OVO

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.

Some groups and individuals oppose legal access to same sex marriage.  This includes homosexual groups and individuals, some from the left, some from the right.  I predict they will be displeased if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States.  There is no right to happiness.

According to the General Accounting Office [pdf], “as of 31 December 2003 [there are] a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”  Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, these federal statutory provisions are available only to hetero married couples.  If legal access to same-sex marriage occurs in the United States, some or all of these federal statutory provisions will have to change.  I predict they will not change at the same time. I predict that they will not change to the same degree or in the same way.  I predict that sometimes a federal statutory provisions will cease to exist rather than be extended to same-sex couples.  I predict that they will not all change at the federal level, but rather at both the state and the federal level and that they will not be uniform in all states.  During the time these federal statutory provisions change, some same-sex couples will lose out while other same-sex couples will benefit.  Attentiveness now to these benefits, rights, and privileges might make their transitions more smooth.

Interracial hetero marriage was banned in some states as late as 1967.  The Loving v Virginia decision of the Supreme Court that year found miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Interracial marriage has been legal for over forty years. But it is not the case that interracial marriages occur with the same frequency as same-race marriages. According to the US Census for 2000, around 97% of whites married whites and around 96% of blacks married blacks. I predict these statistics will remain constant if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States.  The State has no role in encouraging or discouraging marriage diversity.

Citizenship in the United States can be conferred by marriage.  I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will confer citizenship to some men and women who otherwise could not be citizens.  I predict this will be a small number and will not influence society much at all.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples as well as hetero couples.  According to the American Bar Association [pdf], “seven states define domestic violence in a way that specifically excludes same-sex victims.” I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will include an increase of reports of domestic violence.  This increase in reports of domestic violence may be caused by a change in the ability to report domestic violence as much as or more than an increase in actual domestic violence. Domestic violence among same-sex couples does not occur with the same frequency among all sexes.  According to the U. S. Department of Justice, 11.4% of same-sex cohabiting women report being victimized by a female partner while 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being victimized by a male partner. Men raping men occurs much more frequently than men raping women.  According to the U. S. Census Bureau, 78.3% of murder victims are male and 21.4% of murder victims are female.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [pdf] 65.3% of murders involved a male offender and a male victim while 2.4% of murders involved a female offender and a female victim.  I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will show more domestic violence among men than among women.  Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of domestic violence.

Same sex couples cannot conceive children.  Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to adopt in the United States.  Some states allow it, some forbid it, and federal law has said only that an adoption in one state must be recognized in other states.  (Compare this with the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law stating same-sex marriage in one state need not be recognized in other states.)  Many states that forbid adoption by same sex couples base their law on same sex couples being unable to legally marry.  I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will cause changes in adoption laws.  I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to adopt than for hetero couples to adopt, while other states will make all adoptions more difficult to make adoption more difficult for same sex couples.  Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination in the United States.  Legal limits on birth surrogates exist for hetero couples as well and vary by state.  There is no legal limit on artificial insemination but some insurance companies will not compensate single women who use artificial insemination.  I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination, while other states will make using birth surrogates or getting artificial insemination more difficult to make these procedures more difficult for same sex couples.  I predict the number of children adopted will increase if legal access to same sex marriage occurs.  State by state differences in adoption, birth surrogates, and artificial insemination will be similar to the legality of abortion.  Abortion is legal at the national level but access to services varies by state and is not a service the state is compelled to offer.  Adoption laws should be inclusive of same sex parents.

Advocates of legal access to same sex marriage want treatment under the law identical to hetero marriage, and that includes legal access to divorce.  Making predictions about legal access to same sex marriage must include predictions about legal access to same sex divorce.  Statistics relating to hetero divorce have a limited value in making predictions about same sex divorce. According to the National Center for Health Statistics [pdf] “Approximately 61 percent of the divorces in 1988 were petitioned by the wife, 32 percent by the husband, and 7 percent by the husband and wife jointly.” More hetero couples are divorced today than in the past, and differences exist between the percentage of divorced men and divorced women.  According to the US Census Bureau: “Of the first marriages for women from 1955 to 1959, about 79 percent marked their 15th anniversary, compared with only 57 percent for women who married for the first time from 1985 to 1989. People born in the leading edge of the baby boom experienced high divorce rates in the 1970s and 1980s. About 38 percent of men born from 1945 to 1954 and 41 percent of women in the same age group had been divorced by 2004.”  The trend for women to initiate divorce more than men is also found in Denmark, where legal access to same sex marriage has been available since 1989. Male same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 14% of the time, while female same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 23% of the time. I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will reveal that women seek divorce more than men in both hetero and same sex marriages.  According to the US Census Bureau [pdf], among hetero divorced couples in 2008 56.9% of mothers were awarded child support and custody while 40.4% of fathers were awarded child support and custody.  I predict custody and child support issues among divorcing same sex couples will incur less legal fees and occupy less court time among men than women.  I claim that some discontent to legal access to same sex marriage is caused by discontent with hetero marriage.  Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the prevalence of divorce.  No-fault divorce has existed in every state since 1985.  Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the disparity of who initiates divorce and who benefits from divorce.  Women initiate divorce more often than men, and benefit from divorce more often than men.  Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as having only benefits, never any cost.  Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as bringing about only equality, never inequality.  For these reasons, what might have been a debate about women and divorce has become a debate about homosexuals and marriage.  I predict legal access to same sex marriage will not bring about the former debate.  Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of divorce.

See also: Three Predictions Part One, ‘Who’s That Girl?’

