OVO

Image c/o Retronaut.

Thanks to the following for linking to OVO.

Eithin links to Liberating Wednesday.
Monday Vatican links to The Concordant Story.
Financial Advices Blog links to The Bonus Army.
Rambone at Indiana Gun Owners links to The Bonus Army.
The American Book of the Dead links to Unspeakable Horrors.

Those who long to live in 1911 choose that year – really any year from 1890 to 1914 would be equally ok – just because it’s safely in the middle of that long lingering last “decade” of the long 19th Century – which was also the first heroic decade of true modern radicalism – e.g. – the Wandervogel, Stirnerite anarchism, the IWW and Jim Larkin, Ascona, Sex Radicals & Nudists – etc.  And still far removed from the future of total war & totalitarianism to come – a time of utopian revolutionary hope.

Also of course it’s the Age of Decadence – final year of the Manchu Dynasty – opium ten cents a bottle at any country store – the Paris of J. K. Huysmans.  Gaslight.  Also: the last gasp of true agrarianism in the USA – age of Populism, the Grange, Farmers Alliance – the last rural decade.

But there’s another reason we choose 1911 (or thereabouts) for our little Golden Age. It has to do with technology. In 1911 almost all the actual conveniences of modern tech already existed: the car, the telephone, the electric bulb, the phonograph… Now we Luddites do not approve of cars or any of these inventions, which all subtract from the quanta of Imagination available to individuals & to the Social. But we have to admit – they’re convenient. In their primitive forms they’re almost likable. The only real convenience invented since then – the electric refrigerator – can be replaced by an Amish-built propane refrigerator – OR – we could re-invent the ice-box. We hope someday to learn to sing again, but till then we can accept a few hand-cranked shellac records (but no radio or TV). Computers are NOT in any way part of a revived 1911 however. It’s time to wake up & smell the rot of technopathology.

The telephone easily corrodes social presence & reduces selves to disembodies “voices of the Unseen,” as the Arabs called the invention. But again the primitive version, with its “party lines” & snoopy local Operators, had a social aspect now completely leached out of the medium. If we must be thus haunted let it be via one of these elegant sinister objects – a real murder weapon.

Full play of Imagination becomes possible only without modern technology, because tech has become the heartless operation of Capital, which hates all forms of sharing. Let’s work for a secular Anabaptism, bold enough finally to refuse everything back to the steam engine – at least. Whereupon we may resume human life.

The years between the death of Nietzche (& Queen Victoria) & 1914 constitute a dawn of Modernism that never happened into day. Instead it was smashed to nihil by the one long war (1914 – 1989) of the ghastly XXth Century. The liberté libre of trends like Symbolism, Expressionism, anarchism / socialism, lebensreform, Cosmicism etc. turned into the cynicism of dada, the fascism of Futurism & so on. Hope seemed dead.

L. Broadmoor III (who circa 1975 first turned me on to the idea of “living in 1911″) wanted to be an ordinary person in rural America (but with decayed millionaires as neighbors, hence his choice of Dutchess Co.) – he read only books published in or before 1911 that were truly popular at the time, such as novels with happy endings by long-forgotten lady novelists. In the 1970s you could buy old books like that for 25¢ a pound, yellowing & crumbling. Many by now must’ve disappeared completely.

I understand this “taste” or rather discipline as that of the spiritual dandy: an impenetrable cool of exotic ordinariness & secret impeccability. In effect one’s life becomes one’s art – completely. I could never aspire to such bodhisattvahood: fundamentally I’m simply not that serious. In fact neither was Broadmoor: he gave up 1911 & went into Reichean therapy. But still I take 1911 as a kind of metaphor or ideal double for my art, & to a certain extent my life as well. I’ve lived for 20 years now with no TV or other people’s cars – I pay people to use the internet for me (to buy books!) – & so on. I just don’t want to own the fucking things. I admire the Anabaptists for refusing electricity & infernal combustion in their homes. But you need communitas to live in that manner. You need place.

Even reading & writing is contaminated with Civilization’s technopathologies. Oral / aural culture would constitute the Luddite ideal. But as an isolated individual & lifelong print addict I can’t give up books – that necessary poison – like certain drugs… “Life in 1911″ requires books just as it might ideally include cheap & legal laudanum or tincture of Indian hemp.

Charles Fourier praised the Pigeon Post. It seemed quite modern in 1830, “utterly modern” as Rimbaud would say. In 1911 we’re allowed telegraph & even telephone, but our hearts still go into writing & receiving letters – handwritten, private, mysteriously brought to yr very door by unseen hand for only pennies per message, the money having been transformed into beautiful stamps. None of these pleasures are afforded by electromagnetic CommTech, which eliminates everything (including privacy) except text & image.

Imagine perfumed letters sealed with red wax & heraldic imagery, letters like Prince Genji used to write, or Proust, who could send little blue notes by pneumatic post anywhere in Paris. Think of mail-order degrees in Rosicrucianism. Yes, the POST – under the sign of Hermes – is sheer magic.

If only I could find a working mimeograph machine (or even better a roneograph, the kind that printed only in purple) (they had one in my high school in the 1950s) I’d certainly publish these manifestos on it. At least I can still use a manual typewriter, another surrealist-looking machine we enjoy here in “1911.”

June 14 2011

“I came here from the United States of America to stand for freedom, with all free people, against the forces of oppression and darkness that you all are representing. I came here in order to stand with the people who are fighting for the freedoms that make it possible for you to do what you are doing today. Not the violence and hatred, but to stand in dissent. But you can’t stand to have any kind of rational discussion. You can’t stand any dissent. You have to try to throw bottles, and drown us out, because you are cowards. Because you know that you stand on nothing except oppression and darkness and hatred. And that is why you are there, and that is why I am here.

You are fronting for the most radically intolerant and hateful ideology on the planet. Everywhere in the world where there are Muslims and non-Muslims there is conflict because the Muslims attack the non-Muslims. The Quran teaches to make war against the unbelievers and to subjugate them. And you are already subjugated. You are already their useful idiots. You are already their tools. You are out here in their service, and you think you’re fighting for freedom, and you are fighting for your own slavery. You are fighting for your own enslavement.

And it will come, it will come to you. You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech. And one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today. ”

Links added by OVO. Watch the rest on youtube.

Robert Spencer: Spencer Versus the Leftist/Islamic Alliance, Stuttgart, Germany, June 2

Thursday afternoon I spoke in Stuttgart, Germany at the invitation of the human rights group Pax Europa. The event was well advertised, and so the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance mobilized and was out in full force.

About 1000 Antifa protesters showed up, banging drums, holding signs with the usual accusations of racism and “Islamophobia,” blowing whistles, and menacing people who came out for the Pax Europa event. There were also about 500 German police on hand in riot gear. The Pax Europa organizers told me, “This is all for you” — because they had publicized that I would be there. One young man came up to me as I was standing right in front of a line of German police and said, “You’re lucky there are so many police here today.” [...]

It was an incredible din. We had loudspeakers that appeared to be able to reach the considerable crowd behind the protesters, but the Antifa thugs did all they could to drown us out: the drums got louder, the vuvuzelas came out, they were blowing whistles, and of course they were screaming and yelling.

They started throwing things: bottles, eggs, excrement and more. One bottle narrowly missed the Coptic activist’s head and crashed onto the stage — other bottles crashed at our feet. Several speakers were hit with eggs. The manure they threw was all over the stage floor.

I stood right in front (they missed me; I dodged a few projectiles) and watched them as they screamed and gestured and threw things — it was like looking into the pit of hell. Here were young people passionately committed to their cause and believing it to be that of justice and freedom, and they are eager and willing useful idiots for the most radically intolerant ideology on the planet. So when my turn came to speak, I addressed them, and told them just that. I told them they wouldn’t like what happened to them when their friends took power, but by then it would be too late.

And it may be already, for Europe. But I was glad to be there yesterday, and to stand against what was so obviously a force for oppression, hatred, and evil.

