithfulness treachery. It is the stage when those who followed the party not simply because it appeared to them (rightly, I am afraid) as the only vigorous movement with humanitarian ends, but especially because it was a movement based on a scientific theory, must either leave it, or sacrifice their intellectual integrity; for they must now learn to believe blindly in some authority. Ultimately, they must become mystics – hostile to reasonable argument.

It seems that it is not only capitalism which is labouring under inner contradictions that threaten to bring about its downfall…

From The Open Society and its Enemies Volume 2. Princeton University Press 1966

Sondra London is a publisher and author.  Her publication history has included original fiction, non-fiction and art by convicted serial killers.  A solicitation letter for OVO 10 MAYHEM received this reply. In this letter, Ms. London makes reference to having dated Gerard John Schaefer in high school. Schaefer went on to become a serial killer, and Ms. London published his book Beyond Killer Fiction. My first book credit was writing the back cover blurb for Beyond Killer Fiction.  Ms. London was also instrumental in my publication of The Dreadlock Recollections by Kerry Wendell Thornley.

“I’d like to know what you mean about supporting serial murder and glorifying crime.  I’m sorry if it appears that the work I publish implies in any way that I condone violence, and if so I must take steps to correct that impression.  If you only knew what pitiful lives these killers live, you’d realize there’s nothing attractive about it, nothing that deserves to be emulated.  The essence of my quest is to make sense out of a tragedy that fate has made a part of my life.  I need to study the whole broad topic of violence and it’s roots in order to bring this research to bear on the man whose tears of rage, frustration and fear have wet my face.  I’m learning to see the world through the tears of a serial killer, and I’m hoping that the original material I have obtained will be used as a significant part of the quest to understand this very dangerous pathology.

“As to your question about why I’m doing what I am, I will close with a reference I hope you will understand.

‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’  Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, and when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say unto you, as you did unto one of the least of these my bretheren, so you did it unto me.’  Matthew 25:34-40

“Regards,

“Sondra London”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondra_London
http://www.sondralondon.com/

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

Ginger Hutton was a friend of mine who worked in a used bookstore in Knoxville, Tennessee USA.

OVO: Who buys true crime books?

GH: Everybody, it’s the fastest growing section in the store. A lot of times people will come up with a handful of Harlequin and historical romances and true crime. There are a lot of 40-year-old women who are overweight unhappy-looking housewives who are reading historical romances and true crime, and obviously getting a kick out of both because they keep coming back. It’s mixed as far as male and female but I think women buy more. All ages although again it’s older people mostly.

OVO: Are there people who just get true crime or do most people get the romances as well?

GH: There are people who just get true crime. Most of them are very normal and conservative looking, they don’t look like the kind of people who are taking a book home to study from it. But I have had people come up to the desk and recommend stuff for me. “Oh, if you read that kind of stuff this one’s really good, he does it with an axe.” l’m not sure that they’re distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. I’m not sure that its real to them. It’s entertainment. And that’s what’s happening with ell these TV shows, America’s Most Wanted, Emergency 911, you watch them go out and rescue people who got hit by cars. Suddenly sick voyeurism is socially acceptable. I’m not sure why that is. Part of it may be that the world is starting to fall apart in more obvious ways. Crime rates are up all over the place, the environment has become so bad that it can’t be ignored, and I think what used to be horrifying to people when compared to all the other problems in their life is not at all horrible. It diverts them. If they can read about a serial killer in Seattle they don’t have to think about the drug dealers in their neighborhood. I think American culture is sick and has been getting sicker for a long time, and is finally reaching a point where it’s not concealed any more. When I started reading true crime it was something you snuck out of the store, like sex books. Now it’s everywhere, there’s no stigma attached. Which you could say is good because its more open but its also an indication of a dangerous trend in American culture.

OVO: When did you start reading true crime books?

GH: I started reading them when I was about 14, reading Reader’s Digest which always condensed the best crimes. I read about Bundy right after he was arrested. It was very scary and very compelling and something you didn’t talk about and something your parents didn’t let you watch on TV. I have always been fascinated with death, and violent death is more interesting than other kinds. That’s why I was attracted to it.

OVO: Why do most people read it?

GH: Most people are afraid of dying and afraid of crime. That’s the big issue now. The government is really pushing that, as if crime is the worst thing we have to worry about, which it’s not. People are afraid and this is a way of confronting their fears or overloading themselves. If you read about something long enough its not shocking or frightening any more. Maybe its a way of desensitizing themselves.

OVO: Do most of the people who buy these books progress to the books with more graphic descriptions and violent deaths?

GH: l don’t know. They tend to buy them buy the bunch, six or eight at a time. People are demanding more graphic true crime books because if you look at the latest ones coming out (I get to see them all at work) the photos are getting more and more graphic. The ones that came out ten years ago had no pictures at all, or if they did they had pictures of the victim and the killer before they were victims and killers. Whereas now you get morgue shots of somebody’s face blown away. People won’t buy them if they have no pictures in them, they’re disappointed. l’m assuming that this trend in publishing is somehow related to demand.

OVO: Have you progressed in your reading, starting with Reader’s Digest, which is rather sanitized, and now you seek out things that are more extreme?

GH: Yes, but I don‘t do it to shook myself. What l do is find something that interests me, a particular serial killer or a particular method, and read everything I can get on that subject. And I prefer that it be more graphic because then you actually know what happened. I don’t like the sanitized version because in the back of my mind it’s still a confrontation with mortality and you have to look it full in the face to get anything out of it. If you’re going to start digging around to find reality then you have to look at the whole thing, and it’s not pleasant, but the less pleasant it gets, at least with crime, the more real and true it is. That’s why I do it, that may be true with other people. Seeing the people who buy it I don’t think it is.

OVO: Does true crime media contribute to a sense of jadedness and to crime?

GH: To jadedness, yes. I doubt that it contributes to crime but it makes crime so common that there’s no horror to crime any more, it’s entertainment. Its creating some disturbing attitudes. Reading about crime and being fascinated by crime is one thing but thinking of crime and murder as entertainment is something entirely different. Most serial killers don’t think of murder as entertaining and it’s disturbing that that’s how its being billed in America, and that’s how people tend to look at it. Its just a TV show with a bad guy and a nice dead person.

OVO: Why do you think it is that most of the people who get these books are women when most of the people described as victims in these books are women?

GH: If you look at it as confrontation with your own mortality then reading about your own sex being killed would be that much more disturbing and that much more of a confrontation. I think part of it is that they like to read about people who kill women, then get caught, then get killed. I think its a way of extending hatred. The way most true crime books are written you can direct all your hatred at this one bad man and you can believe that everything is caused by bad men. In a way you aren’t responsible, and no one else is responsible. They hardly ever dwell on the circumstances that led this bad man to be bad. It’s an outlet that women don’t have. Women don’t generally go out and beat each other up. They don’t have as much of an organized focus for hatred.

OVO: What are things going to be like in ten years?

GH: We can’t even begin to imagine the number of serial killers we’re going to have. It’s been doubling or more every year for years. Ten years ago l think there were six. Last year there were thirty-five known serial killers. These are the ones that we know about. There are people disappearing who are certainly being killed. It’s going to continue to go up because child abuse is on the rise. Our culture has accepted violence as entertainment. Now kids who were going to have problems anyway can sit around every single night and watch people kill each other on TV. In spite of the moralistic tone, TV is like hypnotism, you sit and absorb, and if you’re hearing about this guy who sliced up ten women and this guy who’s wanted for killing his wife and two kids it gets in your mind and becomes acceptable because its just a TV show. I think that will contribute to a lot of murders. I think everybody ought to be doing more reading and preparing themselves.

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

The cypher the Zodiac killer mailed in three parts to three San Fransisco area newspapers was solved within a month of being printed in August 1969. This is not an explanation of how the cypher was solved (that information can be found in Zodiac by Robert Graysmith) but instead how to use it.  This is the only time the means to use the Zodiac cypher has been published. I backwards-engineered the code from the description in Graysmith’s book. Since the letters J, Q and Z were not used in the initial Zodiac cypher, there is no symbol for them in this explanation.

1. Write the source message to be encyphered, using poor spelling occasionally.
2. Replace the letters of the source message with cypher symbols in an ordered rotation. For example, go through the source message until you find the first letter A. Replace the letter A with the first symbol for A. The second time the letter A appears, use the second symbol for A. After you have used all four symbols for the letter A, use the first symbol again. Proceed to the letters B, C, etc.
3. Very neatly copy the encrypted message into seventeen-character lines, omitting all punctuation and spaces. Add letters at the end or at random within the encrypted message to insure each line has seventeen characters. Divide into equal parts as desired.

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

As the pillars of Western culture collapse (replaced by institutionalized alienation) schizophrenia and violence cease to be deviations and instead become survival characteristics. The apocalypse culture has bred a new form of death, the multiple (serial or mass) murderer. Death sports, murder clubs and snuff art may have existed only in fiction or as isolated instances in the past, but accelerated decline in social order coupled with spectacular un-living creates new possibilities for such to flourish and federate. The multiple murderer is an agent from an increasingly inevitable future.

Heralding the multiple murderer is a support system of mayhem fetishists and media. This is not an exposure of deviants but a warning about what is to become as “normal” as any slasher movie, comic book or pornography.

Anyone seeking to understand the roots and effects of modern alienation would do well to study multiple murderers. There is a wealth of information about multiple murder in the mainstream and alternative press that has not been assimilated into an anti-authoritarian critique. This issue is offered as a summation of research into multiple murder from a variety of perspectives, as a contribution to the struggle against the apocalypse culture.