Mail Online: Claudy Bombing Priest James Chesney, Cover-up Agreed by Police, Ministers and Church

The British government and the Catholic Church colluded to cover up Father Jim Chesney’s role in the 1972 bombing that killed nine people, it was revealed today.

Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church Sued for Baptism for the Dead Injury

In a civil suit filed in 3rd District Court on Wednesday, Daniel Dastrup claims he suffered a severe herniated disk in his lumbar spine after performing about 200 baptisms on Aug. 25, 2007. The then 25-year-old claims some of the young men and women he completely immersed in water in the name of the dead weighed as much as 250 pounds.

BV Black Spin: Martin Luther King Jr.s Niece Calls Gay Marriage ‘Genocide’

The niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. addressed a crowd at a National Organization for Marriage rally last weekend in Atlanta. Dr. Alveda King passionately addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, stating that it would lead to “extinction” and “genocide.”

Jeannie Nuss: Bikini-Clad Strippers Protest Church in Rural Ohio

The strippers, fueled by Cheetos and nicotine, are protesting a fundamentalist Christian church whose Bible-brandishing congregants have picketed the club where they work. The dancers roll up with signs carrying messages adapted from Scripture, such as “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” to counter church members who for four years have photographed license plates of patrons and asked them if their mothers and wives know their whereabouts. [also]

AFP: US Catholic Church Tarred with New Child Sex Abuse Scandal

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has become embroiled in a new pedophilia scandal with six women and one man alleging sexual abuse by a priest over three decades. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Oakland, California accused Father Stephen Kiesle of acts of sexual abuse between 1972 and 2001, and alleged that Catholic Church officials knew of the crimes but did not stop them.

Anne Rice: ‘Today I Quit Being A Christian’

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Reuters: Austrian Churchgoers Quit in Record Numbers

A record 100,000 Austrians are expected to leave the Roman Catholic Church this year after abuse scandals which have badly damaged its image, a newspaper reported on Tuesday. Some 57,000 quit the church in the first six months of the year, Austrian daily Der Standard reported, citing figures from local state authorities. This is already more than the full-year total for 2009 when 53,216 walked out.

Part of a series that never ends [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11] and etc.  May Christianity wither away under the twin suns of reason and scorn.

Jim Goad: Planet Islam

For the past 1000 years, the Muslim world has given us almost nothing in the way of math or science. It has, however, given us a slave trade that predated the Atlantic slave trade by seven centuries and shackled nearly twice as many black Africans as the Europeans did – a fact that continues to get lost on black Americans who cozy up to Islam.

Yahoo! News: Afghan Girls Fall Ill After Apparent Gas Poisoning

About 40 schoolgirls became ill and were taken to hospital after a suspected gas poisoning in the Afghan capital Wednesday, another apparent attack by hardline Islamists opposed to female education.

SSC Times: Alshabaab Cuts Tongue

The Mother of Ahmed Ali Shuuke has told the media that her son receives all food through injection and according to her statement he gets fed using the needles often used for injecting Camel herds. [includes photograph of a man with his tongue cut out.]

New York Times: In Bold Display, Taliban Order Stoning Deaths

The Taliban on Sunday ordered their first public executions by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped, according to Afghan officials and a witness.

BBC: Taliban ‘Kill Adulterous Afghan Couple’ in Marketplace

Two witnesses from Mullah Quli told the BBC that the Taliban asked the villagers to attend the stoning through an announcement on loudspeakers in the mosque.

Reuters: Iran Stoning Case Lawyer in Turkey, Seeking Asylum

The lawyer who defended a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran is in Istanbul and has applied for asylum in a third country, a source at the United Nations’ refugee agency said Thursday.

canada.com: Muslim Women’s Group Opposes Addition of Honour Killings to Criminal Code

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposes the addition of “honour killings” to the Criminal Code on the grounds “murder is murder” and a special category could stigmatize new immigrants and some ethnic or religious groups.

Middle East Quarterly: Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings

Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

All articles continue at links. Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and etc. Cutting out a man’s tongue is in compliance with Islam. Stoning those accused of adultery is in compliance with Islam. Honor killings are in compliance with Islam.  These evils co-exist with Islam, and I’ll venture a guess they are related.  Perhaps the secularization and reform of Islam will cause a reduction in these evils.  Pending the complete withering away of Islam under the twin suns of reason and scorn, I’d like to give that a try.

Sometimes people scowl at me when I talk about religions like Islam or Christianity withering away to nothing.  But the evidence is on my side.  All religions die out, given enough time.  If we learn from our mistakes (if) then religion itself may also wither away, given enough time.  If.

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

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

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

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

Pi is the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet. It is also the symbol for the ratio between the circumference of a circle and the diameter of a circle. Diameter is the distance from one side of a circle to the other side of a circle. Circumference is the distance around the outside of a circle. If you multiply the diameter of a circle by the square of pi, you get the circumference. And if you divide the circumference of a circle by the square of pi, you get the diameter. This formula is called Archimedes’ Constant, named after Archimedes (who lived from circa 287 BCE to 212 BCE). Archimedes’ Constant is a simple equation, but there is a catch; pi is not a finite number such as 23 or 127. The first sixty four digits of pi are 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 58209 74944 592… and it just keeps going from there. So far, no one has demonstrated that there is a limit to how large a number pi is or that there is a pattern to the numbers in pi. Pi may be infinite.