Robert Spencer: Ugliness and Beauty in Germany

This morning I had the great honor of meeting with Susanne Zeller-Hirzel, one of the last surviving members of the White Rose, the nonviolent resistance movement that worked against Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany in 1942 and 1943. We discussed numerous parallels between the Nazi era in Germany and the advance of Islamic supremacism today — as we saw in Stuttgart Thursday, Nazis and Islamic supremacists are remarkably similar in their taste for violent intimidation.

Susanne Zeller-Hirzel is the beauty mentioned in the headline of this post. The ugliness comes from an increasingly dangerous situation here in Germany. I have learned that the fascist Antifa and/or Islamic supremacist thugs have burned the truck belonging to the company that set up the stage for Pax Europa’s Thursday rally. Then last night they found out the hotel that the courageous anti-jihad politician René Stadtkewitz was planning to stay in when he came to Stuttgart to announce the founding of the local branch of his new Freedom Party; they broke the hotel’s windows and painted threatening messages on its walls. Also yesterday, I spoke to a Pax Europa meeting at a location in Stuttgart; Antifa thugs found out the location after the meeting had ended, and stormed and surrounded the place. Thirty-six were arrested.

Fascism is indeed coming back to Europe. But not because of the anti-jihadists.

Wikipedia: Pérák, the Spring Man of Prague

Pérák, the Spring Man was an urban legend originating from the Czechoslovakian city of Prague during the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in the midst of World War II. In the decades following the war, Pérák has also been portrayed as a Czech superhero. [...] The 14-minute Czech animated cartoon Pérák a SS (The Springer and the SS, also released in English-speaking markets as Jumping Jack and the SS, The Spring-Man and the SS Men and The Chimneysweep), which was released in 1946, portrayed the ‘Springer’ as a heroic and mischievous black-clad chimney sweep, with a mask fashioned out of a sock. He was capable of performing fantastic leaps due to having couch springs attached to his shoes. This cartoon, created by the renowned Czech animator Jiří Trnka and film-maker Jiří Brdečka, featured Pérák taunting the German army sentries and the Gestapo before escaping in a surrealistic, slapstick chase across the darkened city. Trnka’s postwar interpretation of Pérák as a quasi-superhero, defying the curfew and the authority of the German occupying forces, formed the basis for sporadic revivals of the character in Czech science fiction and comic book stories.

Pérák a SS at youtube

With thanks to Cosmodromium.

17 July 1990 interview with V. Vale, publisher of Search and Destroy, co-founder of Re/Search Publications.

OVO: What is the main source for the information that you publish?

VALE: We never tire of saying that our main influences were surrealism and situationism, and surrealism as you know placed a great deal of influence on objective chance and randomness and insanity and systems for deciphering the world that are a-logical systems We will admit that a lot of it is just purely chance. But of course through the years we have friends and our friends really help us. For example, the film book [Re/Search #10 Incredibly Strange Films] which was actually the first book that broke out of our small industrial music underground audience, that was done just because we got a letter from Jim Morton, who had been collecting these incredible films all his life but particularly since the advent of VCR. He wrote us, and then we went over to his house every Saturday night for years and watched two or three of four movies there and ate popcorn. It took four or five years he guest-edited the Incredibly Strange Films book and we put it out. We wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t known Jim Morton, let’s face it.

OVO: What is the purpose of Re/Search?

VALE: The surrealists had a slogan, something like “Matter Over Mind,” but what it meant was it is a mistake just to assume that one proceeds from the idea to the material reality. Very often its just the opposite. You might say the material reality suggests the theory, shall we say, and frankly I got started publishing back in ’77 because of punk rock. Of course it wasn’t called that then but it was very exciting, as undifferentiated and undefined and unlimited as it appeared to be because it was revolt, it was the youth revolt or revolution (if you dare to use that word) of the ’70s. And I was involved right from the very beginning before it had become codified and more or less set in amber. And so for me it was like a vehicle, it was an opportunity to… I don’t know, I just did it. My main motivation was kind of anger at the status quo. I’d always been angry at the status quo anyway, but, you know, what do you do? A lot of people just become criminals or whatever, or drug addicts, or they just can’t cope for a lot of good reasons. Society gives us all plenty of reasons but it also provides the narcotics in the form of television and actual narcotics so that we can “adapt,” shall we say.  And so yes, it’s definitely a struggle against mind control, against conditioning, against banal information.  We were born with the birthright of curiosity and there’s nothing more natural than to be curious, but of course this faculty is extinguished early in life.  It seems like society does everything it can to either extinguish this faculty or to channel it only along channels of consumption rather than you yourself doing something creative on your own, something creative and original and obsessive and unique on your own.  I don’t think society can really handle that, because it’s too destabilizing.  It’s like we’re in a vast consumption machine, we’re part of it, and society would function (it thinks) better if we would just go along with the programs.  And so obviously anyone who is a lover of freedom is going to go against that in all its manifestations.  And yet it’s not just enough to fight, whatever that means.  You have to eventually start doing something.  And in our case we more or less accidentally discovered that we could do something and sort of realize our own identities and destinies by becoming publishers.  Re/Search however is not the same as Search and Destroy.  Re/Search happened when I met Andrea [Juno] back in 1980, after we’d been very depressed for a year by what we thought was the death of punk rock.  It was certainly the death of punk rock as we knew it, that is as a viable underground, a microcosmos of society.  We were depressed for a year but then realized that this shouldn’t be the end of publishing.

OVO: Are the Re/Search archives open to the public?

Vale: No, because we’re not public figures.  If all we were to do were to run a library we’d never get any work done, and obviously our work comes first.  It’s hard enough as it is right now just to deal with all the business aspects let alone function as some sort of archive.  It so happens that we’ve been attacked by Jesse Helms [R-NC] and Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] and entered into the Congressional Record because they don’t like our book Modern Primitives, which is yet another Re/Search publication which is advocating a certain theory of self-liberation or exploration.  That’s all it was intended to do, provide theory for this kind of activity, but apparently the powers that be would like to have this kind of theory and information repressed.

OVO: What kind of trouble have they been giving you?

VALE: Actually we should context this in a much wider overview that obviously America right now is under (thanks to less than probably one-tenth of one percent of the population) which is these very organized fundamentalist Christian fascists who have nothing to do with their lives but write letters all day to their congressman and call up advertisers threatening to boycott things like The Simpsons.  In other words, a minority group trying to pretend and camouflaging themselves as some kind of vox populi majority, which they are not. They’re mostly these very ignorant people in the South, people who have long since shut off any creative potential in their lives.  They’re just consumed by envy and they want to control all the rest of the population, who might be having more fun than them in some way. The Reagan agenda was to turn the country back to the McCarthy ’50s, since he was an informer for McCarthy, and to take away all the gains of the ’60s.  That complex agenda is still being realized. Every day there’s some new article in the paper on page 40 how 160 stores in the deep South took away Playboy Magazine from their stands. Little things like that don’t even get reported here on the West Coast. Thing like that are happening all the time but the more you find out about it the scarier it gets.

OVO: Yesterday a group called AIDS Response Knoxville had their office fire bombed. I just found out about that this morning.

VALE: If you could send me the clipping… see, that was not in our paper today. It doesn’t surprise me. So what you have now is a great deal of information containment going on. We’re living in the illusion that all the information is available, that were living in a global village and all that, but most people get their information from TV news, which is of course extremely compressed and bowdlerized and operates by omission. We should all be subscribing to our own little clipping services I suppose to get the kind of news such as the incident you told me about just now.

OVO: I didn’t find out about it from the paper. I found out about it from a friend and he said there’s only a tiny article about it.

VALE: That’s perfect, that’s exactly the way things happen and are happening. The propaganda techniques which Hitler initiated in terms of mass media control of the population, they‘re real good now. Helms is a master of negative campaigning, in which life gets simplified down to whether you’re for child pornography and obscenity or… Helms’ voting record is incredible, he’s a madman, the total enemy of liberty. But even when Helms is gone there‘ll always be someone to take his place. This kind of control mentality will apparently always be with us but yet we’re trying to do a small campaign so that all the minority papers across the country will at least have a copy of his voting record and also start to get a larger overview of all these isolated little incidents that’ve been happening, which together paint an extremely depressing picture of the abridgment of our freedoms.