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

Stuart Swezey is co-editor with Brian King of the AMOK Fourth Dispatch, an essential guide to extremes in print. This interview was most kindly granted on the 23 May 1991, after many hours of miscalculation of time-zone differences between Knoxville and Los Angeles. I offer much thanks to Stuart for his patience and interest.

OVO: The next issue of OVO is not about multiple murderers but about people who follow them, either as sociological studies or evil heroes or somewhere in between, especially in print, like the MAYHEM section of the AMOK catalog. ls there an an average type of person who buys the books in that section?

SS: I don’t know. It could be everybody from people who are into it on an industrial music level to people who are Marines. We get so many different types of people its hard to say what the average is. This stuff is getting more and more popular. Every week there is a new TV movie about a murderer. Last Gasp carries true crime stuff and they never used to. So I guess it’s getting trendier than it used to be.

OVO: What about at the store, are a variety of people buying it there?

SS: We had a woman who worked for the coroners office come in when we had the John-Wayne Gacy paintings up. She thought that was pretty neat. I can’t really classify it at all. You should really talk to Brian, because he’s much more into this stuff than me. He’s working on a compilation of work by murderers writing and artwork that we‘re going to be putting out in a year or so.

OVO: Are there more mayhem books coming out now than ten year ago?

SS: There are definitely more of them. We’re not interested in many of them. A lot of them are in the genre of inter-family murders or the mob. Compilations from True Detective magazine and magazines like that. Definitely not good writing or good journalism. A lot of good stuff is coming back into print like the book on Albert Fish called Cannibal. It seems they’re reprinting more of the classic stuff.

OVO: Is this increasing in the small press as well?

SS: Maybe very peripherally. We carry a book called They Called Him Mister Gacy, which we think is put out by his attorney in Illinois, which is basically a photostat compilation of letters to Gacy. There was the Mansonfile book that Amok Press put out. There’s not a lot. I don’t see a lot of small press stuff put out along those lines. But something like Silence of the Lambs has become big business.

OVO: I was thinking of something more like PURE, something tiny and photocopied.

SS: On a Factsheet Five level.

OVO: Right.

SS: We don’t see a lot of that.

OVO: I just put out a few feelers out for that and it’s not stopping. There’s more of it out there than I ever wanted to know about.

SS: So what do you think of this stuff?

OVO: I think its indicative of what Colin Wilson was talking about when he said we’re entering the age of the psychopath. These people feel alienated and more aware than the people around them but they’re making a mistake when they think that these serial killers are “getting things done” and “manifesting their will.” l think they’re confusing random outbursts with a cognitive critique. Things that show up in the small press tend to come out in mainstream later, and I’ve seen so much of this in the small press – and in the mainstream media – that it indicates to me that it’s going to get even more common and acceptable.

SS: I never know but sometimes I feel like this serial killer stuff is going to be almost passé as a cultural thing, a rebellious stance. You better back it up by either killing somebody or cotton to the fact that it’s as trendy as anything else within a year or two. After Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer that’s not going to happen to every movie that comes down the line that deals with this subject mater. They’re not always going to praise what I think was a glorified student film as brilliant. The room for that is going to be gone. That won’t really effect the murderers. We’re really interested in the interplay between culture and the criminals. How Ed Gein could have inspired the Psycho book, which leads to a great film like Psycho, and how these murders do in certain ways have repercussions that are felt by everyone.

OVO: The success of Psycho led to the film Dementia 13, which was blamed for some murders.

SS: There’s a lot of that happening, but what about Catcher in the Rye inspiring Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon? Who hasn’t read Catcher in the Rye?

OVO: What do you think the effects are of the increased accessibility of true crime books and other books formerly considered too graphic and horrendous to be read as entertainment?

SS: I think its pretty reasonable. I don’t think its necessarily unhealthy. People are fascinated with violence and to a certain extent the books are slanted in a way that something like PURE isn’t, in that they’re very moralistic. Cops are glorified, cops solve the crime, there are a lot of things the writers do to distance themselves and the reader from the murderer. People like the reassurance of that, that they didn’t do it. It gives them this titillation and a raw experience even if it is once removed. Kind of an “I can take it” thing. I think its weird that it’s cropping up at the same time as we‘re blowing up whole populations like in Iraq and you don’t even see it. I think that that’s a strange state of affairs that people are going out of their way to find this graphic violence and yet we’re not allowed to see as a national policy the kind of havoc that we wreak.

OVO: Do you think there are any trends that can be used to spot what kinds of books and magazines are going to come out in the future on this topic?

SS: Obviously there are some murderers that haven’t been completely covered. It took so long for a book to come out on Richard Ramírez. I think the idea of looking at the actual artwork and writing of these murderers as we’ll be publishing in Lustmord, that’s what a lot of these supposed experts have that you and I as individuals don’t have access to. It’s going to be an interesting twist to give people these actual crazed writings, to look at them as art brut, I think a lot of people will respond to looking through an alien mind in terms of their writing. Sometimes it’s insightful and sometimes it isn‘t but that‘s all you have to go on because no matter how many of these fanzines come along or how much violent fiction is sold the average person can’t even begin to understand the psychopath. This is just an attempt to try on people’s part, whether they do it in a sarcastic way or idealistic way or moralistic cop-loving way, it still shows the vast chasm between someone who can perform these kinds of things and someone who can’t.

OVO: Somebody who can buy a magazine about it.

SS: Right, and that’s all they’re doing. Violence is at the root of so much literature… Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, some violent act usually occurs. Somebody gets murdered in most of our supposedly great works, so there’s got to be something in this catharsis that we need as a culture. I find true crime is more informative than fiction but that doesn’t mean you have to identify with these people. It’s more tragic. If people enjoy that its not necessarily bad at all. It is mind boggling the extremes a human being can go to.

OVO: And survive.

SS: And justify to themselves in some bizarre manner.

I’ve been compiling photos from forensic journals for the AMOK Journal that I’m working on. I want to use them in the form that they’re found. I stayed away from murders to cover other terrains of really graphic bizarre shit like auto-erotic fatalities and things about amputation and self-mutilation, things people do to themselves. I find that is more disturbing for people to look at and talk about than murder for some reason. l’m very intrigued with what Ballard called the hidden literature of medical and psychiatric journals. There are great stories in there that will never see the light of day in an actual book. That’s why you get to the point of collecting medical books. We used to sell a lot of copies of The Color Atlas of Forensic Pathology, considering it’s a $70 book. Some do want to see more and more and more but I don’t know that the average true crime reader does. We just got a promo from a publisher about a murderer who was picking up Marines in Orange County and murdering them. In the book they used actual police forensic photos and I don’t remember seeing that in a regular true crime book before. You can’t get much more graphic than that. I don’t even begin to project where things are going. I just see things peek at some point, then people are saturated and they look for something else. A lot of people who are heavily committed to this will back off and say they weren’t really into it.

AMOK Books
1764 N. Vermont Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
United States

Fax: 323-550-8833

http://www.amokbooks.com/

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

It must be admitted that the structure of our social environment is man-made in a certain sense; that its institutions and traditions are neither the work of God nor of nature, but the results of human actions and decisions, and alterable by human actions and decisions. But this does not mean that they are all consciously designed, and explicable in terms of needs, hopes or motives. On the contrary, even those which arise as the result of conscious and intentional human actions are, as a rule, the indirect, the unintentional and often the unwanted byproducts of such actions. Only a minority of social institutions are consciously designed, while the vast majority have just “grown,” as the undesigned result of human actions, as I have said before; and we can add that even most of the few institutions which were consciously and successfully designed (say, a newly founded University, or a Trade Union) do not turn out according to plan – again because of the unintended social repercussions resulting from their intentional creation. For their creation affects not only many other social institutions but also ‘human nature’ – hopes, fears, and ambitions, first of those more immediately involved, and later often of all members of the society. One of the consequences of this is that the moral values of a society – the demands and proposals recognized by all, or by very nearly all, of its members – are closely bound up with its institutions and traditions, and that they cannot survive the destruction of the institutions and traditions of a society. [...]

In order to make my point clear, I shall briefly describe a theory which is widely held but which assumes what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the “conspiracy theory of society.” It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about.

This view of the aims of the social sciences arises, of course, from the mistaken theory that, whatever happens in society – especially happenings such as war, unemployment, poverty, shortages, which people as a rule dislike – is the result of direct design by some powerful individuals and groups. This theory is widely held; it is older even than historicism (which, as shown by its primitive theistic form, is a derivative of the conspiracy theory). In its modern forms it is, like modern historicism, and a certain modern attitude towards ‘natural laws,’ a typical result of the secularization of a religious superstition. The belief in the Homeric gods whose conspiracies explain the history of the Trojan War is gone. The gods are abandoned. But their place is filled by powerful men or groups – sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from – such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists.

I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena. They become important, for example, whenever people who believe in the conspiracy theory get into power. And people who sincerely believe that they know how to make heaven on earth are most likely to adopt the conspiracy theory, and to get involved in a counter-conspiracy against non-existing conspirators. For the only explanation of their failure to produce their heaven is the evil intention of the Devil, who has a vested interest in hell.

Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.

Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups: it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions, and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.

To try to analyse these reactions and to foresee them as far as possible is, I believe, the main task of the social sciences. It is the task of analysing the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions-those repercussions whose significance is neglected both by the conspiracy theory and by psychologism, as already indicated. An action which proceeds precisely according to intention does not create a problem for social science (except that there may be a need to explain why in this particular case no unintended repercussions occurred). One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results.