You can ‘see infinity’ any time you want by measuring a circle’s diameter and then its circumference. Get a round plate and some string (the plate must be round and the string should not stretch when pulled). Lay the string across the plate from one side to the other, so that the string crosses over the middle of the plate. Mark the string at the point where it is the same diameter of the plate. Now take that length of string, multiply it by three, and wrap it around the outside of the plate. Three times the diameter will be pretty close to the circumference, but not exactly. You have just used simple tools to explore the relationship between diameter and circumference. Try it with any circle of any size; it always works. Maybe you don’t need to measure pi to sixty four (or a billion) digits, but you should now feel confident in stating that pi is not a finite, single-digit number. You should feel confident saying that because common sense, the evidence of your senses, and as many tests as you want to perform will confirm it every time. It works whether you measure in inches, centimeters, or even if you make up your own ‘plate units.’

Oddly enough, there are some people in the world who do not believe pi is 3.14159 26535… (and so on). They believe that pi equals three. Who believes that? Christians believe pi equals three. The Christians use a book named the Bible as the foundation for their beliefs, and the Bible says pi equals three. Not all Christians have the same interpretation of the Bible, and some of them disagree quite strongly about how it should be interpreted. But all of them, every one, use the Bible.

Long ago, the Christian Bible says, a man named King Solomon built a temple. He hired a man named Hiram to work on the temple. Hiram made all sorts of additions to the temple, including a sculpture described as a ‘molten sea.’ The molten sea was apparently some sort of large, round container of liquid. It was measured in cubits, which is believed to be the distance between the elbow and the middle finger of an adult male. The construction work of King Solomon and the work Hiram did for King Solomon are described twice in the Bible. The first time in a section of the Bible called 1 Kings (written about 586 BCE) and the second time in a section called 2 Chronicles (written about 450 – 400 BCE). Both times the Bible uses the same words to describe the molten sea. Here’s what the Christian Bible has to say about pi…

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 1 Kings 7:23

Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 2 Chronicles 4:2

The Bible says that a circle ten cubits in diameter measured thirty cubits in circumference. The Bible does not say that the molten sea was close to a circle, but that it was a circle. It does not say that it was close to ten cubits from brim to brim, or that it was close to thirty cubits round about, but that it was ten cubits from brim to brim and it was thirty cubits round about. The Bible gives these measurements once and then gives them again, using the same measurements both times. There is no way to say the Bible meant something other than pi equals three. Christians have been presented with these measurements for thousands of years, and Christians have known about Archimedes’ Constant for thousands of years. Even if you give Christians a few hundred years between when Kings and Chronicles were written and the discovery of Archimedes’ Constant, the Christians have known for thousands of years that the measurements of the molten sea are mistaken. Knowing that pi does not equal three doesn’t require modern complex mathematics or equipment: a piece of string will do. At any point over the past two thousand years, Christians could have decided to follow common sense, the evidence of their senses, and simple tests to change the Bible to make it match real life. But they never have. Why don’t the Christians change the Bible?

Because Christians believe that the Bible is not wrong. Christians believe the Bible is right. Not just close to right, or only right sometimes, but right all the time and in every way. Right in a way that no human can be right, right in a supernatural, divine way. Christians believe that God inspired the people who wrote the Bible; since God cannot make mistakes and since God knows everything, everything in the Bible is correct. The Bible is correct about the past, the present and the future: it is eternally true. How do they know the Bible is inspired by God and eternally true? Because the Bible tells them so! Read for yourself where the Bible tells Christians that it is a book authored by God and eternally true: Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel.15:29; Ezekiel 24:14; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Exodus 12:14, 17, 24; Leviticus 23:14,21,31; Psalms 119:151-2, 160; John 1:1,14, 8:58, 10:30-31, 10:38-39, 16:30, 20:28, 21:17; Colossians 2:2-3, 2:8-9; Acts 5:29; Titus 2:13; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:8; Revelations 1:17, 22:13. And there are other verses, many others, that say the same.

Some Christians believe that one of the characters in the Bible, Jesus Christ, made changes to one part (the Old Testament, where Kings and Chronicles are found) by his appearance in another part (the New Testament). But here’s what Jesus himself had to say about that…

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-19

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17

Jesus said that every part of the Old Testament was just as true and eternal as the New Testament. So there you have it. The Bible says, and Jesus confirms, that pi equals three. It doesn’t matter if you measured something different with your plate and string; pi equals three. What a silly, stubborn thing for Christians to keep in their Bible when common sense, the evidence of our senses, and simple tests will demonstrate that it is not true. Why do Christians keep this easily-corrected falsehood in the Bible? Would it really change the ethics, morals and values of the Bible to make this small change? Why don’t they come clean in this least important of ways? Because for a Christian to admit that there is even one error in the Bible would mean that the Bible is not the eternally true work of God. And since all Christians, every one, use the Bible, it would mean that their religion is based on falsehoods.

The little Christian mistakes such as pi equals three don’t matter much in the day-to-day world; Christianity would not collapse if that one small change was made. But if that one small change was made, then it would be an admission that the Bible is not the eternally true work of God. And that would lead to the collapse of Christianity. That is why Christians believe pi equals three. Because to admit otherwise would be to admit much, much more. It would be to admit that perhaps the ethics, morals and values of the Bible are not what they’re cracked up to be. It would be to admit that it’s not right to oppress women (Colossians 3:18), to own slaves (Hosea 3:2), to kill people just because they follow a different religion (Deuteronomy 6:15, 13:6-10), to kill homosexuals (Romans 1:31-32), to kill children (Exodus 21:15, 17), to kill (Mark 7:9-13) and kill (Romans 5:9) and kill (Hebrews 10:28-29). Christianity has to preserve its little mistakes, such as pi equals three, so that it can perpetuate its bigger, uglier “mistakes.”