OVO: Have there been specific incidents of you having trouble with Modern Primitives?

VALE: Knock on wood, no. We had two art shows based on the book, and that‘s how it started. If you don’t have any information on this I’ll send it to you.

OVO: No, I don’t have any.

VALE: Okay, I’ll send you the whole little press packet on that, with all the articles that’ve come out. See, that’s what l mean, someone as relatively hip and aware as you don’t know. Multiply this by about a thousand for all the little environmental groups all over. Their little news things never get reported. I just found out today that all the searches that the FBI did of all these Earth First houses, the people involved with Earth First because of two people blown up by a bomb, the FBI keeps reporting to the news that they blew themselves up rather than what they should be doing which is trying to find out who really did it. I didn’t realize until I read the paper today that all the searches the FBI did of people who deal with Earth First were all warrantless. To me that is really frightening. Did you know that? Do you think that means anything? And we only found out because our good friend Jock Sturges, a photographer, got busted recently. We’ve known Jock for years. For the last twenty years he has specifically focused on, shall we say, beautiful adolescent girls who are developing. But they are not pornography, he’s not the head of a kiddie porn ring by any means. He’s got the most incredibly beautiful negatives you’ve ever seen, eight by ten inch view camera negatives blown up to twenty by twenty-four inch prints that have a million gray tones in them. And we only found out from him that basically the First and Fourth Amendments are dead. The Fourth Amendment is unreasonable searches and seizures. Because the FBI just busted into his house without a search warrant. And this was all done, as Burroughs has kept us appraised of and warned us against all these years, in the name of fighting the “drug problem.” Because here’s what they can say now: they can come in because (a) they have a reason to believe you are about to destroy evidence and (b) they have a right to watch you because they have reason to believe you might try to commit suicide or commit harm to yourself. Isn’t that nice?

OVO: They’ve certainly got our best interests in mind.

VALE: Yes, of course.

OVO: How do you prevent Re/Search from becoming a part of the process of -

VALE: – co-option and assimilation? You’re dealing with what McLuhan called a very cool medium (or is it hot, I can never get that straight), but you’re dealing with a medium that is a book, and do you realize how few people read anymore? The numbers are incredible, how much reading has declined even though the population has doubled. When people do read, what do they read? They mostly lead these airport kind of books. It’s really frightening. The reason most people avoid books is because, let’s face it, there’s only a minority that reads any more, almost everyone else watches television and gets their information from TV. And in order to read effectively I find that l must have complete silence, as much as possible, and this is not the modem way. A lot of people these days, it’s like a conspiracy to keep them from thinking. As soon as they get up in the morning they have their radio blaring or put on a tape or something. We’ve all known people who’ve had the TV on eight hours a day. Of course we don’t know people like that any more, but they’re out there, like zombies or something. And so I still think that if you’re putting something out in a book you have more of a chance of making it with some kind of integrity. Because books aren’t you, Re/Search is not me or Andrea; it’s on its own. And if it has some ideas that light up your brain and catalyze in some way, which is the best that one can hope for… the books really do have a life of their own. And we’re just putting out a combination of information, images and ideas, hopefully, as well as trying to direct people to other books, which continue the same kind of inspiration.

Re/Search
20 Romolo Street #B
San Franslsco CA 94133 USA
http://researchpubs.com/

from OVO 11 CONTROL (September 1991)

Update, February 2011
Jim Morton writes about films, pop culture, and advertising.
http://popvoid.blogspot.com/

Boyd Rice was formerly credited as guest editor for Re/Search #10 Incredibly Strange Films.
http://www.boydrice.com/

Andrea Juno founded Juno Books.
http://twitter.com/AnimaJuno

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. died in 2008.

Dana Tyron Rohrabacher is the U.S. Representative for California’s 46th Congressional district.

AIDS Response Knoxville served at least between 1987 and 1999 and may still exist.

Jock Sturges’ studio was the subject of an FBI raid on 25 April 1990. Accused of child pornography, a Grand Jury did not bring an indictment against him.

Wikipedia, Judi Bari Car Bombing:

In 1990, a bomb exploded in Judi Bari’s car, shattering her pelvis and also injuring fellow activist Darryl Cherney. Bari and Cherney were later arrested after police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation suspected that they had been transporting the bomb when it accidentally exploded. The case against them was eventually dropped due to lack of evidence. Bari died in 1997 of cancer, but her federal lawsuit against the FBI and Oakland, California police resulted in a 2002 jury verdict awarding her estate and Darryl Cherney a total of $4.4 million. Eighty percent of the damages were for violation of their First Amendment rights by the FBI and police trying to discredit them in the media as violent extremists despite ample evidence to the contrary. The bombing remains unsolved.

American Renaissance: About American Renaissance (31 January 2011)

American Renaissance is a monthly magazine that has been published since 1991. It has been called “a literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration and the decline of civility.” We consider it America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought [...] Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society – language, religion, class, ideology – it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century. The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological. This approach is known as race realism.

Southern Poverty Law Center: Intelligence Report, Summer 2006, Issue Number 122 (2006)

American Renaissance, based in [editor Jared] Taylor’s home in Oakton, Va., also publishes frequent articles on the discredited field of eugenics – selective breeding to improve human genetic stock. The foundation has hosted biannual conferences since 1994, and its website, featuring stories on black crime and the like, recently rose to one of the top 20,000 in the world after a makeover. In recent years, Taylor has added several budding racist intellectuals to his staff, including Ian Jobling, the website editor and E-list moderator, and Stephen Webster, assistant editor of American Renaissance. Even before he started the New Century Foundation, Taylor wrote on race, penning a 1992 book, Paved With Good Intentions, that argued because sterilizing welfare mothers would not be publicly accepted, authorities should instead provide such women with “five-year implantable contraceptives.”

Wikipedia: American Renaissance (Magazine) (31 January 2011)

American Renaissance is a monthly racialist magazine published by the New Century Foundation. The magazine and foundation were founded by Jared Taylor, and the first issue was published in November 1990. A main theme of the magazine is a claim that non-white minorities pose a demographic threat to the United States and other Western nations. The magazine argues that the United States’ major social problems are due to racial diversity and a weakening of the country’s white racial heritage by increased non-white immigration.

Charlotte Observer: White Nationalists’ Conference Stymied (26 January 2011)

When a white nationalist magazine announced a conference in Charlotte, anarchists and other groups vowed to protest or disrupt the gathering. But behind the scenes the conference apparently met an unexpected obstacle: Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon. On Wednesday, American Renaissance magazine said plans for its annual conference are now in limbo because the hotel where it was scheduled to take place canceled the reservation. An e-mail Cannon sent to a constituent early this week suggested he was lobbying local hotels to refuse to book American Renaissance. Cannon wrote that he had contacted hotels and that “they seem to be cooperating. An attempt was made for accommodations at another hotel but based on what I ask to take place they were denied again,” the e-mail said.

The Jewish Defense Organization: Death to Nazi Scum! (31 January 2011)

Charlotte City Councilman Warren Turner, Charlotte City Councilman Patrick Cannon and the NAACP plus other anti-racist groups have had the meeting of the American Renaissance Party cancelled. Councilman Turner sent out an email to all of the hotels in Charlotte informing them to alert the police if AmRen booked space with them. Councilman Cannon also advised these hotels to be in compliance with the law. When the Airport Sheraton Hotel checked its convention bookings it found that AmRen had booked under a different name for the dates in question. The Sheraton returned the deposit that the Shockleyite scum had put down to reserve the meeting room where the Nazi meeting was to be held. JDO is warning other hotels in the area to be on the lookout for anyone who tries to book for the same dates. JDO believes preaching racial inferiority can lead to lynchings, cross burnings and murder and mayhem.

The American Independent: White Supremacist Group American Renaissance Forced to Move Location of Annual Conference in Charlotte (26 January 2011)

Rev. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP, said of the planned visit to Charlotte by American Renaissance, “Racial hatred, and those who promote racial animosity, has no place in our American society. Certainly people have a First Amendment right to have their views, but we think people should stand up. We stand opposed to any groups that promote white supremacy.”