From The Open Society and its Enemies Volume 2. Princeton University Press 1966

The Invisible Community College is a study group dedicated to Grant Morrison’s The Invisibles moderated by Popjellyfish, Trevor Blake and Klint Finley. Weekly reading assignments will be sent to a mailing list for one year beginning January 23, 2011. If you would like to participate, you must sign-up for the mailing list before then.

There will be monthly public, in-person discussions in Portland, OR based on the reading. Those in other cities are encouraged to organize their own study cells.

Curriculum:
‘The Invisibles’ by Grant Morrison.
‘Our Sentence is Up’ by Patrick Meane
‘Anarchy For The Masses’ by Patrick Neighly
‘Grant Morrison’ by Patrick Meaney

The Invisibles
Available as individual issues, in digital form for the iPad, collected trade paperbacks and in an incomplete form in German-language trade paperbacks. Individual issues out of print, include letters to and from GM not collected in trade paperbacks. Trade paperbacks in print, include art not found in individual issues.

Individual monthly issues published by DC Comics 1994 – 2000:
Volume 1 Issues 1-25: September 1994 – October 1996
Volume 2 Issues 1-22: February 1997 – February 1999
Volume 3 Issues 12-1: April 1999 – June 2000

Individual Digital Issues
Available through DC Comics app for the iPad

Trade Paperbacks (English):
1. Say You Want a Revolution. (ISBN 1-5638-9267-7)
2. Apocalipstick. (ISBN 1-5638-9702-4)
3. Entropy in the UK. (ISBN 1-5638-9728-8)
4. Bloody Hell in America. (ISBN 1-5638-9444-0)
5. Counting to None. (ISBN 1-56389-489-0)
6. Kissing Mister Quimper. (ISBN 1-5638-9600-1)
7. The Invisible Kingdom. (ISBN 1-4012-0019-2)

Trade Paperbacks (German, incomplete):
Invisibles Monstereditionen 1: Revolution Gefallig?
Invisibles Monstereditionen 2: Ordnung & Entropie

Reference:
Patrick Meaney: Our Sentence is Up / Seeing Grant Morrison’s The
Invisibles. Book. (ISBN 978-0578032337)
Patrick Neighly and Kereth Cowe-Spigai: Anarchy For The Masses / The
Disinformation Guide To The Invisibles. Book. (ISBN 0-971-39422-9)
Patrick Meaney (director): Grant Morrison / Talking with Gods. DVD.

Enrollment information here.

My Struggle is a book of 280 pages measuring 5.25 x 4.5 inches, written in 1975 and printed in a single edition of one hundred copies in 1978. These small thick books have red covers to make them look the same as Chairman Mao’s Book of Quotations. Some red cover copies had red ribbon page markers, and some had yellow covers and no ribbon. The pages of the book book are bound by two large staples and the cover is glued to the spine and inner edges of the first and last pages.

Almost every page of My Struggle has an illustration with a numbered caption, usually having nothing to do with the surrounding text. Most of these illustrations are clip art but some are collages or drawings by Mothersbaugh. There are also a few photographs of DEVO. The text of the book is a continuous flow of words, occasionally knotting itself into an essay but usually stream of conscious rambling. The text is presented without hyphens and in full justification. It reads as the work of someone who doesn’t understand what the bell on a typewriter is for.

My Struggle has the same concerns as the lyrics, music and films of DEVO: mutation, medicine, eugenics, potatoes, de-evolution, tyranny, corporate culture and sex. The chicken-winged chimponaut seen on the dust jacket to Duty Now for the Future and in the film Love Without Anger appears here, as does the beaker / man / atom logo. The warty-faced man described in the film The Men Who Make The Music as the work of “God in his Picasso period” is in My Struggle. Boojie Boy appears throughout the book, as does Chinaman. Chinaman is seen stroking a coathanger in the film Secret Agent Man, is described as giving the papers to Boojie Boy in the film Jocko Homo, and is mentioned in the song All of Us. The Chinaman’s glasses, minus their ‘velly clevah’ slanted eyes, are the glasses Mothersbaugh is wearing on the cover of Oh No It’s Devo. These words, images and concepts show a continuity of work by Mothersbaugh that lasts decades.

Some of what appears in My Struggle didn’t appear in any other form for many years. On pages 108 and 109 are the lyrics of the song All of Us, a song which was distributed only in bootleg form for decades. In 1977 the song was performed in Minneapolis as Soft Core Mutations, and in 1981 the song was renamed Going Under for the LP New Traditionalists. Only in 1990, on the CD Hardcore DEVO Volume 1, was the original All of Us released. fifteen years after appearing in My Struggle.

My Struggle gives much attention is given to the Huboon, a type of low-grade Beautiful Mutant. Hardcore Devo Volume 1 mentions the Huboon in the song Soo Bawls. The song Huboon Stomp was performed in the first few years of DEVO but was not released until the 1998 CD Chef Aid. The lyrics to The Last Time I Ever Seen St. Louie and My Frauline Done Told Me (the first song performed at the first DEVO concert) are found in My Struggle but have yet to be released. My Struggle is written in a sing-song style and many more lyrics may yet be harvested from it.

My Struggle was published in a format that was made to last, and proves an unbroken line from the earliest DEVO to the DEVO of today. This book is nearly impossible to find. I’m fortunate to have a copy signed by Mark Mothersbaugh, Bob Mothersbaugh, Jim Mothersbaugh, Gerry Casale and Bob Casale (the original line up and the band as represented in the book), General Boy and (separately) a signature from Chuck Statler, the primary director of DEVO’s earliest video work.

from OVO 8 (May 1991)
re-written December 2010

Today (25 November) was a special day in the life of Yukio Mishima.  And it happens that today is also the US holiday of Thanksgiving.

No higher honour could have come to me than to have been permitted to partake of his stewed chicken.  Every morning, with profound gratitude in my heart, I ate the gizzard and the tough parts of the liver.  He ate only the soft parts, and I ate the rest. – Mishima, Five Modern Noh Plays

May you have gratitude in your heart as you eat the gizzard and the tough parts of the liver.

OVO triumphus for Yukio Mishima for 2009.
OVO triumphus for Yukio Mishima for 2008.

I was a used and rare bookseller in much of the 1990s. Selling books was a life-long goal and I am glad I was able do it. In January 1995 I had the chance to catalog a wonderful collection that disappeared soon after. This is that weird tale.

When I arrived at work that morning my boss said he had a project for me. Someone had brought in a major collection of works by and about Clark Ashton Smith, and I was to catalog what they were for sale. I spent several days doing nothing but that, each item more exciting than the last.

The day after I finished my catalog my boss said that the police had come asking about the collection. The seller, it seems, had stolen them from the rightful owner. The books disappeared back into the collection from whence they came. I have no record or memory of who the rightful owner was, I have no way to get in touch with him, and anyone who asks me to do so will be charged a five hundred dollar consultation fee.

What I do have is the catalog I prepared. This catalog has never been published, and I’m guessing that some of the items listed here have also never been published. Here is the catalog, errors and all, one of the many weird tales of my days as a bookseller.

- – -

I – ART

LOVECRAFT/GARCIA by MIKE GARCIA – OUT OF PRINT
Ken Krueger North Hollywood 1975, 1st thus 4to wraps np, fine condition. HPL-inspired artwork from The Library Lovecraftian, reissued & enlarged in an edition limited to 995 copies.

HALLOWEEN IN ARKHAM by HARRY O. MORRIS – SIGNED COLOR PRINTS
Portfolio of fifteen 11″ x 8.5″ color prints in glossy folder with numbered matching envelope. Small stain to cover, smudges to envelope. There is an ocean of bad collage; these are not among them. Good use of color and perspective, very high quality prints.

MAGIC LANTERN by CHRISTINE PASANEN & HARRY MORRIS – OUT OF PRINT
Esoteric Order of Dagon APA Albuquerque 1981, 1st edition 8vo oblong wraps np, fine condition. Story by Pasanen, collages by Morris, color cover, very dreamy.

ORIGINAL DRAWINGS BY CLARK ASHTON SMITH
Eleven original drawings by Clark Ashton Smith, generally 4″ x 3″, individually mounted. Profiles of human heads, some Arabesque, some portraits, some grotesques, all signed. ‘A Slave,’ ‘The Gorgio,’ ‘A Gentleman of the Renaissance,’ ‘Leopardi,’ ‘Parisians,’ ‘Alastor’ and five untitled drawings.

THE FANTASTIC ART OF CLARK ASHTON SMITH by DENNIS RICKARD – OUT OF PRINT
Mirage Press Baltimore 1973, 1st edition 4to wraps @ 48 pp, fine condition. Published in a single edition of approximately 15,000 copies, this book concentrates on the weird sculpture of C.A.S.: tiny stone fetishes with names like ‘Tsathoggua’ and ‘Mysteriarch.’ Accomplished, wish I had one. Introduced by Gahan Wilson.

GROTESQUES AND FANTASTIQUES by CLARK ASHTON SMITH – OUT OF PRINT
Gerry de la Ree, Saddle River 1973. 1st edition, 8vo wraps 40 pp, very good condition. Previously unpublished drawings and poems by C.A.S. from the personal collection of Gerry de la Ree. Printed in a first edition of 600 copies, of which this is #241.

CLARK ASHTON SMITH – ARTIST by GERRY DE LA REE – OUT OF PRINT
Hyperborian League, nd. 4to wraps 12 pp, very good condition. An appreciation of Smith as an artist, commercial and not-so-commercial. Illustrated.