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

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

(from OVO 14 Suffering March 1992)

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.

Paul Elam: Drugs, War, Blood and Money

It started, like a lot of deadly bad ideas, with politicians. We can thank the Democrats for the inception, but somewhere along the line, the Republicans stepped in to prove they were just as stupid. Woodrow Wilson, who also gave us the Federal Reserve Act, the first draft since the Civil War and rave reviews of the stunningly racist movie Birth of a Nation, helped usher in the age where America turned questionable personal habits into concrete walls and steel gray bars. It was called the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, and it was the result of nearly fifteen years of disinformation and racist propaganda promulgated by Wilson’s associates.

In 1900 the Journal of the American Medical Association published in a report that “Negroes in the South are being addicted to a new form of vice – that of ‘cocaine sniffing’ or the ‘coke habit.’” That was followed up by several newspaper reports that cocaine was causing blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Eight years later President Teddy Roosevelt appointed Dr. Hamilton Wright as the first Opium Commissioner for the United States. Among his most notable observations was that “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by Negroes of the south and other sections of the country.” Wright also postulated that “one of the most unfortunate phases of smoking opium in this country is the large number of women who have become involved and are living as common-law wives or cohabitating with Chinese in the Chinatowns of our various cities.”

Let’s see. A bunch of drug crazed horny black men and a growing number of loose white women with no qualms about crossing racial boundaries? Yeah, man, it was time for war, alright; time to break out some fucking law and order.

Charles Bowden and Molly Molloy: Who Is Behind the 25,000 Deaths In Mexico?

No one seems to know, but on the ground it is death. Calderón’s war, assisted by the United States, terrorizes the Mexican people, generates thousands of documented human rights abuses by the police and Mexican Army and inspires lies told by American politicians that violence is spilling across the border (in fact, it has been declining on the US side of the border for years). We are told of a War on Drugs that has no observable effect on drug distribution, price or sales in the United States. We are told the Mexican Army is incorruptible, when the Mexican government’s own human rights office has collected thousands of complaints that the army robs, kidnaps, steals, tortures, rapes and kills innocent citizens. We are told repeatedly that it is a war between cartels or that it is a war by the Mexican government against cartels, yet no evidence is presented to back up these claims. The evidence we do have is that the killings are not investigated, that the military suffers almost no casualties and that thousands of Mexicans have filed affidavits claiming abuse, often lethal, by the Mexican army. Here is the US policy in a nutshell: we pay Mexicans to kill Mexicans, and this slaughter has no effect on drug shipments or prices.

Julian Isherwood: Free Heroin Gives Good Results

A test-run of issuing free heroin to addicts in Copenhagen appears to be successful, with initial results showing reduced crime and prostitution and improved health and life quality for those taking part in the project. Since March this year, some 20 addicts have been part of a programme under which two clinics provide them with heroin each morning and afternoon. The head of the Valmue Clinic in Copenhagen says that his centre has registered both a physical and psychological improvement among the addicts.

“They don’t have to wake up in the morning with how to get money as the first thing they think about. That gives them a surplus that means that we can talk to them about their housing situation, how we can help them apply for a disability pension if they need that, or perhaps about the child they have lost contact with,” says Valmue Clinic Head Torben Ballegaard. At the same time, Ballegaard says that addicts say that they commit fewer crimes, have stopped prostitution and have improved health. Several have put on weight because apart from heroin, they are provided breakfast and a hot meal during the day. Daily contact with a nurse also means that infections, boils and illnesses are discovered earlier, according to Senior Nurse Vivian Kjær at the KABS institution.

Problem, problem, solution.  End prohibition.  Thousands will die – thousands fewer than die from prohibition.

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 their pay at interest, and many desperate vets did so at a great loss.  If a veteran died in the mean time, 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 Sergeant 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.  Congress did pass a law allowing for a one-time half-payment borrowing (with interest until repayment) of the Adjusted Service Certificate.  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 Sergent 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 facing west.

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 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 1932 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 U. S. 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 “Sergent, 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.

Cinny Mosley, 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, who 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 be paid what they had been promised 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]

Previously published in OVO 11 CONTROL (September 1991).

THE STATE CREATES ITS OWN ENEMIES

Goulishly capitalizing on the tragedy of a mass murder, the anti-gun forces are surging forward with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That’s an obvious lie–criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars, or champagne bottles as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. The not-so-secret agenda of the State and its apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law-abiding Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender his or her weapons would become an Enemy Of The State, much the same as any armed citizen is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Socialist Nicaragua, or Fascist El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non-partisan–it is always and forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.

GUN SEIZURE SPARKED 1776 REVOLUTION

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the “legitimate” government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacremento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us, stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns–legally or illegally–for the very same reason the colonists did.

THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP

The anti-gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior, shout that citizens have no reason to be “allowed” to own assault rifles, which have “no legitimate sporting use.” The Constitution, though, says nothing about “a well-regulated sporting club” being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not even own guns because the Constitution “allows” us to. The Constitution does not “grant” rights. It recognizes rights already and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn’t have to defend that right against “our” federal government. We’ve seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven’t we?

The real reason for gun ownership is to protect the individual from the State, whether it be an invading State from accross the seas or a domestic State grown tyrannical and oppressive. The goal of total, repressive confiscation is clear in the subtle, shifting arguments of the anti-gun forces. When handguns were the target, they clamored prohibition because handguns were not militia-type weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Now they cry for assault rifle bans because “mere citizens” have no business possessing “military-style” weapons!