One People’s Project: Here We Go Again! (27 January 2011)

This time, it wasn’t us who mounted the campaign against AmRen. Sure, we were the ones who alerted the Southern Anti-Racism Network, who took the lead in opposing the 2011 American Renaissance Conference, which was slated to take place Feb. 4-6 in Charlotte, NC. And yes, we have been meeting and planning for our opposition since November (we were actually in one of those meetings when news of the Tuscon shooting broke – which Fox News tried to connect to AmRen). And yes, our plans are still going forward at this time, even though AmRen’s plans seem to be meeting the same fate as in DC last year – squashed. Nothing is etched in stone, however. Jared Taylor & Co. have not officially announced a cancellation (probably trying to see if a TGI Fridays would hook them up with a back room or something), so we are still waiting to see what comes of this. But while we sounded the initial alarm, this was all due to the efforts of the community saying no to Taylor and his New Century Foundation. It is now being reported by local press that the hotel that Taylor tried to keep under wraps had been discovered, the hotel bounced them out, and other hotels won’t accomidate [sic] him! And before you say it, everyone who opposes AmRen has freedom of speech and association too. People had a right to alert area hotels that this was going to take place and they might not want to have this going on. Hotels have the right to close their doors to unwelcome elements. And we have the right to say that it doesn’t matter where AmRen goes. We will always be there to sound the alarm.

American Renaissance: An Appeal to the City of Charlotte and to Mayor Pro-tem Patrick Cannon (31 January 2011)

On July 29, 2010, New Century Foundation signed a contract with the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel to host the biennial American Renaissance (AR) conference. (New Century Foundation is the non-profit organization that publishes the monthly magazine, American Renaissance.) We explained to the Sheraton that many people think the ideas discussed in AR are controversial. We explained that in 2010 a hotel that had agreed to host our conference came under pressure and broke its contract with us. The Sheraton agreed that it was therefore important to keep the location of the conference confidential. Our contacts said they understood what was at stake and that they believed in free speech. On January 25, the Sheraton sent us a one-line e-mail message saying that because of “recent disclosures as to the nature of your event” they were breaking their contract. Since then, they refuse to speak to us. The pretence that it did not know what might be discussed at an AR conference is a pathetic, embarrassing lie. Perhaps what the Sheraton actually found out was that Patrick Cannon, Mayor Pro-tem of the city of Charlotte, does not want AR to come to Charlotte. In an e-mail message to a constituent he wrote: “I have all hotels, motels, and gotels [sic] on notice and they seem to be cooperating well still.” The date of this e-mail was January 25, the very day the Sheraton canceled its contract. We can only imagine that the Sheraton must have come under very heavy pressure to walk away from tens of thousands of dollars in revenues – 100 hotel rooms for two nights, a formal banquet, bar and meal tabs – and to subject itself to a five-figure cancellation fee. [...] At an AR conference, middle-aged men in suits give speeches to other middle-aged men in suits. We have nothing to hide. Our speeches are videotaped and made available on our website, amren.com. If our ideas are hopelessly wrong, they should be easy to refute. They should be a threat to no one. Why is Charlotte in a panic about this conference? It is because we disagree with certain prevailing views and we have the courage of our convictions. Your city is not even attempting to understand our views, much less debate them. You are trying to silence us and drive us away. Are your citizens proud of what you are doing? In an era that claims to value “tolerance and diversity,” why do you have no tolerance for the most precious kind of diversity of all: the diversity of ideas? [...] We think better of Charlotte than this. We call on Patrick Cannon and Warren Turner to consider how their actions soil the reputation of their city. We believe they should support free speech. We believe they should take a stand for genuine tolerance of a genuine diversity of ideas. We call on them to issue an apology to American Renaissance and to make a city-owned property available to us to rent for our conference. It is still not too late to encourage the qualities that made America great, not the totalitarian impulses that Americans – at least traditionally – have always despised.

Articles continue at links.  You know, it was only a few decades ago when I was the anarchist tearing down posters of groups I didn’t like from telephone poles.  I made collage art (that’ll learn ‘em!) from the posters I tore down.  And I was the anarchist preventing groups I didn’t like from marching in the streets.  I thought of myself as a champion of freedom and as a protector of the people.  But I wasn’t.  I was (very, very slightly) lessening the amount of freedom in the world.  If such a thing as “the people” exist, I did nothing to protect them.  Protecting people from ideas is not something I advocate today, although I confess I did decades ago.  I was (albeit with nearly no effect) close to the opposite of the person I thought I was.  And so today I take some pains to do penance.  I advocate freedom of thought and speech and assembly and association.  And I try to advocate these freedoms for those I disagree with with as much rigor as I advocate these freedoms for those who think like me.  Not as a natural right or as an American or as a Western man, but out of basic civility.  Don’t want to go?  Keep away.  Want to air your differences?  I’m guessing Mr. Taylor would be happy to debate you.  Vigorous protest are entirely appropriate, for or against the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel and for or against American Renaissance, if you have some vigor in you.  Boycott or bankroll any group you see fit.  But don’t do like I did decades ago and be the bully you think you’re beating.

Amnesty International has made its name as a champion of free speech, campaigning on behalf of prisoners who have spoken out against oppressive regimes around the world. But when it comes to speaking up about the organisation itself … well, that seems to be a different story.

Last week [February 2010] Gita Sahgal, a highly respected lifelong human rights activist and head of Amnesty’s gender unit, told The Sunday Times of her concerns about Amnesty’s relationship with Cageprisoners, an organisation headed by Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo internee.

Since his release in 2005, Begg has spoken alongside Amnesty at a number of events and accompanied the organisation to a meeting at Downing Street last month. Sahgal felt the closeness of the relationship between Amnesty and Cageprisoners — which appears to give succour to those who believe in global jihad — was a threat to Amnesty’s integrity. “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment,” she wrote to Amnesty’s leaders following the Downing Street visit.

Feeling her concerns were not being addressed, she decided to go public. Hours after our story appeared she was suspended. Sahgal’s phone started ringing off the hook with news organisations seeking interviews. The story also lit up the blogosphere, partly because of Amnesty’s importance — it has some 2.8m members and a raft of glamorous supporters — but also because what Sahgal was talking about touched that raw nerve, the naivety of white middle-class liberals in dealing with Islamic radicals.

To say the past week has been a difficult one for Sahgal would be an understatement. She fears for her own and her family’s safety. She has — temporarily at least — lost her job and found it almost impossible to find anyone to represent her in any potential employment case. She rang round the human rights lawyers she knows, all of whom have declined to help citing a conflict of interest. “Although it is said that we must defend everybody no matter what they’ve done, it appears that if you’re a secular, atheist, Asian British woman, you don’t deserve a defence from our civil right firms,” she says wryly.

So no one in the human rights world wants to cross swords with Amnesty: that’s no surprise and least of all to Sahgal. “I know the nature of what I’m up against,” she says. “I didn’t do what I did lightly.” [...]

If the men incarcerated in Guantanamo were white fascists, she says, “I hope we would defend them. We would have to defend them — but we wouldn’t necessarily put them on 50 or 100 platforms after that”.

Article continues.

I place small value in knowing a person by the company they keep. Using myself as an example, what could you learn about me by way of my facebook friends? There you will find many men and women who have only myself in common. Were they ever to meet, they would surely wonder about the wretched company I keep. They are Christians and atheists, occultists and skeptics, anarchists and fascists, regular folks and weird artists, feminists and anti-feminists, gainfully-employed and work-free, family-types and libertines, and perhaps even yourself. I will gladly call all of them friend and count myself fortunate for being able to do so. It is also the case that (with luck and effort) people grow and change, old beliefs and identities no longer apply, and (with luck and effort) we can be forgiven for past mistakes. I certainly appreciate when I have been forgiven for my past mistakes, of which there are a few. When Ms. Sahgal questions Amnesty International for the company they keep, I can see some merit in the question but not much. I hope that Mr. Begg has turned the corner and abandoned the more loathsome aspects of Islam, and am willing to give him a chance to demonstrate this is true.