CLARK ASHTON SMITH DUST JACKETS
Dust jackets for Lost Worlds, The Abomination of Yondo, Genius Loci and Out of Space and Time from UK publisher Neville Spearman. Folded once along spine, light wear else very good.

II – MAGAZINES

THE ARKHAM COLLECTOR – COMPLETE RUN AND DUPLICATES
Announcements of present and coming publications, bibliographical notes, art, poetry, letters, photographs, reproduced manuscripts, recommended reading, etc. Each 16mo issue contains a great deal of uncollected Arkham lore. Duplicate copies of Numbers Seven through Ten.

Number One – Summer 1967 – 24 pp – some underlining.
Number Two – Winter 1968 – 52 pp – some underlining.
Number Three – Summer 1968 – 88 pp.
Number Four – Winter 1969 – 124 pp – light smudging.
Number Five – Summer 1969 – 156 pp – light smudging.
Number Six – Winter 1970 – 180 pp – light smudging.
Number Seven – Summer 1970 – 220 pp – light smudging.
Number Eight – Winter 1971 – 256 pp.
Number Nine – Spring 1971 – 300 pp – light smudging.
Number Ten – Summer 1971 – 348 pp – light smudging.

FROM BEYOND THE DARK GATEWAY ISSUE FOUR
Silver Scarab Albuquerque 1977, 4to wraps 36 pp. HLP-ish fanzine with contributions and reprints from Campbell, Bloch, Morris and others.

INSIDE ISSUE TWO
Jonathan White New York 1963, 16mo wraps 54 pp.
Science fiction magazine including Maya by Clark Ashton Smith.

NYCTALOPS
Edited & with art by Harry Morris, high quality printing and lots of color art. All issues 4to size. Cockcroft, Garcia, Lumley, Morris, Sidney-Fryer, Wilgus – und Lovecraft, Lovecraft, uber alles. Scholarly, not just cheerleading. Watch the gothic aesthetic being born in these nine issues.

#9 – 1974 49 pp – errata page, rear page detached.
#11/12 – 1976 122 pp – good condition.
#13 – 1977 45 pp – very good condition.
#14 – 1978 52 pp – very good condition.
#16 – 1981 52 pp – very good condition.
#17 – 1982 63 pp – fine condition, duplicate, promotional card.
#18 – 1983 68 pp – fine condition, duplicate.

WHISPERS
Bloch, Campbell, Drake, Garcia, Howard, King, Lieber, Lumley, Russell, Wilson and plenty of HPLphilia. All issues 16mo.

V1 #2 December 1973 64 pp – very good condition.
V2 #4 December 1975 68 pp – duplicate, errata sheet, color plates, very good condition.
V3 #1 December 1976 67 pp – very good condition.
V3 #3-4 October 1978 132 pp – square bound, color plates, very good condition.

III – BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS

FANTASY COLLECTOR’S ANNUAL 1974 – MAKES YOUR JAW DROP
Gerry de la Ree Saddle River 1971, 4to wraps 64 pp, very good condition. ‘In the 36 years I have been active as a reader and collector in the fantasy and science fiction fields, I have amassed a great quantity of rarities and unique material. These are, of course, part of the joys of collecting. But to let such things merely collect dust in file cabinets or on bookshelves seems rather pointless.’ So de la Ree published this volume of glimpses into his truly astounding collection: unpublished letters, poems and art by E. A. Poe, Mahlon Blaine, H. P. Lovecraft – get the idea? Number 232 of a limited first edition of 500 copies.

INDEX TO THE VERSE IN WEIRD TALES by THOMAS COCKCROFT – OUT OF PRINT
Thomas G. L. Cockcroft, Lower Hutt NZ 1960, 1st edition, 8vo sq. wraps 16 pp. Arranged by title, then by author, as well as verse included in fiction, Virgil Finlay’s poetry series, Oriental Magic, a magazine index and The Thrill book. Signed by the author, limited to 500 copies.

A HISTORY OF THE NECROMOMICON by H. P. LOVECRAFT – SPECIAL LIMITED EDITION
Necronomicon Press West Warwick 1977, 16mo wraps np, fine condition. The first edition of this title was limited to a printing of four hundred and fifty copies, fifty copies of the original five hundred being lost by the U. S. Postal Service. This edition, the second, consists of five hundred numbered copies, of which this is #113.

H. P. LOVECRAFT: A SYMPOSIUM – OUT OF PRINT
Riverside Quarterly Los Angeles, 1st edition, nd 16mo wraps 17 pp. Robert Block, Arthur Jean Cox, Fritz Leiber, Sam Russel and Leland Sapiro on HPL, transcribed from the 24 October 1963 meeting of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Annotated by August Derleth.

THE OCCULT LOVECRAFT by H. P. LOVECRAFT
Gerry de la Ree Saddle River 1975, 1st edition 8vo wraps 40 pp, fine condition. First appearance anywhere of two essays on the occult by HPL, with stellar artwork by Stephen Fabian, introductions by Frank Belknap Long and Samuel Loveman, and occult commentary by Anthony Raven. Limited to an edition of 990, of which this is #182. Just try and find this one anywhere else. Buy it before I do, please.

THE LAST OF THE GREAT ROMANTIC POETS by DONALD SIDNEY-FRYER – OUT OF PRINT
Silver Scarab Press Albuquerque 1973, 1st edition 4to wraps @ 26 pp, very good condition. An attempt to define the romantic tradition from its beginnings in the Middle Ages to modern times, firmly placing the Smith / Lovecraft / Howard circles therein. Illustrated by Herb Arnold.

THE FANES OF DAWN by CLARK ASHTON SMITH – LIMITED EDITION
The Fugitive Poems / Second Series – Fourth Volume / Xiccarph Edition 1976, 8vo wraps with special envelope, np. Book in as new condition, envelope very good. A total of 303 copies of this edition were printed, of which this is #28. Eight poems. Errata sheet.

SEER OF THE CYCLES by CLARK ASHTON SMITH – LIMITED EDITION
The Fugitive Poems / Second Series – Fifth Volume / Xiccarph Edition 1976, 8vo wraps with special envelope np. Book in as new condition, envelope lightly smudged. A total of 325 copies of this edition were printed, of which this is #28. Eleven poems.

THE BURDEN OF THE SUNS by CLARK ASHTON SMITH – LIMITED EDITION
The Fugitive Poems / Second Series – Sixth Volume / The Burden of the Suns. Xiccarph Edition 1977, 8vo wraps with special envelope np. Book in as new condition, envelope very lightly smudged. A total of 295 copies of this edition were printed, of which this is #28. Eight poems.

SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY PUBLISHED BY ARKHAM HOUSE AND MYCROFT & MORAN 1939 – 1976 by DICK SPELMAN – OUT OF PRINT
Institute for Specialized Literature, North Hollywood nd, 10 pp 4to wraps, very light wear. Indexed by author and title, date, pages, copies and original price of the two publishing houses listed, cross-indexed by title.

IV – MANUSCRIPTS

ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF CLARK ASHTON SMITH
Predominantly poems, some translated prose and poetry; one page of English language text with date unless noted. Includes typed and mimeographed manuscripts, some with tape repairs. Dates range from 1915 to 1929.

ONE
Artemis – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Autumn Twilight – poem with corrections, signed.
Baillement – poem, signed, tape repairs.
The Barrier – poem with corrections, signed.
Beauty – poem with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
Beauty Implacable – poem, signed, notation at bottom, tape repairs.
Chance – poem with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
The Chimera – poem with corrections, signed.
Connaisance / Similitudes – two poems, signed, tape repairs.
Dead Love – poem with corrections, signed.
The Desert Garden – poem with corrections, signed.
Desolation – poem with corrections, signed.
Enigma – poem with corrections, signed.
En Sourdine – poem with corrections, tape repairs.
The Ennuye – poem with corrections, signed.
Exotic Perfume – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Faun-Lilies / Plum-Lovers – two poems, signed, tape repairs.
The Garden of Dreams – poem with corrections, signed.
Impression – poem with corrections, signed.
Incognita – poem, signed, tape repairs.
The Incubus of Time – poem with corrections, signed.
Inheritance – poem with corrections, signed.
Laus Mortis – poem, signed.
Le Mauvais Moine – poem with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
Les Aveugles – translation with corrections, signed.
Les Hiboux / Le Coucher d’un Soleil Romantique – two translations w/corr., signed.
Loss – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Maya – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Memorial – poem with corrections, signed.
Mirage – poem, signed.
Mirrors – poem with corrections, signed.
Mystery – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Necromancy – poem with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
Nocturne – poem with corrections, signed.
Moon-Dawn – poem with corrections, signed.
Nightfall – poem, signed.
A Prayer – poem with corrections, signed.
Psalm – poem with corrections, signed.
Query – poem with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
Reclamation – poem with corrections, signed.
The Refuge of Beauty – poem, signed.
The Remorse of the Dead – poem, signed, tape repairs.
Satiety / Song – two poems with corrections, signed, tape repairs.
Secret Love / Forgotten Sorrow – two poems, signed, tape repairs.
Solution – poem with corrections, signed.
Suggestion – poem with corrections, signed.
Vaticinations / The Autumn Lake / Harmony – three poems on a single page.
hall Meet / Brumal – two poems, signed.

This collection also includes envelope to Samuel Loveman from C.A.S. dated 5 March 1919 and 8 February 1980 letter from publisher / collector Gerry de la Ree to ‘John’ regarding the sale of C.A.S. poems.