These eager confiscators rightly point out that assault rifles, handguns, and indeed all “weapons” have only one purpose: to kill. Again they speak a truth, but only partially. The unasked question is, “To kill whom? And under what circumstances?” The answer is, “To kill any who attempt to rob, maim, rape, or kill us.” Even that answer, though, does not fully express the most important reason for gun ownership. Only a small number of people are actually touched by criminal violence. The State, though, touches each and every one of us every hour of every day. People in government seek to tax our earnings to pay for their whims, to draft our children to fight in wars they start, to regulate and interfere with our lives out of pure love of power and their desire to wield it. They have become as tyrannical as any Tory redcoat, Soviet Commissar, or Nazi Gestapo. And they are coming to steal your last line of defense against them. Will you meekly obey?

GUN CONTROL ENFORCED AT GUNPOINT

When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens, yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly “government by the people” why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer–stripped of equivocation–is that “mere citizens” are like half-witted children, incapable of safely handling “dangerous” commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be “allowed” to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn’t it? That’s how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time.

And they dare ask us to obey their decrees?

GOVERNMENT CREATES CRIME

What many gun owners refuse to face, usually by saying “it can’t happen in America,” is that the government can and does create new classes of criminals with the mere stroke of a pen. In 1919, Prohibition turns millions of people overnight from sociable drinkers to Enemies Of The State. The victimless crime of ingesting alcohol turned neighborly, peaceful people into fair game for imprisonment, fines, and seizure of property. Some fought back, often with simple shotguns against “revenooers” armed with assault rifles (the Thompson sub-machine gun) in a modern version of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Prohibition amendment created crime by definition. If, tommorow, smoking or drinking coffee or owning a book were declared illegal, the State would suddenly point to a new “criminal underworld” of massive proportions. In the eyes of the State they would become “a new breed of criminal” to be weeded out of society and thrown into prisons. So it is with any prohibition of popular activities, including gun ownership.

GUN PROHIBITION DISARMS THE POOR

Let’s face it–police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts. And the rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so-called Saturday Night Specials are banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No. The only people harmed by a “cheap handgun” ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough money to feed their children, let alone defend them from inner-city marauders. Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. And what good is a 15 day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When one perceives a threat, one should be able to aquire protection immediately.

GUN PROHIBITION IS RACIST

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was rammed down the throats of the American public, blatantly exploiting then-current fears of gun-toting black rioters by implying that the law would help to disarm American Blacks, other minorities, and all dissenters at a time of civil upheaval. to paraphrase a popular slogan, “If the government does not trust minorities with guns, minorities cannot trust government.” Ask any Native American.

In a mirror image case 20 years later, assault rifle bans are being ramrodded through legislatures by appealing to fears that gun-toting white racists are on the loose.

The real and only purpose of gun control is to disarm the innocent and the peaceful, of whatever race, creed, or social status.

GUN PROHIBITION IS SEXIST

The same goes for women. Police and purported feminists urge women to resist rape with fists, fingernails, keyrings, and screams. But why should any woman allow an assailant to get within arms length of her? Why don’t Women’s Rights activists in or out of government reveal the most effective way for a woman to defend herself: to buy a gun and learn to use it? The truth is, they want women to feel weak and perpetually threatened so that they will beg the State for protection. A woman standing proud, armed, and fearless is the last thing most self-proclaimed “feminists” want (since that would undercut their perverse longing for a huge paternalistic government!)

GOVERNMENTS KILL MORE THAN ANY MASS-MURDERER

How can people who work for or worship the State–statists–point to the murder of five children in a schoolyard or twenty people in a restaurant and claim that as sufficient reason to disarm tens of millions of Americans? Are they so presumptuous as to suggest that we are capable of such violent madness? Perhaps there is a degree of psychological projection going on here: statists feel within themselves the urge to kill and project it onto the people they fear the most–us, the victims of the State. For while tens of millions of people own guns, only a minuscule fraction ever use those guns to aggress against others. Every State, however has guns and even more powerful and terrifying weapons in its clutches and every State has used them, will use them, and are using them to murder hundreds, thousands, and millions of innocent, unarmed people.

How can the insane mind of a Patrick Purdy ever dream of matching the death toll of the most minor skirmish in the smallest of wars or “police actions?” The murder of five innocent children is heart-rendingly tragic, but how many thousands of innocent children were roasted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many unarmed, peaceful, young people were slaughtered in Tienanamen Square? How many women, children, and old people have been shot by the bullets of “their own” government in Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India, Israel, Afghanistan, Tibet, Argentina, Libya, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Chile, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and on and on and on for every State you can name, even “our” United States. For statists to use the “mass murder” of a few people as an excuse to disarm Americans when the State is the largest, bloodiest, longest-lived institution of mass-murder in all of history is appallingly hypocritical. Do we owe allegiance to the apologists for such atrocities? NEVER!

Private ownership of weaponry is the last defense against all tyranny, foreign and domestic. The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun owners (even members of the patriotic NRA) must take arms against an American Li Peng commanding the local police and the US military is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced. A lot of American colonists were horrified at the thought of defending themselves against “their” king’s army, too.

CIVILIAN-BASED DEFENSE PREFERED TO STANDING ARMY

Some say that the Constitution “granted” the right to keep and bear arms to provide for a “well-regulated militia.” Since we have a standing army, the argument goes, civilians no longer need to own guns. Yet that amendment was written precisely because the British used that exact argument in their attempts (from 1768 to 1777) to disarm the colonists. Americans detested the standing armies of the British government and knew that civilian-based defense was the ultimate, perhaps the only protection against any threat to liberty, whether from London, Moscow, or Washington, D.C.