When Ms. Sahgal hopes that Amnesty International would defend white fascists as well as Muslims, she expresses a hope that was closed off years ago. Since February 2006, Amnesty International has adopted the policy that ‘freedom of speech carries responsibility for all.’ In September 2005 the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting Muhammad in rejection of the self-censorship the editors saw among publishers afraid of Muslims. Muslims around the world protested in exactly the way they did not protest against 9/11. As quiet as the Muslim world was after 9/11 in which thousands were murdered, they rioted after the publication of twelve cartoons. Hundreds died and great economic damage through arson was done. Rather than commit itself to freedom of speech and the separation of state and superstition, Amnesty International gave the rioting Muslims what they wanted: submission.

Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies. [...] Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence. [...]

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute — neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law.

There’s the universal human right of free speech, and then there’s the publication of twelve cartoons in a newspaper. Don’t confuse the two.

Hate speech laws are a funny thing when it comes to religion. The United Kingdom’s Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an example. According to this Act, an offence has occurred if “a person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” But if the “hate speech” is interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, then no offence has occurred. Consider the Criminal Code of Canada. It prohibits ‘any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide [against] any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.’ But if the “hate speech” is made ‘to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text’ then the “hate speech” is exempt.

That’s right: religion is exempt from laws protecting religion, and “hate speech” done in the name of religion is allowed while “hate speech” critical of or outside religion is forbidden. This exemption is necessary to preserve and protect the “hate speech” found in the Bible and the Quran. This exemption suggests “hate speech” laws exist to protect religion from criticism, not combat genocide or uphold the universal human right to Not Have Your Feelings Hurt.

I was a member of Amnesty International for many years. I paid annual dues and held fund-raising events. I supported AI because I support freedom of speech. I support the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscious. AI began as a support system for prisoners of conscious, and some measure of that mission remains in place. But over time, AI has abandoned the success found in doing one simple thing very well in favor of doing a number of exciting things poorly. A few years ago the board of AI was populated by a group that supported adding “economic, social and cultural rights” to the mission of the organization. I will not argue the merits or demerits of these claims here, nor the merits or demerits of AI having a ‘gender unit’ (of which Ms. Saghal was a leader). I will say that advocacy of economic, social and cultural rights are adequately addressed by other organizations and by many millions of individuals. I wrote AI saying that these new goals were at odds with being able to offer support to some prisoners of conscious. I was told that I could get my donated money back but that the decision had been made by a vote to adopt these goals. I replied that the same vote that brought about these changes might bring other changes later on – but apparently not, as I got no reply, AI continues to list left, and with the support of “hate speech” laws AI has abandoned its original mission of supporting prisoners of conscious.

I’m not a believer in natural rights, but I do support laws respecting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be mistaken, the freedom to offend, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to inquire. Let Mr. Begg speak, and just as much let Jyllands-Posten publish. I do not claim Ms. Sahgal has been censored, as Amnesty International is not a government organization and did not use the force of law to enforce its way.

All that having been said, Amnesty International has erred by dismissing Ms. Sahgal. Any effort to defend freedom of speech must include a sound criticism of Islam and a record of its crimes. Ms. Sahgal touched the raw nerve, the naivety of white middle-class liberals in dealing with Islamic radicals. For that, she was dismissed from Amnesty International. I still get requests for money from AI. I consider bleeding them of the postage and printing it takes for them to send me these requests to be a small protest against what AI has become.

via youtube, where citation links are available.

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.

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)

Why do the results achieved by a conspiracy as a rule differ widely from the results aimed at? Because this is what usually happens in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. And this remark gives us an opportunity to formulate the main task of the theoretical social sciences. It is to trace the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions. I may give a simple example. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house in a certain district, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses in that district. 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 the intention of encouraging other 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 events, 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.

It should be mentioned in this connection that Karl Marx himself was one of the first to emphasize the importance, for the social sciences, of these unintended consequences. In his more mature utterances, he says that we are all caught in the net of the social system. The capitalist is not a demoniac conspirator, but a man who is forced by circumstances to act as he does; he is no more responsible for the state of affairs than is the proletarian.

This view of Marx’s has been abandoned – perhaps for propagandist reasons, perhaps because people did not understand it – and a Vulgar Marxist Conspiracy theory has very largely replaced it. It is a come-down – the come-down from Marx to Goebbels. But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.

First published in the Library of the10th International Congress of Philosophy, 1948. From Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge 1989

I was in my late twenties when I stopped identifying myself as a liberal. When evidence started mounting that shot machine-gun holes through the block of liberal cheese I’d purchased at the local liberal co-op, I concluded that liberalism was not a logically consistent belief system.

But it wasn’t only liberal illogic that caused me to dump the whole program – much of it had to do with gradual changes in liberal attitudes and behavior. I’m old enough to remember when liberals were free-speech absolutists and conservatives tended to be the book-burners. But historical forces can blur, erase, and often invert party lines.

Over the years, I watched as liberals slowly became the group most likely to flat-out refuse discussing certain topics and answering certain questions, their purportedly “open” minds snapping shut like a giant clam. They became the group most likely to try and silence their opponents by shouting them down, defaming them, assaulting them, and even urging legislation to ban the use and expression of certain terms and sentiments. They became the group most disposed toward emotional appeals, double standards, wishful thinking, and wretchedly malodorous sanctimony.

Up through my teens and twenties, I had considered liberals to be the most open-minded and free-thinking group in America, only to watch them morph into the most ideologically rigid pack of true believers I’d ever seen. With modern American liberalism, it’s as if their cute, multicolored, and sincerely curious little 1960s caterpillar had blossomed into a hardened grey butterfly fossil. Liberalism had become an emotion-driven folk religion that somehow had convinced itself science and logic were on its side.

These days, I suppose I’d rather hang out with conservatives than liberals, if only for the fact that I offend conservatives less, and it’s a drag to hang out with people who are always getting offended.

Article continues.

President Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917.  The United States joined World War One.  117,465 soldiers and civilians died from the United States alone.  Thousands upon thousands came home disabled.  Samuel Gompers was the founder and a president of the American Federation of Labor.  He was a supporter of WWI and of President Wilson.  Gompers influenced the Wilson administration to keep union members out of the draft pool and, at the same time, increase the pay of civilian union members.  The rate of pay for those who stayed home as union members compared to those who served in the military (sometimes involuntarily) was profound. Those who stayed home had opportunities in business and education that those who served were denied.

On 29 May 1924 Congress passed the Adjusted Service Certificate Law.  This law compensated WWI veterans for opportunities missed while serving in the military at the rate of $1.00 per day served and $1.25 per day served overseas.  The pay would be held to gather interest for twenty years.  Vets could borrow against half their pay at interest, and many desperate vets did so at a great loss.  If a veteran died before twenty years passed, the full amount would be paid to their survivors and so it became known as the Tombstone Bonus.  The Wilson administration also wanted to replace disabled veterans benefits with an optional insurance policy to be paid by the soldier himself.  While Congress passed the Adjusted Service Certificate Law it was voted down by the Senate.  In 1929, Herbert Hoover became President and the Great Depression began.  Many disabled veterans were unable to perform the jobs they returned to.  Many veterans had already been out of work for eight years and were not content with waiting twenty more to be paid for work done long ago.

On 22 January 1932, President Hoover established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a means to address the Great Depression.  Between $1.5 and 2 billion dollars were given to banks and businesses.  Will Rogers described the scene: “You can’t get a room in Washington.  Every hotel is jammed to the doors with bankers from all over America to get their ‘hand out’ from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.  [The bankers] have the honor of being the first group to go on the ‘dole’ in America.”

Among the discontent not getting a hand out was Sargeant Walter W. Waters.  Walters was born in Burns, Oregon in 1898.  He served in the Idaho National Guard in 1910 against Francisco “Pancho” Villa.  In 1917 he served in the Oregon National Guard, shipping to France on Christmas Eve to fight in World War I.  He received an honorable discharge in 1919.  In 1925 he moved to Washington and then Portland, Oregon looking for work.  He picked fruit and worked in a cannery.  Wherever he went he listened to veterans unable to find work who were also not being paid for services rendered in war.  He met many other veterans who had lost their jobs and savings after the war.  Walters noted that special interest lobbyists got results in Washington, and conceived of a lobby of veterans to encourage the United States Government to deliver the payment the veterans were due.