TWO
Alexandrins – poem, French, signed with notation.
Canticle – poem, signed.
Clair De Lune – poem, correction.
Cumuli – poem, signed.
The Denial of St. Peter – translation, signed.
En Sourdine – translation, signed.
February – poem, signed.
L’Amor et le Crane – translation with notation.
L’Amour Supreme – poem, signed.
Le Faune – poem.
L’Imprevu – translation, two pages, signed.
Madrigal of Evanscence – poem, signed.
Paiennerie – poem, French, signed.
Solvet Seclum – translation.
Sonnet Lunaire – poem, French, signed.
Spectral Life – poem.
Sufficiency – poem- signed.
Une Vie Spectrale – poem, French, signed.
The Vampire – translation, signed.
Vaticination – poem, signed.

The Anarchist’s Guide to the BBS
Keith Wade
Port Townsend: Loompanics 1990
8vo paperback 90p

There were two main reference points I used to evaluate this book. First, as an anarchist [1982-1994], did this teach me anything about BBS? And second, as someone with a little knowledge of computers, did this teach me about anarchy? The results were mixed but worth the read to find out.

The Anarchist’s Guide to the BBS is written for the novice to computers, containing several chapters of introduction to terms and procedures that are well written and build on each other nicely. The book centers on computers as telecommunication devices but I learned more about computers in general than I’d known before. In this respect the book is exactly what it claims to be, a guide to the BBS, and does its job well.

But as an anarchist’s guide to the BBS I found it lacking. Like The Anarchist’s Cookbook (which Loompanics dropped from its catalog many years ago as dangerous and misleading), The Anarchist’s Guide to the BBS confuses anarchism with criminality. The reasoning something like this: anarchists oppose government, governments write laws, therefore to break a law is an anarchist act. This reduces anarchism to the loyal opposition of the state, dependent on authority to tell it what not to do rather than a movement that could create an alternative to the state. There is little or nothing in the Guide about breaking into government or corporate computer networks for fact-finding or sabotage purposes, the decentralized nature of BBS communication and its relevance to anarchist theory, or the debate on the role of technology in the anarchist struggle in the future. Not only are these ideas not explored in a book about anarchy and computers but there is no exploration or analysis of anarchism at all. There is plenty of information on use of credit card numbers that aren’t yours and running a prostitution service over your BBS but not even these ideas, which have been debate in the anarchist press for years, have any theory behind them. It is enough to scam the state; no need to use that power to achieve anything other than increased wealth and power for yourself. If I read this book as a computer user with no background in anarchism there would be nothing to contradict the state (amass wealth at the expense of others) nor the state perspective on anarchists (those who amass wealth at the expense of others without going through the proper channels). A change of title to “The Criminal’s Guide to the BBS” would bring the book more in line with its content and improve the ability of the book to be what it claims to be.

(from OVO 9 July 1991)

The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays
by L. A. Rollins
Charleston: Nine-Banded Books 2008
8vo, paperbound, perfect binding, gatefold cover, 304p.
$13 (on sale $5 post paid in the USA as of Sept 2010)
ISBN 9-780615-192987
Nine-Banded Books

The above illustration is not from The Myth of Natural Rights. It’s a poster I made when I was twenty years old in 1986. My self-importance began much earlier but this poster was the first time I put it on paper. When I made the poster it didn’t make sense, and it didn’t have to. That’s the funny thing about egoism. It doesn’t always make sense, and it doesn’t always (or ever) have to. When you sign on to Team Me, truth and consistency are only two more wheels in the head that can be entertained but are never captains. Egoism starts and ends with me, of course, but you might think it has something to do with authors from the past. Come, the royal we offers an introduction to the me-nut gallery…

Start anywhere. Perhaps with that prince of books, The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince was circulated as a plagiarized manuscript until 1537, five years after the death of its author. It was hated enough to earn an unfavorable mention in The Merry Wives of Windsor and Pygmalion. While The Prince is interested in the health of the State, Machiavelli was interested in Machiavelli and wrote what he did to earn favor for himself. Serving the State is off the table at the egoist banquet, but in the case of a Prince the self and the State are one. “Time brings with it all things, and may produce indifferently either good or evil. [...] How laudable it is for a prince to keep good faith and live with integrity, and not with astuteness, every one knows. Still the experience of our times shows those princes to have done great things who have had little regard for good faith, and have been able by astuteness to confuse men’s brains, and who have ultimately overcome those who have made loyalty their foundation.”

Consider the Marquis de Sade, who used the 1791 fiction Justine to write “Every strong and healthy individual, endowed with an energetically organized mind, who preferring himself to others, as he must, will know how to weigh their interests in the balance against his own, will laugh God and mankind to the devil, will brave death and mock the law, fully aware that it is to himself he must be faithful, that by himself all must be measured.”

And then, the egoist wellspring: Max Stirner’s 1845 book The Ego and Its Own. One Friedrich Engles said “this work is important” to his comrade Karl Marx, but upon a scolding by Mr. Marx young Freddy recanted his praise. K&F made a killing selling the bait-and-switch of material conditions both changing with the times at the individual level (no human nature) and leading inevitably to specifically defined conflicts (human nature). The two also collaborated on The German Ideology, a multi-hundred page attack on Stirner and his ideas. Ideas such as these: “Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my own concern! You think at least the ‘good cause’ must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me. The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is – unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself!”

Friedrich Nietzche did stare into the void, but only while holding the guardrails of ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ A superman that ought to be instead of is. But when he spoke of the Will, ah… “Man is something which is to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1883) “He who must be a creator in good and evil, he must first be a destroyer and break values into pieces.” (Ecce Homo, 1911) “That which does not destroy me, makes me stronger.” (Twilight of the Idols, 1899) Trevor Blake’s addendum: that which I do not destroy becomes stronger.

Max Stirner’s wellspring is well navigated by Ragnar Redbeard’s 1896 book Might is Right. Redbeard has a Shatner-like punctuation style employed by Stirner-in-translation that can make reading the book – difficult. Other times… “Freemen should never regulate their conduct by the suggestion or dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free. [...] The freeman is born free, lives free, and dies free. He is (even though living in an artificial civilization) above all laws, all constitutions, all theories of right and wrong. He supports and defends them of course, as long as they suit his own end, but if they don’t, then he annihilates them by the easiest and most direct method.” The Myth of Natural Rights does not mention Redbeard’s Might is Right (although the introduction by TGGP does). Redbeard claims that ‘nature’s law is tooth and claw,’ that there is a natural right and the prone bodies of the vanquished point to those who possess it. But isn’t it convenient that title holders of natural rights are only known after the final bell? Might is the law of all life, yet some groups are more might than others. Every individual must struggle for existence, yet that ghost of might-right inside them takes a vacation once in a while and eventually moves out of town for good. What good to me is a natural right that I can’t know about until after I’ve used it, and which may leave me when I need it most, and which someone else might have more of than me? Lex talonis is the projection of matter-of-fact outcomes of conflict onto a cave wall and calling that shadow a natural right. To the victor goes the spoil – sure, but no need to get all wheelly about it. That’s what I got out of Rollins’ statement that “a bullet-proof vest may protect a person against being shot, but a natural right has never stopped a single slug.” ‘The mighty win’ is true but it is a mistake to say ‘the mighty ought to win.’ Evolution is the failure of the non-adaptive to survive, not the survival of the fittest. The former is how things seem to be, the later is the mistake of intelligent design. Not only is might is right a mistake, but kind of whiney, too. ‘But I was supposed to win… whaaa…’

The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley “lays down a simple Code of Conduct. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” Crowley credited a deity named Aiwass as the author of this 1904 book, but as far as my field agents have determined it was Crowley who cashed the checks. Read on, seeker. “Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”  How close to egoism Crowley was with the Law, with the notion all events are equally lawful. But then the black skies are filled with wheels of stars. Flickering fairy lamps of nature, the law of our growth, lawful acts and right events. Why would the Beast not step boldly into the chaos? As Aiwass saying, close but no cigar.

Egoism, anarchism and communism all went to the ball, but we know which wicked stepsister got to dance for the next half century. We don’t see much of egoism again until Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (The Fountainhead 1943, Atlas Shrugged 1957, and so very etc.). Dame Rand had a decent egoist rookie season, what with her admiration of murderer William Edward Hickman (“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. [He had] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a conscious all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”), her ‘rational self-interest,’ her railing against self-destruction while being a chain-smoker, her insistence on loyalty while having affairs. Truth and consistency be damned, hoist the dollar flag! But having dislodged the great catherine wheel of altruism from her head, she let it fill with sand to make a perfect impression of liberty. While Ayn Rand could have served Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand instead served Objectivism. How many more steps away from freedom then are those intellectual heir brains who splinter from her fossilized remains. It was a no-fault divorce, egoism and Objectivism. “Egoism, in the Objectivist interpretation, does not mean the policy of violating the rights, moral or political, of others in order to satisfy one’s own needs or desires. It does not mean the policy of a brute, a con man or a beggar.” So said Leonard Peikoff in the revealingly-named Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (le objectivism, ce moi). Objectivism put the vocabulary of egoism back into circulation. But instead of the dead-end of egoism (all roads lead to ME), Objectivism is an endless journey into ever-tighter circles of servitude.