DEFYING UNJUST LAWS IS RIGHT AND PROPER!

When the day comes (and it will, if we don’t raise our voices in protest now) that the Imperial State commands its subjects (that’s how they view you and me, regardless of what they say) to turn in our weapons, what will we do? Make no mistake–if people refuse to surrender or destroy their weapons, they will be dealt with by heavily armed police; they will be imprisoned, fined, perhaps even shot if they try to defend their Constitutional–nay, their human–rights.

Of whom should we be more wary–invading troops whose rule we would never sanction, or “our own” government, to which most of us grant some legitimacy and which is right here, right now, all around us? Perhaps paraphrasing a parent’s question will help provide an answer: If the State passed a law telling you to jump off a cliff, would you? No fair answering that “good, pure, sober, honest politicians wouldn’t let that happen.” With guns, it is happening right now.

And when that friendly cop on the beat (whom most gun owners exalt as a good man just doing his job and who may even be a fellow NRA member!) comes around to your house, he will come armed with “good government” handguns and assault rifles. “Sorry pal,” he’ll say, “but the law is the law.”

That possibility is something many gun owners–staunch defenders of law and order and supporters of local police–refuse to face. They blank out the fact that even–perhaps especially–in America, they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implication of the Declaration of Independence,

“…that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”

Some would rather surrender meekly to the State, giving up their last shred of defense against tyranny, rather than face that choice. But if they do surrender their firepower, the choice will have been made. And it won’t matter whether our new masters speak Russian, Chinese, Japanese, English, or American Bureaucratese. They will be our masters nonetheless.

WHAT TO DO

First of all, keep your guns! Do not turn them in just because some law is passed ordering you to do so. That’s just what they want–sheeplike compliance. you are not a criminal. Don’t let the State treat you like one. The colonists who turned in their weapons to their Tory town governments soon learned the folly of their actions. Any government that outlaws gun ownership is an outlaw government! It is no more necessary to obey an oppressive, tyrannical State than it is to obey any thief who demands that you turn over your property under threat of death. We know the free person’s answer to such a demand. So does the State. That is why statists seek to browbeat us into disarming without a fight. They need the sanction of the victim. They cannot hope to disarm us by force. That would tip their hand and guarantee a revolution. But by stealth, instilled guilt, and appeals to our peaceful, law-abiding natures will they attempt to expropriate our only defense against their continued and increasing predations.

Resist the urge to obey the edicts of self-proclaimed rulers. Don’t walk timidly into a concentration camp filled with once-free men and women. Decry with every fiber of your being this trampling of our fundamental human rights!

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS A CIVIL RIGHT, WITHOUT WHICH ALL OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND.

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO OWN–AND PROTECT–YOUR BODY AND YOUR PROPERTY.

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANNY.

ANY WHO SEIZE GUNS ARE THIEVES OR TYRANTS.

Every law restricting free, immediate access to firearms is a direct attack on individual freedom. The course of action is up to you. Demand the repeal of all such laws or ignore them with impunity. But never accept them as legitimate restraints upon your liberty. Nothing legitimate can issue from the pen of tyrants.

Today (25 November) was a special day in the life of Yukio Mishima.  Men, take upon your shoulders now the portable shrine…

When l was small l would watch the young men parade the portable shrine through the streets at the local shrine festival. They were intoxicated with their task, and their expressions were of an indescribable abandon, their faces averted; some of them even rested the backs of their necks against the shafts of the shrine they shouldered, so that their eyes gazed up at the heavens. And my mind was much troubled by the riddle of what it was that those eyes reflected. As to the nature of the intoxicating vision that I detected in all this violent physical stress, my imagination provided no clue. For many a month, therefore, the enigma continued to occupy my mind; it was only much later, after I had begun to learn the language of the flesh, that I undertook to help in shouldering a portable shrine, and was at last able to solve the puzzle that had plagued me since infancy. They were simply looking at the sky. In their eyes there was no vision: only the reflection of the blue and absolute skies of early autumn. Those blue skies, though, were unusual skies such as I might never see again in my life: one moment strung up high aloft, the next plunged to the depths; constantly shifting, a strange compound of lucidity and madness. I promptly set down what I had discovered in a short essay, so important did my experience seem to me. In short, I had found myself at a point where there were no grounds for doubting that the sky that my own poetic intuition had shown me, and the sky revealed to the eyes of those ordinary young men of the neighborhood, were identical. That moment for which I had been waiting so long was a blessing that the sun and the steel had conferred on me. – Mishima, Sun and Steel.

Wikipedia: Yukio Mishima.
Yukio Mishima Museum.
Wax figure of Mishima (where is it now?).
Yukokio (The Rite of Love and Death), a 1966 film by Mishima.
Mishima conducting the Yomiuri Nippon Symphony.
Eirei No Koe (Voices of the Heroic Dead), an LP by Mishima.
Justin Raimondo: Mishima – Paleocon as Samurai.
Stephen Mansfield: A Life Less Ordinary.
… and more.

OVO triumphus for Yukio Mishima for 2008.

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?