On 11 March 1932 Waters called for a march on Washington and 250-300 men from Portland joined him.  They marched behind a banner reading “Portland Bonus March – On to Washington.” The veterans and their families had popular support and the support of some authorities.  A Portland railroad offered the use of dung-stained cattle cars to transport the Bonus Army.  The Indiana National Guard and the Pennsylvania National Guard used military vehicles to transport the Bonus Army.  Toll bridge operators let the Bonus Army march silently across bridges without pay, and police officers refused to arrest Bonus Army veterans for trespassing.  Thousands joined the Bonus Army as it marched towards Washington with Sargent Waters as their elected leader.  Waters forbade drinking, panhandling, and ‘anti-government’ or ‘radical’ talk.

Tombstone Bonus protest, Portland Oregon USA August 1932. SW 4th and Main Street.

When Waters and his Bonus Army arrived in late May 1932 they were twenty thousand strong.  The veterans and their families camped in buildings abandoned during the Great Depression and in giant shantytowns. Communists showed up at the shantytowns and agitated for their cause among the veterans.  In reply, Bonus Army veterans seized the communists, held trials and sentenced them to fifteen lashes.  More than two hundred communists were expelled from the Bonus Army camps.  But supporters who were not communists showed up at the shantytown with material support.  Among them were eight German soldiers, each having fought against US soldiers, each wounded twice or more in World War I, all naturalized citizens and bearing a total of eight tons of food and supplies for the Bonus Army.

On 29 June 1932 the US Government announced it would not meet the demands of the Bonus Army and that the Bonus Army had to leave by 15 July.  By 5 July there was no food remaining.  On 7 July congress offered $10,000 to the Bonus Army if it would simply leave Washington DC.  Some did take the money and leave, but many more took the money and stayed while other veterans joined for the first time.  One thousand more veterans and their families had joined the Bonus Army in Washington and more were on their way.  On 17 July Congress voted down the bonus and then adjourned.  President Hoover went on a vacation.

Theodore Roosevelt had described Major General Smedley Butler as the ‘ideal soldier.’  At the time of his death, Butler was the most decorated Marine in US history.  But he had also spoken disparagingly of Benito Mussolini in Italy, for which he was reprimanded and threatened with court marshal.  He retired in protest in 1931. Butler addressed the Bonus Army on 19 July 1932.  “Men, I ran for the Senate in Pennsylvania on a bonus ticket.  I got the hell beaten out of me.  But I haven’t changed my mind a damned bit.  I’m here because I’ve been a soldier for thirty-five years and I can’t resist the temptation to be among soldiers.  Hang together and stick it out till the gates of Hell freeze over; if you don’t, you’re no damn good.  Remember, by God, you didn’t win the war for a select class of a few financiers and high binders.  Don’t break any laws and allow people to say bad things about you.  If you slip over into lawlessness of any kind you will lose the sympathy of 120 million people in this nation.”

Walter W. Waters in Washington DC 1932

Waters, meanwhile, announced the formation of ‘shock troops’ within the Bonus Army to be called the Khaki Shirts.  “Inevitably such an organization brings up comparisons with the Facisti of Italy and the NAZI of Germany.  For five years Hitler was lampooned and derided, but today he controls Germany.  Mussolini, before the war, was a tramp printer driven from Italy because of his political views.  But today he is a world figure.  The Khaki Shirts, however, would be essentially American.”  Waters demanded “complete dictatorial powers” of the Bonus Army.  Like many of Waters’ demands, this did not come to pass.

Communists tried once more to force a confrontation with the US Government on 20 and 25 July by rushing the White House.  The Government responded by ordering Waters to evacuate several of the Bonus Army camps.  Waters agreed to leave with the promise the Bonus Army could leave in stages and would not be forced by fellow soldiers or police to do so.  Waters told his followers: “When you start defying the federal government, which don’t take any consideration of the human element, you’re going to get licked.  We can’t lick the United States Government, but when the United States troops are called to escort me out, I’m going out.”  After making this speech, Waters was informed that all of the Bonus Army needed to leave Washington immediately.  “There you are!  You’re double crossed!  I’m double crossed!”  The Bonus Army ceased all evacuation.

On 28 July 1932 United States soldiers attack United States veterans.  The charge against the Bonus Army was led by future General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, future President Dwight Eisenhower and future General of the Army George Patton.  Thousands of civil servants lines the streets to honor the Bonus Army, but they were also attacked.  MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton were supported by Washington police.

Police attack the Bonus Army 1932.

Four hundred infantry from the the 12th Infantry Regiment and two hundred cavalry from the 3rd Cavalry Regiment mobilized against the Bonus Army.  The infantry attacked with sabers, bayonets and tear gas.  Several Army trucks with machine guns and five or six tanks also moved against the veterans.

US Tanks mobilize against US veterans in Washington DC 1932.

In the streets of Washington DC, US soldier fought US soldier. Two veterans were shot.  The shantytowns were burned to the ground, including the American flags of the veterans and all the worldly possessions of their families.

Bonus Army shantytown burning in front of Capital Building 1932.

Bonus Army shantytown burning in front of Washington Monument 1932.

When the fighting started, the Communists fled.  Bonus Army soldiers remained, retaliating with brickbats and fists but never firing a shot nor returning the bayonet or saber attacks.

President Hoover later described the attack on the Bonus Army in this way: “A challenge to the authority of the United States Government has been met, swiftly and firmly. After months of patient indulgence, the Government met overt lawlessness as it always must be met if the cherished processes of self-government are to be preserved. We cannot tolerate the abuse of Constitutional rights by those who would destroy all government, no matter who they may be. Government cannot be coerced by mob rule.”  Hoover’s Attorney general William D. Mitchell described the Bonus Army as “the largest aggregation of criminals that had ever assembled in the city at one time.  A very much larger proportion of the Bonus Army than was realized at the time consisted of ex-convicts,  persons with criminal records, radicals and non-servicemen.”  MacArthur later described the attack on the Bonus Army in this way: “If there was one man in that group today who is a veteran, it would surprise me.  The mob down Pennsylvania Avenue looked bad.  They were animated by the spirit of revolution.  The gentleness and consideration with which they had been treated had been mistaken by them as weakness and they had come to the conclusion that they were about to take over the government in an arbitrary way or by indirect methods.”  The day after the eviction, a veteran approached Patton.  When Patton saw the veteran he said “Sargent, I do not know this man.  Take him away, and under no circumstances permit him to return!”  When the man left, Patton said this: “That man was my orderly during the war.  When I was wounded, he dragged me from a shell hole under fire.  I got him a decoration for it.  Since the war, my mother and I have more than supported him.  We have given him money.  We have set him up in business several times.  Can you imagine the headlines if the papers got wind of our meeting here this morning?  Of course, we’ll take care of him anyway.”

The Bonus Army veterans and their families scattered.  Some returned to their home states, whether or not they had a home there.  Some stayed in or near Washington.  The Bonus Army marched again, some of the men in the Bonus Army marched or petitioned under other names, but their back had been broken.

Hoover was not re-elected.  Franklin D. Roosevelt became the next President of the United States.  Roosevelt established the Civil Conservation Corps, the G. I. Bill, the Works Progress Administration and in 1936 he paid the bonus.  On average, $583 per soldier.

In 1930 the most prosperous nations in history were seized by widespread poverty.  War was blossoming around the globe.  At the same time, post-revolutionary Russia was rapidly evolving into a superpower.  There was a sense that a new beginning was both necessary and possible.  The economy could no longer be left to chance, and the downtrodden could no longer be left to their own devices.  Three nations – Germany, Italy and the United States – initiated ‘third way’ proposals that were not quite capitalism and not quite socialism.  The Khaki Shirts founded (then abandoned) by Waters had branches in Washington and Philadelphia.  Sir Oswald Mosley of England made a proposal but did not have the opportunity to implement it.  Roosevelt’s solution in the United States was called the New Deal.  Roosevelt and Mosley were friends, enjoying cruises and a playful vacation in Florida.