Rudy Ray Moore may have been quoting an unknown homeless man from 1960 when he performed his ‘Dolemite’ skit, but the results are me-tastic. Thus Spoke Dolemite: “Why the day he was dropped from his mammy’s ass, he slapped his pappy’s face and said from now on, I’m running this place. Dolemite said, bitch I had a job in Africa kicking lions in the ass to stay in shape. I got run out of South America for fucking steers. I fucked the she-elephant until she broke down in tears. I’ve swimmed across muddy rivers and ain’t never got wet. Mountains fell on me and I ain’t dead yet. I rode across the ocean on the head of my dick, ate nine tons of cat shit and ain’t never got sick.” Atlas may have shrugged, but Dolemite stuck his dick in the ground and turned the whole world around.

Anton LaVey published The Satanic Bible in 1969. LaVey built on Might is Right by the easiest and most direct method: plagiarism. Most of the chapter titled “The Book of Satan” is jot and tittle from Redbeard’s work. Elsewhere LaVey wrote: “Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.” Let’s say altruist Anton was just helping Redbeard by helping himself. Not that LaVey couldn’t deliver the goods on his own: “The Satanist believes in complete gratification of his ego. Satanism, in fact, is the only religion which advocates the intensification or encouragement of the ego. [...] Life is the one great indulgence; death the one great abstinence. To a person who is satisfied with his earthly existence, life is like a party; and no one likes to leave a good party.” LaVey did put on a good party, and current Magister Peter Gilmore has done a fine job as well. It it perhaps eternally tempting to resolve the contradictions of orchestrating an organization for individualists, but the Church of Satan has kept its claw clean.

Loompanics Unlimited was founded in 1975. Until founder Michael Hoy closed shop in 2006, Loompanics published and distributed after the egoist fashion. Far left? Far right? Humor? Sex? Drugs? Parapsychology? And even some straight-up egoist titles and authors such as those mentioned above? Loompanics had it all, just no gods and no masters. In 2010 I can read most anything I like on a phone I carry in my pocket. In decades past, more ideas still had the stink of heresy on them and finding them in a book mattered. The Myth of Natural Rights and Lucifer’s Lexicon were first published by Loompanics. Loompanics was the last egoist monster movie shot on film before everything went digital. Most important of all, it was through Loompanics that egoism had the privilege of meeting me.

It takes someone like me to review the 2008 edition of The Myth of Natural Rights. A host of Great and Powerful Oz’s petition an audience with Scarecrow Rollins, notably Ayn Rand, George Smith and Murray Rothbard. Each offers their defense or examples of natural rights, and each one is sent home wizened from the encounter. It’s a real treat to watch the natural rights peddle by and Rollins spoke them one by one. Rollins’ explanation of why there is no contradiction in acting one way and advocating others act differently was also a pleasant read.

If there are no natural rights, then is everyone free to do everything? I’m able to do a great deal, and from what I can do I do only some of it. Rollins writes “My life is of supreme value to me.” And regarding an argument for natural rights by Murray Rothbard: “If I can advance my life with violent interference to Murray Rothbard, why should I care about Murray Rothbard’s needs? [...] Again, if I violently interfere with Murray Rothbard’s freedom, this may violate the ‘natural law’ of Murray Rothbard needs, but it doesn’t violate the ‘natural law’ of my needs.” Turns out that while no natural right prevents me from visiting the greatest misfortune on my fellows, simple man-made law (or laziness) does the trick. Rollins wrote “Real rights are those conferred and enforced by the laws of a State or the customs of a social group” and that’s the gospel truth. If man-made law claims to be based on the ‘inalienable’ or divinity, so much the worse for man-made law. It’s the guns and jails, taxes and soldiers that get the job done. Some guns and jails are preferable to others: “To deny that there are ethical differences between governments is not to deny that there are other kinds of differences between governments, differences which can be of great practical importance.”

It entertains me to note contradictions in Rollins’ work. On page 45 he writes: “There are no unconditional ‘musts’ or ‘oughts,’ no categorical imperatives [...] That is why, although I am an egoist of sorts, I nevertheless reject what Brian Medlin calls the principle of ‘universal categorical egoism,’ to whit, ‘that we all ought to observe our own interests, because that is what we ought to do.’ I say, to the contrary, that it is up to each individual, insofar as he has freedom of choice in the matter, to decide for himself whether or not to pursue his own interests.” This statement is worthy of me. But on page 85 Rollins writes: “For an egoist, the only ‘justification’ for one’s actions is that those actions benefit oneself. If, by means of reason, A concludes that he will benefit from living at the involuntary expense of B, then an egoist would agree that A is ‘rationally justified’ in doing so.” Squeak squeak little wheel. What need do I have for justification, rational or otherwise? How can I include inevitably unpredictable outcomes in my rational conclusions? What of indifference or humor as motivators? And what of doing something even to my own detriment for the purpose of keeping another from advancing toward his goals?

Another funny thing about egoism is that it’s funny. I’m experimenting with a new delineator between the political left and the political right. The left can tell a joke and the right can take a joke. It holds in the corollary too. The left gets bent about certain words and images that aren’t funny and the right rolls with it. Meanwhile, the best comedians tend to be lefty while the best comedians on the right are… who? The excesses of de Sade bring on exasperation and disbelief, companion emotions to laughter. Even in translation The Ego and Its Own is funny. There are some rough chuckles in Might is Right and The Satanic Bible. Rudy Ray Moore made his living as a comedian. Rand proves my point by having a little light in her for interviewers but in her pursuit of natural law she locked out the grins. Why do egoism and humor go hand in hand? Think about yourself enough and you’ll realize what an ignorant fool you are, that your problems are petty and your triumphs are trivial. The choice then is to laugh or to wish you’d never been born. Perhaps instead of looking for vindication or truth or beauty or justice or equality, we should have been looking for laughs. Or perhaps when you get rid of the wheels in your head, you get a little funny in your head. Left and right are as pliable as any other shibboleth and share bed partners more often than polite conversation can allow. Do you call it ‘eugenics’ or ‘family planning’ depending on what it is or depending on whether your enemy supports it? Splitting sides based on humor is a good one. In my political nyuk nyuk spectrum, egoism is more of the left than the right.

What is it like to live without natural rights, without human nature? Kind of like now but crabbier or funnier, depending. The lives of the egoist authors are generally mundane, while the lives of those who lived as egoists and didn’t write about it are often full of fireworks (note to self…). See the world as an egoist with this simple thought experiment. Lift your wet eyes from my words just for a moment and look at something. You’re seeing something, yes? Were you to count that something, you would count one of that something. Where is the “one” in that thing? When you look at two of something, where is the “two?” You already knew that numbers aren’t in things, even if you’ve never seen it put into words before. There is no number-essence. And even though you know numbers aren’t in things, you continue to use numbers. The convention of numbers is like the convention of natural rights or human nature. They aren’t really there but people keep talking about them as if they were. I’m fine with that (and that’s the opinion that matters here) until the smoke and mirror crew sets up for another production of It’s Natural to Do As I Say.

Natural rights are in the same category of sleight of hand as Plato’s theory of forms. Plato said that when we see a thing, we see only an imperfect echo of the thing. If we could but see it there is an ideal form of a thing behind the thing we see. That ideal form is the nature of the thing. Sounds good if you’re arguing for the existence of human rights. We’re all different and imperfect people, but there’s a natural human right somewhere that is in the real us, and we all get a share of it. Everything has a cause, and those causes have causes, and those causes in turn go back and back and back until you get to a primal cause, a prime mover, an ideal form, a human right. Did you see the trick? Everything has a cause – except that which doesn’t have a cause. The logic that takes you to an ideal form doesn’t end with that ideal form, it takes you to a super-duper ideal form behind it, and so on. There’s no particular reason to say our human natures are similar but not identical and not shared, in the same way that our human bodies are similar but not identical and not shared. Human nature is a strange sort of nature that isn’t natural to everyone. Since ‘natural’ was supposed to mean just that – natural to everyone – it’s no sort of nature at all.

Bridging the divide between what is and what ought to be has yielded some spectacular Tacoma Narrows over the centuries. Kant be done, friend. But build those is / ought bridges must needs be done, it seems. No other way to get those donkeys across the void, and each one of those donkeys has a satchel full of wheels to set spinning in the heads of would-be eager egoists. Take this wheel, for instance: natural rights. Somehow, the is (nature) brings us to the ought (rights). Is there any way to divine what ought to be from what is? Or is it all ‘because I said so’ in the end? Egoism has naught for ought. Things happen, and they are what I prefer or attempted, or they aren’t. But these ‘things,’ and even more so what you prefer or attempted? They are not-me, not-yet-me or was-me and thus a secondary concern if a concern at all. SUX 2 B U. Egoism is calling it like I see it. My way writ large. Not even ‘my best interests’ sits on the throne above me. That would suggest a difference between me and my interests, making ‘my interests’ a wheel in my head. That would also suggest a knowledge of what my best interests are, which is fine to pretend but can you write down your exact complete individual nutritional needs at this second? How about now? Nature is the Nuremberg defense on the cosmic scale. I vas only followink orders! It vas my nature! Well, it’s my nature to call BS when I see it.

From The Myth of Natural Rights:

If there are no unconditional “musts” or “oughts,” then there are no “duties” or “moral obligations.” Which means there is no “morality,” no “system of the principles and duties of right and wrong conduct.” Morality (like natural law and natural rights, which are specific examples of “moral” ideas) is a myth invented to promote the interests / desires / purposes of the inventors. Morality is a device for controlling the gullible with words. “You ‘must not’ commit murder!” Why not? “Because murder is ‘wrong!’ Murder is ‘immoral!’” Bunk! Murder may be impractical or excessively risky or just not worth the trouble. There are all sorts of reasons why I might refrain from committing murder even if I would like to do so. But murder is not “wrong.” Murder is not “immoral.” And the same goes for rape, robbery, assault, battery, burglary, buggery, bestiality, incest, treason, torturing children, suicide, canibalism, cannabisism, etc.”

But you don’t care about that cream puff stuff – let’s have some real controversy! The Other Essays forming the center section of The Myth of Natural Rights concern holocaust revisionism. Where does Rollins stand in 1983 on page 94? “It so happens that I am a skeptic regarding the Holocaust in general and the six million Jews supposedly killed by the Nazis in particular.” Rollins devotes twenty-eight pages to “The Holocaust as Sacred Cow.” And where does Rollins stand in 2008 on page 160? “As of now, I am a skeptic regarding both the Holocaust and Holocaust revisionism.” Rollins devotes forty-six pages to “Revising Holocaust Revisionism.”

Third up in The Myth of Natural Rights is an updated abridgment of another former Loompanics title by Rollins, Lucifer’s Lexicon. Revealing my own bias, let me draw out some of my favorite zingers…

Belief, n.: A fig leaf used to cover up one’s ignorance.
Born-again Christian, n.: One who has been brainwashed in the blood of the Lamb.
Catholicism, n.: Christian Pharaseeism.
Christ, Jesus, n.: The Meshugah.
Crusade, n.: A jihad for Jesus.
God-fearing, adj.: Afraid of nothing.
Gospel, n.: The Tallest Tale Ever Told. The Cruci-fiction.
Miracle, n.: A disaster that you are lucky enough to survive while fifty million other people die.
Religion, n.: A cult with clout.
Sacred Cow, n.: Food for freethought.
Salvation, n.: God’s merciful act of saving you from Himself.
Soul, n.: An invisible, intangible, inaudible, tasteless and odorless – but marketable – entity.

… and one more…

Cui Bono? Latin for, “Who can I blame?”

Hurry hurry, step right up, there’s a barb for your backside in Lucifer’s Lexicon. The concluding critical essays on Islam make sure nobody is left out of the fun.

The Myth of Natural Rights is good, you ought to buy it.

1. There are no ultimate sources of knowledge. Every source, every suggestion, is welcome; but every source, every suggestion, is also open to critical examination. As long as we are not dealing with historical matters, we usually examine the asserted facts themselves, rather than investigate the sources of our information.

2. The proper questions of epistemology are not actually concerned with sources at all; rather, we ask whether an assertion is true – that is to say, whether it agrees with the facts. In connection with this critical examination of the truth, all kinds of arguments may be brought to bear. One of the most important procedures is to take a critical attitude towards our own theories and, in particular, to look for contradictions between our theories and observations.

3. Tradition is – apart from inborn knowledge – by far the most important source of our knowledge.

4. The fact that most of the sources of our knowledge are traditional demonstrates that opposition to tradition, that is to say, antitraditionalism, is of no importance. But this fact must not be held to support traditionalism; for every bit, however small, of our traditional knowledge (and even of our inborn knowledge) is open to critical examination and may be overthrown if need be. Nevertheless, without tradition, knowledge would be impossible.

5. Knowledge cannot start from nothing – from the tabula rasa – nor yet from observation. The advance of our knowledge consists in the modification and the correction of earlier knowledge. Of course it is sometimes possible to take a step forward through an observation or through a chance discovery; but the significance of an observation or of a discovery generally depends upon whether it enables us to modify existing theories.

6. Neither observation nor reason is an authority. Other sources, such as intellectual intuition and intellectual imagination, are most important, but they are also unreliable: they may show us things with the utmost clarity and yet mislead us. They are the main sources of our theories and are therefore indispensable; but the vast majority of our theories are false. The most important function of observation and logical thought, but also of intellectual intuition and imagination, is to help us in the critical examination of those bold theories which we need in order to delve into the unknown.

7. Clarity is an intellectual value in itself; exactness and precision, however, are not. Absolute precision is unattainable; and there is no point in trying to be more precise than our problem demands. The idea that we must define our concepts to make them ‘precise’ or even to give them a ‘meaning” is misleading. Every definition must make use of defining concepts; and so we can never ultimately avoid working with undefined concepts. Problems connected with the meaning or the definition of words are unimportant. Indeed, these purely verbal problems are tiresome: they should be avoided at all costs.

8. Every solution of a problem creates new unsolved problems. The harder the original problem and the bolder the attempt to solve it, the more interesting these new problems are. The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, clear and well-defined will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance. The main source of our ignorance lies in the fact that our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.

We get an idea of the vastness of our ignorance when we contemplate the vastness of the heavens. It is true that the size of the universe is not the deepest cause of our ignorance; but it is nevertheless one of its causes.

I believe that it is worthwhile trying to discover more about the world, even if this only teaches us how little we know. It might do us good to remember from time to time that, while differing widely in the various little bits we know, in our infinite ignorance we are all equal. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far we may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without risk of dogmatism, the idea that truth itself is beyond all human authority Indeed, we are not only able to retain this idea we must retain it. For without it there can be no objective standards of scientific inquiry; no criticism of our conjectured solutions, no groping for the unknown, and no quest for knowledge.

Lecture delivered to the University of Salsburg 27 July 1979.  From In Search of a Better World. London: Routledge 1984.

One of the great misfortunes of men who do not like democracy is surely that Hitler began his political action with nine comrades in the basement of a beer hall. Too many excellent young men have concluded that with a half-dozen pals and a mimeograph machine they were also going to seize power. Clarence, in spite of his excess enthusiasm as a neophyte, was a courageous and estimable young man. He had dared to sacrifice his career and, his comfort in order to protest violently against the Nuremberg trial, an indignation which was unwise at that time. He gave himself over entirely, without money, without support, to a difficult and hopeless apostolate. One does not meet very often men of that stamp. Why is it necessary that nearly all of them have in themselves a predisposition to a jealous and implacable despotism? I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

quoted in Dreamer of the Day by Kevin Coogan.

For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed – for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions ensure that these institutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution – that is to say, in most cases, not at all. I suggest the term ‘democracy’ as a short-hand label for a government of the first type, and the term ‘tyranny’ or ‘dictatorship’ for the second. This, I believe, corresponds closely to traditional usage. But l wish to make clear that no part of my argument depends on the choice of these labels; and should anybody reverse this usage (as is frequently done nowadays), then I should simply say that I am in favour of what he calls ‘tyranny’, and object to what he calls ‘democracy’ ; and I should reject as irrelevant any attempt to discover what ‘democracy’ ‘really’ or ‘essentially’ means, for example, by translating the term into ‘the rule of the people.’ (For although ‘the people’ may influence the actions of their rulers by the threat of dismissal, they never rule themselves in any concrete, practical sense.)

If we make use of the two labels as suggested, then we can now describe, as the principle of a democratic policy, the proposal to create, develop, and protect, political institutions for the avoidance of tyranny. This principle does not imply that we can ever develop institutions of this kind which are faultless or foolproof; or which ensure that the policies adopted by a democratic government will be right or good or wise – or even necessarily better or wiser than the policies adopted by a benevolent tyrant. (Since no such assertions are made, the paradox of democracy is avoided.) What may be said, however, to be implied in the adoption of the democratic principle is the conviction that the acceptance of even a bad policy in a democracy (as long as we can work for a peaceful change) is preferable to the submission to a tyranny, however wise or benevolent. Seen in this light, the theory of democracy is not based upon the principle that the majority should rule; rather, the various equalitarian methods of democratic control, such as general elections and representative government, are to be considered as no more than well-tried and, in the presence of a widespread traditional distrust of tyranny, reasonably effective institutional safe-guards against tyranny, always open to improvement, and even providing methods for their own improvement.

He who accepts the principle of democracy in this sense is therefore not bound to look upon the result of a democratic vote as an authoritative expression of what is right. Although he will accept a decision of the majority, for the sake of making the democratic institutions work, he will feel tree to combat it by democratic means, and to work for its revision. And should he live to see the day when the majority vote destroys the democratic institutions, then this sad experience will tell him only that there does not exist a foolproof method of avoiding tyranny. But it need not weaken his decision to fight tyranny, nor will it expose his theory as inconsistent.

From The Open Society and its Enemies Volume 1. Princeton University Press 1966

Protestant Christianity was founded by Martin Luther. What did Luther have to say about Jews? Maybe Luther wasn’t such a great moral leader after all. Maybe these proposals bore fruit in Luther’s country four hundred years later.  The following are quotes from Luther’s book The Jews and Their Lies (1543).

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly – and I myself was unaware of it – will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 [:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Imagine a world in which art is forbidden! Art galleries would close. Books would vanish. Pop stars would shed their glamour overnight. Advertising would cease, television would die. We could refocus our vision not on a succession of false images but on the world as it is. A stillness would fill the air. Art has provided us with fantasy worlds, escapes from reality. For whatever else it is, art is not reality. Soap operas, novels, movies; concerts, the theatre, poetry. None of these are real as a starving child is real, as a town without water is real. Art is the glamorous escape, the transformation that shields us from the world we live in. Injustice, endemic disease, famine, war. Those are real. Art has replaced religion as the opiate of the people just as the artist has replaced the priest as the voice of the spirit. Once we reached inside ourselves to find God / truth /really / etc. Now we find only art. We are regulated by our addictions and art hm become an addiction. We struggle through life in a drugged dream, searching for escape, for brighter fantasies, longer voyages of the imagination, louder music. Another’s life is always more interesting than our own. It is only those who have given up art who can experience the true nature of creation. Now, a self-perpetuating elite sell art as a commodity for the wealthy who have everything while making the artists themselves rich beyond their wildest dreams. Art is money. It is ironic that the myth of the artist celebrates suffering while it is those who have never heard of art, the poor and wretched of our earth, who truly suffer. To call one person an artist is to deny another the equal right of vision. Paint all the paintings black and celebrate the dead art: there is no booze in hell. We tum away from mountains of food that rot in storage while acres the globe humans grow too weak to eat because it is time for our favorite TV program. We live up to our knees in blood, wasting not only hours but days – whole lifetimes – in the bind belief that art is good, art is pure, art is its own justification – and a nightmare scourges our planet. Until we end famine there will be no peace. Artists are murderers! Artists are murderers just as surely as is the soldier who sights down the barrel of a gun to shoot an unarmed civilian. Without art, life would be unendurable! We would have to transform this world. Overnight, one person’s dream can become a nation’s future – but we do not seize power because we are enchanted by art. Forbid art and revolution would follow: the withholding of creative action is the only weapon left. Seeing and creating are the same activity. Those who create art are also creating the starving. In a world in which art is forbidden the deserts would flower. Give up art. Save the starving.

(from OVO 14 Suffering March 1992)

The Manichees & Cathars believed that the body can be spiritualized – or rather, that the body merely contaminates pure spirit & must be utterly rejected. The Gnostic perfecti (radical dualists) starved themselves to death to escape the body & return to the pleroma of pure light.

So: to evade the evils of the flesh – murder, war, famine, greed – paradoxically only one path remains: murder of one’s own body, war on the flesh, famine unto death, greed for salvation.

The radical monists however (Ismailis, Ranters, Antinomians) consider that body & spirit are one, that the same spirit which pervades a black stone also infuses the flesh with its light; that all lives & all is life.  “Things are what they are spontaneously… everything is natural… all in motion as if there were a True Lord to move them – but if we seek for evidence of this lord we fail to find any.” (Kuo Hsiang)

Paradoxically, the monist path also cannot be followed without some sort of “murder, war, famine, greed”: the transformation of death into life (food, negentropy) – war against the Empire of Lies – “fasting of the soul,” or renunciation of the Lie, of all that is not life – & greed for life itself, the absolute power of desire.

Even more: without knowledge of the darkness (“carnal knowledge”) there can exist no knowledge of the light (“gnosis”). The two knowledges are not merely complementary: say rather identical, like the same note played in different octaves. Heraclitus claims that reality persists in a state of “war.” Only clashing notes can make harmony. (“Chaos is the sum of all orders.”)

Give each of these four terms a different mask of language (to call the Furies “The Kindly Ones” is not mere euphemism but a way of uncovering yet more meaning). Masked, ritualized, realized as art, the terms take on their dark beauty, their “Black Light.”

Instead of murder say the hunt, the pure paleolithic economy of all archaic and non-authoritarian tribal society – “venery,” both the killing & eating of flesh & the way of Venus, of desire. Instead of war say insurrection, not the revolution of classes & powers but of the eternal rebel, the dark one who uncovers light. Instead of greed say yearning, unconquerable desire, mad love. And then instead of famine, which is a kind of mutilation, speak of wholeness, plenty, superabundance, generosity of the self which spirals outward toward the Other.

Without this dance of masks, nothing will be created. The oldest mythology makes Eros the firstborn of Chaos. Eros, the wild one who tames, is the door through which the artist returns to Chaos, the One, and then re-returns, comes back again, bearing one of the patterns of beauty. The artist, the hunter, the warrior: one who is both passionate and balanced, both greedy & altruistic to the utmost extreme. We must be saved from all salvations which save us from ourselves, from our animal which is also our anima, our very lifeforce, as well as our animus, our animating self-empowerment, which may even manifest as anger & greed. BABYLON has told us that our flesh is filth – with this device & the promise of salvation it enslaved us. But – if the flesh is already “saved,” already light – if even consciousness itself is a kind of flesh, a palpable & simultaneous living aether – then we need no power to intercede for us. The wilderness, as Omar says, is paradise even now.

The true proprietorship of murder lies with the Empire, for only freedom is complete life. War is Babylonian as well – no free person will die for another’s aggrandizement. Famine comes into existence only with the civilization of the saviors, the priest-kings – wasn’t it Joseph who taught Pharaoh to speculate in grain futures? Greed – for land, for symbolic wealth, for power to deform others’ souls & bodies for their own salvation – greed too arises not from “Nature nature-ing,” but from the damming up & canalization of all energies for the Empire’s Glory.

Against all this, the artist possesses the dance of masks, the total radicalization of language, the invention of a “Poetic Terrorism” which will strike not at living beings but at malign ideas, dead-weights on the coffin-lid of our desires. The architecture of suffocation and paralysis will be blown up. only by our total celebration of everything – even darkness.

(from OVO 14 Suffering March 1992)

Sky News: Banned Man Utd Shirts ‘Promote The Devil’

Manchester United shirts have been banned in Malaysia after the red devil crest was labelled “dangerous and un-Islamic”. Thousands of fans have reacted angrily to the decision by Muslim clerics – with some accusing them of supporting Premier League arch-rivals Liverpool. Despite the Old Trafford side having an estimated 81 million followers in Asia, one senior cleric said: “You are only promoting the devil.” “This is very dangerous. As a Muslim we should not worship the symbols of other religions or the devils,” another added. “It will erode our belief in Islam. There is no reason why we as Muslims should wear such jerseys, either for sports or fashion reasons.”

muslimdebate.com: Indonesian Muslim Groups Consider Fatwa on World’s Most Expensive Coffee

Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization is considering whether or not to slap a fatwa on the nation’s famed kopi luwak. Two of Indonesia’s main Muslim organizations are to meet to decide whether or not to issue a fatwa against “kopi luwak,” a famed and highly prized coffee bean that has passed through the digestive tract of a civet cat before it is retrieved and roasted. Ma’aruf Amin, chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), said it would meet with Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization, on Tuesday night to discuss issuing a ban against the flourishing industry. “A fatwa will hopefully put an end to the growing concerns about kopi luwak,” Ma’aruf said. Kopi Luwak is eaten by a civet cat and expelled in its feces before being roasted. Highly prized for its flavor, kopi luwak is known as the world’s most expensive coffee, commanding more than $600 per kilogram from online shops.

Robert Spencer: Muslim Husband Rapes Wife, Judge Sees No Sexual Assault Because Islam Forbids Wives to Refuse Sex

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460). He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

Bernie: The Arab Contribution to Civilization? Nothing Lately

When Arabs are asked to recount great periods of Arab scholarship and learning they can only point to a brief and quickly extinguished burst of light; in the book Le Soleil d’Allah brille sur l’Occident : Notre héritage arabe we read (translated):

Might I invite you to have something with me in this café? Take off your jacket and sit down here on this sofa, unless you would rather sit on the divan with the crimson mattress, of course. Would you like a cup of coffee – with one sugar lump or two? Or perhaps a nice cool carafe of lemonade, or even something alcoholic?  But of course! Let me buy you lunch! I think artichokes would be a lovely starter, don’t you? And how about capon with rice and spinach to follow? For dessert, what would you say to a piece of apricot tart, or an orange sorbet? And at the end of the meal we’ll have a cup of mocha.  There is no reason, of course, for any of these things to appear in any way strange or exotic to you – they have been part of our daily life for such a long time. But did you know that they were all borrowed from a foreign culture, namely Arab culture? This café and the demitasses of coffee they serve, the sugar without which any menu would be almost unimaginable, the lemonade and the carafe, the jacket and the mattress, we owe them all to the Arabs. And it doesn’t stop there: in most European countries, these things are known by their Arabic names! And the same goes for candy, bergamot, oranges, sherbet and many other good things besides.

So here we learn of great literature and poetry the story of ‘a thousand and one nights’: a thousand years ago.

The contributions to mathematics and physics? A thousand years ago. And even here, we often see Muslims pointing to Arabic numerals as some sort of proof that Arab Muslims made some significant advances in mathematics. Arabic numeral is a misnomer, in actual fact they should be called Hindu numerals.

We learn that Ibn Muqla, Vizir at Baghdad and the “prince of calligraphers”, codified the proportions of letters to be respected in handwriting and calligraphy, a thousand years ago.

We learn of the architectural advances such as The Great Mosque of Cordova where we discover its gabled roofs are Syrian. Byzantium provided the mosaics. The vaults are of Tunisian inspiration and the arches Iranian, while the alternation of stone and brick is a Roman invention. Again, a thousand years ago.

Arab contributions to medical science were legion, encouraged by the construction of hospitals in Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Samarkand and elsewhere, over a thousand years ago.

Advances and discoveries in astronomy, chemistry, and philosophy from Bagdad to Cordova, all over a thousand years ago.

These are all wondrous and marvelous, but, under Islam, Arabs have not advanced for the past one thousand years. See my previous articles on the paucity of Nobel Prize winners in a world filled with 1.5 billion Muslims ( of which over 300 million are Arabs).

All articles continue at links. Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and etc.  Why might a numerous and varied people such as the Arabic world be held back for one thousand years?  Why, instead of building up their own or anyone else, would a group instead issue death warrants for wearing the wrong kind of shirt or drinking the wrong kind of coffee?  How is it possible to prioritize the trivial and trivialize the highest priorities?  Where does slavery still exist in the year 2010, and why?  What sort of mental poison makes rape part of the multicultural rainbow?  Islam.  It’s holding us all back.  Don’t ban it, and neither should Muslim crimes and atrocities be forgiven.  Don’t force it on others, just keep what is worthy or at least harmless and drop the rest.