The Guardian, Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro (16 February 2003):

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time. Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. [...] The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

The US went to war with Iraq in March 2003. “Since currently worldwide oil sales are denominated in U.S. dollars, changes in the value of the dollar against other world currencies affect OPEC’s decisions on how much oil to produce. For example, when the dollar falls relative to the other currencies, OPEC-member states receive smaller revenues in other currencies for their oil, causing substantial cuts in their purchasing power. After the introduction of the euro, pre-invasion Iraq decided it wanted to be paid for its oil in euros instead of US dollars causing OPEC to consider changing its oil exchange currency to euros, although after Iraq’s invasion, the interim government reversed this policy, and the subsequent Iraq governments stuck to the US dollar. Member states Iran and Venezuela have undergone similar shifts from the dollar to the Euro” (Wikipedia).

The Independent, The demise of the dollar (6 October 2009):

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.  Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

Will the US go to war with Iran soon? Maybe not, maybe these talks never happened.  Still… William Clark wrote: “Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking – it is in large part an oil currency war.”

Previously in OVO on the topic of currency wars… Klint Finley contributed “The New Currency Wars” [revision] to OVO 18 MONEY (April 2008). This essay is reprinted in Digital Gold Currency Magazine (January 2009).

Terror suspect refuses to stand in court: the men were seeking a fatwa, or religious ruling, to justify their plot.
Kidnapped boys ‘brainwashed’ to die as suicide bombers: They had all been kidnapped by the Taliban and taken to camps where they would be trained to kill; trained to be suicide bombers.
Woman journalist rejects offer of immunity from prosecution for wearing trousers: She was arrested in a restaurant in the capital with other women earlier this month for wearing “indecent” clothing – trousers. She said ten of the women arrested with her, including non-Muslims, each received ten lashes and a fine.
Muslims welcome police scarf move: Avon and Somerset Police is issuing head coverings to its female officers so they can enter mosques. The force says the move will help its officers respect Muslim religious customs while carrying out their job.
Man loses his tongue, and blinded in one eye after Muslim ‘honour’ attack in London: Two men have appeared in court after the suspected lover of a married Muslim woman in east London had acid thrown in his face and was stabbed twice in the back in a possible “honour attack”.
Arrests in submerged car deaths: The Whig-Standard learned that Kingston Police have been investigating, for at least two weeks, the allegation that the deaths were an honour killing.
Taliban buying children for suicide bombers: Pakistan’s top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is buying children as young as 7 to serve as suicide bombers in the growing spate of attacks against Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. targets, U.S. Defense Department and Pakistani officials say.
Syria amends honour killing law: The new law replaces the existing maximum sentence of one year in jail with a minimum jail term of two years.
Ezra Levant talks about his fight for freedom of speech: Canadian magazine publisher Ezra Levant became famous as the first and only person prosecuted for printing the controversial “Danish Mohamed” cartoons.
Somalis watch double amputations: Hardline Islamists in Somalia have carried out double amputations on four men for stealing phones and guns. They have each had a hand and foot cut off after being convicted by a Sharia court in the capital earlier this week.
Muslim Countries Lead in Human Trafficking: Muslim countries in the Middle East and north-central Africa lead the world in human trafficking, according to a new U.S. State Department report. Of the 17 countries that were given the “Tier 3″ listing reserved for the worst offenders, nine were Muslim countries or countries with a large Muslim population from these two regions.
Police arrest ‘homosexuals’ at party: While the kingdom has faced criticism from human rights organisations, it insists that it always acts in accordance with Sunni Islamic law.
Taliban beat musicians, shaved their heads and left them tied to trees overnight because they performed at a wedding: They believe music is un-Islamic. Why? Hadith Qudsi 19:5: “The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance.”

Here is hope for the Muslim world: secular reform, in the way that Christianity has undergone secular reform in the West.  The Bible of Christianity contains all manor of absurd and atrocious commandments, but the Christian world has found it possible to ignore them.  Leading the way out of darkness are Irshad Manji, the Institution for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and the nation of Turkey among others.  The alternative is for the Muslim world to keep on killing its own, keep on killing others and keep on its mission to conquer the world or die trying.

A Roman Catholic bank in Germany has apologised after admitting it bought stocks in defence, tobacco and birth control companies.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Catholic bank owned pill shares

Nigerian atheist attacked by a mob of Christians at a child witchcraft conference: Nigerian atheist Leo Igwe was attacked this week by a mob of Christians at a conference he staged to discuss Child Rights and Witchcraft.
Murder-defendant Houston brothers may represent selves: “We’ve got the best counsel in the world,” Leon Houston said. “We’ve got God on our side.”
Abstinence-Supporting GOP State Lawmaker Admits To Sex With 22-Year-Old Intern: According to his website is “a member of Christ United Methodist Church, where he serves as a Sunday school teacher and board member of their day school.” He recently sponsored a bill designed to prevent gay couples from adopting children. Also quoted as saying he ‘didn’t believe young people should have sex before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to him, and he wants to promote abstinence.’
100 Huntley Street hosts suspended during Ponzi scheme probe: Ron and Reynold Mainse have been relieved of their duties as hosts of Christian program 100 Huntley Street after allegedly becoming involved in a $14.1-million Ponzi scheme.
Pastor and sons face fraud charges: They allegedly ran a multi-million dollar, faith-based affinity fraud for at least five years that duped thousands of investors into buying bonds that raised at least $120 million. The Reeves allegedly stole $6 million for themselves in the process.
Priest held for selling body parts: The Zion Apostolic Church priest and a casual worker for at least two mortuaries were arrested after police were called to a home in Acornhoek, where they found a white woman’s breast and hand on Saturday.
‘I was only giving the boy anatomy lessons’, said paedophile priest: The 79-year-old ex-priest from Melbourne refused to apologise for the assault on the boy for fear of a compensation claim being made against the church.