Mansuel Crosby, Franklin Roosevelt and Oswald Mosley.

Bonus Army veterans had a different experience in Florida.  Roosevelt sent them to Florida to do construction work during hurricane season.  On 29 August 1935 the Labor Day Hurricane destroyed the area and killed hundreds of veterans.  Hurricane warnings had gone out all over the state but had been specifically withheld from the veterans camps.  The blowing sand had caused such abrasion to their bodies that many could not be identified.  Their bodies were anonymously burned en mass.

The New Deal did bring relief to many desperate Americans.  At the same time, the New Deal increased the burdens of the wealthy in America.  Some of the wealthy decided to follow the Bonus Army example and have a private army march on Washington.  This time, however, the private army would seize the city and install a new leader. In the Summer of 1933 General Smedley Butler was approached by Gerald MacGuire.  MacGuire said veterans should be paid in a gold-backed currency.  He also said he represented Robert Sterling Clark (heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune) and Grayson Murphy (a wealthy stockbroker).  MacGuire’s group, the American Liberty League, enjoyed the patronage of the Du Pont companies and other wealthy supporters.  They saw soldiers trusted Butler, and so they wanted Butler to lead a private army of 500,000 men to take over Washington DC.  Butler rejected the offer, saying “If you get those 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home.”  Butler then warned the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars about the coup.  National Commander James E. Van Zandt replied that he had also been approached by MacGuire.  Butler went to Congress and reported the Business Plot and the Congress investigated his claims.  MacGuire denied Bulter’s claims.  Congress found Butler’s claims largely credible, and no further action was taken.  Butler went on to write the book War is a Racket.

In 1783, the Continental Army at Newburgh, New York realized that they not only had not been paid in years but also that they would not ever be paid by the new United States Government.  The rate of pay for those who did not fight compared to those who served in the military was profound. Those who stayed home had opportunities in business and education that those who served were denied.  Some veterans of the Continental Army sent representatives to Congress demanding pay and compensation for missed opportunities.  Other Continental Army veterans surrounded the State House.  General George Washington advised them not to slip over into lawlessness.  The politicians left by back doors and under guard. The new United States Army then forcibly expelled the Continental Army from the area.  The expulsion of the “Newburgh Conspiracy” from Washington helped form the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military for police work except in the city of Washington DC.  This exception was created to expel the Continental Army and it was used again to expel the Bonus Army.

In 2010 the most prosperous nations in history are seized by widespread poverty.  War is blossoming around the globe.  There is a sense that a new beginning is both necessary and possible.  The economy can no longer be left to chance, and the downtrodden can no longer be left to their own devices.  To that end, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has handed out nearly $800 billion dollars to banks and businesses.  There are an estimated 107,000 homeless veterans in the United States.  The Veterans Administration served 92,000 veterans in 2009, leaving over 100,000 veterans without care.  Payments allowing veterans to attend college are often late and college students are unable to complete their degrees.  Unemployment among veterans is two percent higher than civilians.  Two hundred thousand or more US soldiers will return from Iraq and Afghanistan looking for work while the US experiences a recession and scarcity of jobs.  So let’s all sing…

They used to tell me I was building a dream and so I followed the mob.
When there was earth to plow or guns to bear I was always there, right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream with peace and glory ahead.
Why should I be standing in line just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it’s done, brother can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower to the sun, brick and mortar and lime.
Once I built a tower, now it’s done, brother can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits, gee, we looked swell, full of that yankee doodle de dum.
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell and I was the kid with the drum.
Say don’t you remember, they called me Al, it was Al all the time.
Say don’t you remember, I’m your pal, brother can you spare a dime?

- Brother Can You Spare a Dime? by E. Y. “Yip” Harburg and Jay Gorney, 1931

Video:
PBS: March of the Bonus Army via youtube [1][2][3] or purchase.
PBS: History Detectives Season 6, Episode 5. [video][transcript]
Bonus Army documentaries via youtube [1][2][3], sources unknown.
BBC 4: The Whitehouse Coup via youtube [1][2][3] or listen.
Graham Frye reads an excerpt from War is a Racket.
Library of Congress: Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen on 22 June 2005.

Books:
The Bonus Army.  Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen.  New York: Walker and Company 2004. [Paul Dickson] [Thomas B. Allen][New York Times][worldcat]
The Portland Red Guide.  Michael Munk.  Portland: Ooligan Press 2007. [Michael Munk][Ooligan Press]

France bans internet Nazi auctions – A French judge has ruled that the US Internet Service Provider Yahoo! Inc must make it impossible for French users to access sites auctioning race hate memorabilia. In a landmark ruling, Judge Jean-Jaques Gomez gave Yahoo! Until 24 July to comply with his order. Existing French law prohibits the selling or display of anything that incites racism. [...] Yahoo said it condemned all forms of racism but added the case raised significant questions. A lawyer for the internet service provider said the real question was whether a French court had jurisdiction over the English-language content of an American website.

Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) – “Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France, this Court may not enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our borders. The reason for limiting comity in this area is sound. ‘The protection to free speech and the press embodied in [the First] amendment would be seriously jeopardized by the entry of foreign judgments granted pursuant to standards deemed appropriate in [another country] but considered antithetical to the protections afforded the press by the U. S. Constitution.’ Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc., 585 N. Y. S. 2d 661, 665 (Sup. Ct. 1992). Absent a body of law that establishes international standards with respect to speech on the Internet and an appropriate treaty or legislation addressing enforcement of such standards to speech originating within the United States, the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment.”

Convicted Murderer Sues Wikipedia, Demands Removal of His Name – Wikipedia is under a censorship attack by a convicted murderer who is invoking Germany’s privacy laws in a bid to remove references to his killing of a Bavarian actor in 1990. Lawyers for Wolfgang Werle, of Erding, Germany, sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding removal of Werle’s name from the Wikipedia entry on actor Walter Sedlmayr. The lawyers cite German court rulings that “have held that our client’s name and likeness cannot be used anymore in publication regarding Mr. Sedlmayr’s death.” [...] Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says German publications must also alter their online archives in a bid to comport with laws designed to provide offenders an avenue to “reintegrate back into society.” [...] Granick said the First Amendment protects San Francisco-based Wikipedia.

Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle are citizens of the United Kingdom who operate a web site in California, USA called heretial.com (previously at OVO).  The content of their website is considered illegal ‘hate speech’ in the UK but is not illegal in the USA. Sheppard and Whittle applied for asylum in the USA but were instead extradited and are now in prison. The ‘Heretical Two’ did not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment that others have found in similar situations.  No evidence was presented at their trials that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from their website. No evidence was presented at their trials that anyone had accessed the website other than the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.  Is free speech only for those in the right who speak with a pleasant tone?  What nation’s laws govern US websites?

Wikipedia, Smedley Butler:

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed “The Fighting Quaker” and “Old Gimlet Eye”, was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

During his 34 years of Marine Corps service, Butler was awarded numerous medals for heroism including the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor twice. Notably, he is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, and one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.

In addition to his military career, Smedley Butler was noted for his outspoken anti-interventionist views, and his book War is a Racket. His book was one of the first works describing the workings of the military-industrial complex and after retiring from service, he became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.

In 1934, he alleged to the United States Congress that a group of wealthy industrialists had plotted a military coup known as the Business Plot to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Wikipedia, War is a Racket:

War Is a Racket is the title of two works [...] by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler [...] in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.  After he retired from the Marine Corps, Gen. Butler made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech “War is a Racket”. The speech was so well received that he wrote a longer version as a small book with the same title that was published in 1935 by Round Table Press, Inc., New York. The booklet was also condensed in Reader’s Digest as a book supplement which helped popularize his message.

War is a Racket as a free text online, a book to purchase from Feral House or in a dramatic reading.

Wikipedia, Business Plot:

The Business Plot was a reported political conspiracy in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen plotting a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup. In the opinion of the committee these allegations were credible. One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler’s statements other than the proposal from MacGuire which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire’s European reports. However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of “wild scheme” was contemplated and discussed. Contemporaneous media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a “gigantic hoax”. When the committee’s final report was released, the Times said the committee “purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler’s story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true” and “It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated”.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was no stranger to fascism.  He was a friend to Sir Oswald Mosley, as shown in this photograph (mirror) as well as Lady Mosley.  Sir Mosley was the founder of the British Union of Fascist.  Fascism as an economic plan, as a ‘third way’ that was neither communism nor capitalism, is not unlike what President Roosevelt established in his New Deal.  No implication is made or should be understood that the New Deal or Sir Mosley’s BUF also included the excesses of fascism found in Germany or other fascist-by-name countries.  No implication is made or should be understood that OVO supports fascism as an economic plan or in any other manifestation.

“War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men; some it makes slaves, some free.  We must realize that war is universal, and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife.” – Heraclitus.

When openly gay college student Matthew Shepard was targeted, tortured and murdered in 1998 the story made national headlines. Soon after, MTV sent a camera crew down to Charleston, South Carolina searching for a redneck or two who might offer some insensitive remarks about homosexuals for their “True Life” series. They found one. Me. I was a student at the College of Charleston and as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard’s murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was “against God.” It’s a comment I’ve regretted ever since. My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture and certainly no choice. [...]

Most violent crime is born of some sort of hatred and examining motive is certainly crucial in any criminal investigation. But “hate” – for gays, minorities, women, chivalrous men – is still just a thought, and should not be itself, a criminal action. Criminalizing the thought behind a violent act sets dangerous precedent and gives special justice to special groups and lesser justice to victims of similar crimes who do not belong to those groups.

Article continues at link.  How is freedom of speech defended on the left, on the right, and at the extremes of each?  How does that change over time?  Are you ready to go this far to defend freedom of speech?  How about this far?  How far, my friend?

Nick Griffin of the [British National Party] has been gagging to appear on Question Time, because it is a test of his continental-style strategy of normalising and legitimising the extreme right. On the model of the Italian National Alliance, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, Griffin is attempting to yank his party into greater acceptability and live down its Mosleyite roots of confrontation and street violence. Since the BNP’s objectives have not changed – and they remain racist – that is a very good reason to be sceptical about the BBC’s decision to give him a platform. However, the issue is one of thresholds. The BBC has judged that two MEPs in a nation-wide election entitles the BNP to a voice on Question Time, just as previously a similar threshold elevated Ukip and the Greens. The BBC’s duty of impartiality is too important to have broadcasting executives decide that some opinions are acceptable and others are not, providing of course that those opinions are within the law (notably in avoiding incitement to racial hatred or violence). Therefore I do not myself criticise the BBC for making the invitation, even though I am acutely aware that extending such democratic rights to a party that does not respect them is paradoxical. [...]

The issue here is different to the old “no platform” policy. I would not appear at a meeting organised by the BNP, and nor would I extend an invitation to them. It is no part of the business of an elected liberal to drum up larger audiences for our most reviled opponents. They are welcome to their freedom of speech, but they can choose their own street corner and their own soapbox without my help. But the BBC has decided to invite Griffin, and I fear that Thursday night’s excitement would not have been called off just because the Liberal Democrats decided not to participate. Better surely to champion the great British values of moderation and tolerance rather than give bigotry the only say.

Article continues at link, with much to recommend it. I am not a member or supporter of the BNP, and I don’t expect them to fare well on the television show Question Time. I am a supporter of public debate. I believe people’s words and actions speak for themselves. I believe accurate judgments are best gained by access to source materials and not second-hand opinion. The contradiction of offering a debate platform to someone who would not do the same to you is an important one. It is exactly the reason the tradition of debate is superior to the ‘no platform’ policy. If you can articulate why it is superior, you will have advanced in your defense of free speech.

Having said that, a few comments on Huhne’s article. Huhne compares the BNP to the Italian National Alliance, Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. But only the BNP has limitations on the race of who can join, so the comparison is not entirely accurate. Huhne writes about confrontation and street violence and incitement to racial hatred or violence. Are these all the same thing, or points along a continuum, or actions that always and only appear as a set? The heart of public debate is confrontation, and there’s no getting around some of that confrontation being awful. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in England and in much of the world, but not in the USA. I do not support ‘hate speech’ laws for the same reason I do support public debate. I do not believe hate speech leads to violence (in the street or otherwise) any more than I believe love songs lead to love. Huhne talks about Mosley and Pin Fortuyn, who did know about street violence. Watch a film of Mosley in 1936 trying to march down Cable Street. Look at a photograph of Mosley in 1962 as he speaks to a crowd. Marching, speaking, violence – but who is committing the violence, and against whom, and for how many decades? Free speech has its contradictions, and Mosley had some practical lessons in these contradictions by being put in prison (along with his wife) for years without charge or trial. Pin Fortuyn had fewer experiences with street violence, but one was enough. Again, who is committing the violence and who is speaking their mind?

No matter your beliefs, at some point in its evolution it got in your head because you or someone else proposed it at a time when it was a heresy. All religious founders are by definition people who were heretics of their time. Science progresses by questioning what has come before, not by observation of what is. I sometimes feel frustrated (even confronted and incited) by other people, but the knowledge that belief is a market of ideas and not a battleground of ideas gives me calm. I am glad the BNP will appear on Question Time and that has nothing to do with my general dislike for the nationalists, racists or television.

Amnesty International comes in two flavors.  First we have Irrepressible.info, an Amnesty International campaign:

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information. The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression. The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.  The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.

And second we have Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All, an Amnesty International public statement:

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute – neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law. AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

What is the ‘current situation’ mentioned in the above quote?  Was it the publication of twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005? Or was it the murderous response of thousands of Muslims around the world after the publication of twelve editorial cartoons?  Again, from Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All:

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence. [...] AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved. While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

Amnesty International presents ‘the current situation’ as a controversy.  On the one hand are cartoons and on the other hand are murderers.  Both sides are equally worthy of respect and should talk it out.  But they are not equally worthy of respect.  Murdering people over cartoons is never worthy of respect, not in any circumstance.  It is never a controversy, it is never open to debate.  It is absolutely wrong, in a world where much is morally ambiguous.  The comics did offend some Muslims, perhaps even deeply.  I think some of the cartoons may have been drawn and published with that goal in mind.  And even then, murder over cartoons is not justified.  The publication of cartoons is a peaceful expression of opinion and a peaceful protest.  Every Muslim on the entire planet should be free to make offending cartoons (even deeply offending cartoons) about anything they like.  Amnesty International does condemn the use and threat of violence and urges community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence.  That’s an organization I can support.  Amnesty International does consider freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.  I can get behind that too.  But shame on Amnesty International abandoning its own principles when it comes to “hate speech.”

Why is the right to freedom of expression not absolute?  If freedom of expression is not absolute then what is it other than a lack of freedom of expression?  The Bible and the Quran call for the murder of non-believers.  If we are to respect a believer’s freedom of superstition, we do so by respecting their freedom of speech.  And if we respect their freedom of speech, we must respect the freedom of speech of others.  Absolutely.  All the way up to these pesky heretics, who are now serving time in prison exclusively because of words and pictures they published on the internet.  I say freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it. The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.  What do you say?

I think that the people who approach the social sciences with a ready-made conspiracy theory [...] deny themselves the possibility of ever understanding what the task of the social sciences is, for they assume that we can explain practically everything in society by asking who wanted it, whereas the real task of the social sciences is to explain those things which nobody wants – such as, for example, a war, or a depression. (Lenin’s revolution, and especially Hitler’s revolution and Hitler’s war are, I think, exceptions. These were indeed conspiracies. But they were consequences of the fact that conspiracy theoreticians came to power – who, most significantly, failed to consummate their conspiracies.)

Lecture delivered to the Third Annual Conference of the Rationalist Press Association on 26 July 1984.  From Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge 1963.