COMRADES!

Recently some confusion about “Chaos” has plagued the A.O.A. from certain revanchist quarters, forcing us (who despise polemics) at last to indulge in a Plenary Session devoted to denunciations ex cathedra, portentous as hell; our faces burn red with rhetoric, spit flies from our lips, neck veins bulge with pulpit fervor. We must at last descend to flying banners with angry slogans (in 1930′s type faces) declaring what Ontological Anarchy is not.

Remember, only in Classical Physics does Chaos have anything to do with entropy, heat-death, or decay. In our physics (Chaos Theory), Chaos identifies with tao, beyond both yin- as-entropy & yang-as-energy, more a principle of continual creation than of any nihil, void in the sense of potentia, not exhaustion. (Chaos as the “sum of all orders.”)

From this alchemy we quintessentialize an aesthetic theory. Chaote art may act terrifying, it may even act grand guignol, but it can never allow itself to be drenched in putrid negativity, thanatosis, schadenfreude (delight in the misery of others), crooning over Nazi memorabilia & serial murders. Ontological Anarchy collects no snuff films & is bored to tears with dominatrices who spout french philosophy. (“Everything is hopeless & I knew it before you did, asshole. Nyahh!”)

Wilhelm Reich was driven half mad & killed by agents of the Emotional Plague; maybe half his work derived from sheer paranoia (UFO conspiracies, homophobia, even his orgasm theory), BUT on one point we agree wholeheartedly – sexpol: sexual repression breeds death obsession, which leads to bad politics. A great deal of avant-garde Art is saturated with Deadly Orgone Rays (DOR). Ontological Anarchy aims to build aesthetic cloud-busters (OR-guns) to disperse the miasma of cerebral sado-masochism which now passes for slick, hip, new, fashionable. Self-mutilating “performance” artists strike us as banal & stupid–their art makes everyone more unhappy. What kind of two-bit conniving horseshit… what kind of cockroach-brained Art creeps cooked up this apocalypse stew?

Of course the avant-garde seems “smart” – so did Marinetti & the Futurists, so did Pound & Celine. Compared to that kind of intelligence we’d choose real stupidity, bucolic New Age blissed-out inanity – we’d rather be pinheads than queer for death. But luckily we don’t have to scoop out our brains to attain our own queer brand of satori. All the faculties, all the senses belong to us as our property–both heart & head, intellect & spirit, body & soul. Ours is no art of mutilation but of excess, superabundance, amazement.

The purveyors of pointless gloom are the Death Squads of contemporary aesthetics – & we are the “disappeared ones.” Their make-believe ballroom of occult 3rd-Reich bric-a-brac & child murder attracts the manipulators of the Spectacle – death looks better on TV than life – & we Chaotes, who preach an insurrectionary joy, are edged out towards silence.

Needless to say we reject all censorship by Church & State – but “after the revolution” we would be willing to take individual & personal responsibility for burning all the Death Squad snuff-art crap & running them out of town on a rail. (Criticism becomes direct action in an anarchist context.) My space has room neither for Jesus & his lords of the flies nor for Chas. Manson & his literary admirers. I want no mundane police – I want no cosmic axe-murderers either; no TV chainsaw massacres, no sensitive poststructuralist novels about necrophilia.

As it happens, the A.O.A. can scarcely hope to sabotage the suffocating mechanisms of the State & its ghostly circuitry – but we just might happen to find ourselves in a position to do something about lesser manifestations of the DOR plague such as the Corpse-Eaters of the Lower East Side & other Art scum. We support artists who use terrifying material in some “higher cause” – who use loving/sexual material of any kind, however shocking or illegal–who use their anger & disgust & their true desires to lurch toward self-realization & beauty & adventure. “Social Nihilism,” yes – but not the dead nihilism of gnostic self-disgust. Even if it’s violent & abrasive, anyone with a vestigial 3rd eye can see the differences between revolutionary pro-life art & reactionary pro-death art. DOR stinks, & the chaote nose can sniff it out – just as it knows the perfume of spiritual/sexual joy, however buried or masked by other darker scents. Even the Radical Right, for all its horror of flesh & the senses, occasionally comes up with a moment of perception & consciousness-enhancement – but the Death Squads, for all their tired lip service to fashionable revolutionary abstractions, offer us about as much true libertarian energy as the FBI, FDA, or the double-dip Baptists.

We live in a society which advertises its costliest commodities with images of death & mutilation, beaming them direct to the reptilian back-brain of the millions thru alpha-wave-generating carcinogenic reality-warping devices – while certain images of life (such as our favorite, a child masturbating) are banned & punished with incredible ferocity. It takes no guts at all to be an Art Sadist, for salacious death lies at the aesthetic center of our Consensus Paradigm. “Leftists” who like to dress up & play Police-&-Victim, people who jerk off to atrocity photos, people who like to think & intellectualize about splatter art & highfalutin hopelessness & groovy ghoulishness & other people’s misery – such “artists” are nothing but police-without-power (a perfect definition for many “revolutionaries” too). We have a black bomb for these aesthetic fascists – it explodes with sperm & firecrackers, raucous weeds & piracy, weird Shiite heresies & bubbling paradise-fountains, complex rhythms, pulsations of life, all shapeless & exquisite.

Wake up! Breathe! Feel the world’s breath against your skin! Seize the day! Breathe! Breathe!

(Thanx to J. Mander’s Four Arguments for the Abolition of Television; Adam Exit; & the Moorish Cosmopolitan of Williamsburg)

(first published in OVO 10, later collected in T.A.Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone)