OVO

Kerry W. Thornley
The Idle Warriors
Atlanta: IllumiNet Press 1991

Written between 1959 and 1961, The Idle Warriors is the story of a troop of Marines in the Far East getting laid, pulling pranks, eating and talking about life. It’s a story similar to any number of films and books from that time both in style and content. But there are two significant qualities in this book that set it apart from, say a Bowery Boys film (which is what it reminds me of the most).

First, it is written by Kerry Thornley.  I’ve been reading Kerry’s work since 1979 and have always found him insightful and interesting.  I also consider him a friend and it’s always good to see a friend make it.

Second, one of the characters in the novel, Johnny Shelburn, is based on a friend Kerry had in the Marines named Lee Harvey Oswald.  In his introduction Kerry said he was trying to explain why Lee defected to the USSR.  In hindsight he said he failed, and I agree.  But the book is still a sort of eerie novelty, like the appearance of Fidel Castro as an extra in a Busby Berkeley film.  Kerry’s introduction by itself makes the book well worth reading.

from OVO 11 CONTROL (September 1991)
see also OVO 17 The Dreadlock Recollections (January 2007)

Harold S. Long
Surviving in Prison
Port Townsend, Washington: Loompanics Unlimited, 1990

Surviving in Prison is a record of one man’s experiences in prison, offered as a guide for physical survival in a system designed to break and control lives.

The book describes prison from conviction to incarceration to the hole.  It describes the inhumanity of prisons, the humiliation and the petty rules that demand exaggerated penalties for violation.  The factual nature of the writing, presented without evaluation in the knowledge that the horrors of prison speak for themselves, are so descriptive that one feels the shutting off of light and hope as they are systematically removed from the author.

This book is of great utility to anyone who believes they might end up in prison for any reason, or who is a supporter of prisoners’ rights.  It is far outside the arena of “political correctness.”  Prisons do not make such subtle distinctions in their oppression and the author does not either.  This book proves most completely that there is no life in prison, only survival, and the insight the author has to survival in prison is of unique value.

from OVO 11 CONTROL (September 1991)

Wikipedia: Mike Diana

Michael Christopher “Mike” Diana (born 1969) is an underground cartoonist who became the first artist ever to receive a criminal conviction for obscenity in the United States.

In the early 1990s, Mike Diana, a young man from Tallahassee, Florida, began producing the adult comic book Boiled Angel. This amateur comic contained graphic depictions of a variety of taboo and gory subjects, and it was distributed to only a handful of retailers. In 1991, while investigating a Florida murder case, a police officer discovered an issue of Boiled Angel and, desperate for clues, contacted Diana, informed him he was a suspect, and requested a blood sample. The real killer was soon apprehended, and Diana was not pursued. The officer in question, however, collected additional issues of Boiled Angel and sent them to the State’s Attorney’s office where they went on file. Two years later, the Assistant State’s Attorney, Stuart Baggish, came across the books and sent Diana a certified letter that said he was being charged with three counts of obscenity pursuant to Florida Statute § 847.011(1): one for publishing the material, one for distributing it, and one for advertising it. At this point, Diana contacted the non-profit First Amendment organization the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF), which provided him, free of cost, with the services of several prominent defense attorneys and expert witnesses.

Diana was employed as an elementary school janitor at the time of his first notoriety. He had used the school’s copier to reproduce some of his comic books representing crude, graphic drawings of sexual molestation and limb severing. Some of the material was allegedly left there, and Diana was fired.

On June 4, 1996, after a brief trial, Largo, Florida, Circuit Judge Douglas Baird declared the comics Boiled Angel #7 and Boiled Angel #ATE to be obscene, stating that he found them to be “patently offensive,” and that “The evident goal of the appellant’s publication is to portray shocking and graphic pictures of sexual conduct so it will be noticed. If the message is about victimization and that horrible things are happening in our society, as the appellant alleges, the appellant SHOULD HAVE created a vehicle to send his message that was not obscene.” Diana was found guilty on all three counts, and was sentenced to a three-year probation, during which time his residence was subject to inspection to determine if he was in possession of or was creating obscene material. He was to avoid all contact with children under 18, undergo psychological testing, enroll in a journalistic ethics course, pay a $3,000 fine, and perform 1,248 hours of community service. He was also ordered to cease drawing for personal use, and his place of residence was to be open to inspection by the police, without warning or warrant, at any time, for illustrations violating this ruling. He was not sentenced to any jail time, but spent four days in jail between the dates of the verdict and the sentencing.

To fulfill the requirement of undergoing a psychiatric evaluation, Diana was informed that the doctor whom he would see charged $100 an hour, which he would have to pay for himself, and that his evaluation would take two hours. After the evaluation, Diana was informed the session would cost $1,200 because the doctor claimed to have spent 10 hours reading Boiled Angel in preparation. Out of funds, Diana was unable to pay, and the doctor refused to give her evaluation to the court, effectively making him in violation of his probation.

Two appeals to the State Appellate Court failed to have the case reversed or reheard in Florida. During the first appeal process, the prosecution used evidence gathered after the original trial, a move that, according to the CBLDF, is usually considered unethical. The only count of the three under which Diana was convicted that was judged incorrect was the conviction for “advertising obscene material.” The Court agreed that it was improper to convict someone for advertising material that had not yet been created since Diana could not, at the time, know the nature or character of the work. The courts refused to accept an amicus brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union, and responded without comment to the second appeal. On June 27, 1997 the United States Supreme Court denied Mike Diana’s petition for a writ of certiorari without comment, effectively ending his legal options in his battle to overturn his conviction.

Diana moved to New York, where he was granted permission to serve out his sentence, and fulfill his community service obligation through volunteer work for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

OVO was one of the handful of publishers that printed Mike’s work before his legal troubles. My only trouble connected to Mike’s work was having OVO removed from the shelves of a magazine store in Knoxville, Tennessee. Mike also contributed original art to OVO 15 SPERM (February 2005).  Compare the style and content of Mike’s work in 1990 with the 2007 television program Superjail [wikipedia][google video].  What Mike paid the price for, Cartoon Network makes the profit from.

Mike Diana
http://www.testicle.com/mikediana.htm

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

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

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

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

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

“Regards,

“Sondra London”

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

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

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

OVO: Who buys true crime books?

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

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

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

OVO: When did you start reading true crime books?

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

OVO: Why do most people read it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

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

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

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

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

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

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

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SS: On a Factsheet Five level.

OVO: Right.

SS: We don’t see a lot of that.

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

SS: So what do you think of this stuff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVO: Somebody who can buy a magazine about it.

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

OVO: And survive.

SS: And justify to themselves in some bizarre manner.

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

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

Fax: 323-550-8833

http://www.amokbooks.com/

(from OVO 10 MAYHEM July 1991)

It is annoying to attend religious services and annoying not to. One who has had deep feelings for some organized religion finally gives up on its extant and visible self, usually after bouts of non-involvement, aggrieved attendance, and conquering indifference.

“It is the evil of the age,” explains the voice of tradition. “It is the self-judgment of an illusion,” comes the modern explanation. Have we really no slicker attitudes to cop than these: a sour sense of personal purity or an embittered belief in our rational integrity?

The real culprit is the whole idea of organized religion, which ought to be stacked next to military intelligence, public education & jumbo shrimp in a museum of dizziness.

How could we have believed that we could walk into any mosque / church / temple – the spiritual equivalent of a waiting room – and find our undiscovered and secret desires? Shame shame shame on us for having tried to share our spirit with less care and precaution than we would ordinarily exercise in sharing our sperm.

The people with whom one can do religion are as rare as those with whom one can make love – and not always the same persons!

Better to make religion a beautiful personal solace, like masturbation, than to rely on paid priests / rabbis / imams, licensed by the state to practice unsafe spirituality and spread mental diseases, especially those which undermine the mind’s natural defenses and immunities against silliness.

Anyone will tell you that religion is a private thing – but I teach you that religion must be a secret thing! Fools, guard your dreams! The wise have none so beautiful as yours!

Therefore, Moorish Orthodoxy. Because the title is less cumbersome than Anarchopaganzen – Hebreaochrislam.

Moorish Science Monitor. Volume 2 Number 6. Winter 1987.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no context for the man whose name is tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE calls himself a mad scientist, a neoist, a SubGenius – Tim Ore, Karen Elliot, Monte Cantsin – a krononaut. One of the many publications by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE was titled DCC#040.0 – dewey decimal classification number 0 (generalities) 4 (not used) 0 (no subject) 0 (miscellany)… just as a book with this dewey decimal classification number would stand entirely apart from all the other books, so does tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE stand entirely apart from all other people.

Re/Search magazine requested a photograph of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s tattoos for their ‘Modern Primitive’ issue, but the photographs were not used. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE does not fit the profile for a modern primitive. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has not modified tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s body to attach it more firmly to a tribal past – tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has propelled it forward to a sixth-finger future. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s earlier tattoos consisted of a red and green brain over the greater part of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s head (creating the 3-D effect of actually seeing into his skull), crossed thigh bones over tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s chest and a DNA coil from navel to penis. Later, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE made a tattoo index of the various scars on tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s body. Using white ink, the scars were numbered according to when they were received and created a representational icon to go next to it (a tree on the forehead, razor on the right arm, window shade on the left thigh, etc.). tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has appeared in public wearing a shirt that reveals his chest. It is not a normal chest, but one with six small sow-like teats. Forbidden only by economic circumstance from actual advanced genetic engineering, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has advanced tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s evolution in other ways.

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE does not look like anyone else. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE fashioned a suit of clothes made from zippers, which can be unzipped into a single, long strip. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE made a frightening suit of long-hair wigs of many colors and fashions, and shoulder bags of giant globes with leather shoulder straps and hinged openings. With the understanding that ‘mustaches make a man,’ tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE shaved twelve mustaches onto tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s head to be twelve times a man (or twelve times more accessible to normals). At another point, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE shaved a ring of hair from the top of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s head, in front of one ear, under the chin, behind the other ear (by gluing hair behind the ear) and back up to the top of the head: the effect was someone with their face on sideways. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has worn displaced false eyelashes and adhesive stickers instead of ‘clothes,’ peanut butter instead of makeup.

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE does not live like anyone else. His home defies convention. For extended periods of time the majority of what would normally be open space in tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s room was occupied by eight-foot diameter weather balloons; to navigate, one had to work around them. I had the rare opportunity to visit his laboratory in 1987. The front door opened to the back of a metal shelf, forcing one to walk sideways along a wall to enter the room. And to enter the room, one had to walk across his bed which was lying on the floor. Inside the room were shelves and drawers and cabinets full of experiments, documentation and equipment, all cobbled together from the least expensive of sources.

The biological processes of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE do not appear to be fully human. For five months as a teenager tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE did not bathe, brush the hair or clean the teeth, urinated outside whenever possible and often refrained from wiping the anus after elimination. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has been a ‘professional asshole’ in medical schools, serving as a model in genital / rectal examinations, and taken untested drugs for pay during medical trials. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has been known to ingest toxins and receive profound physical injuries without apparent long-term damage. No child co-created by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is known to have survived.

Perhaps because tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is more, less or other than human, t tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has demonstrated on several well-documented occasions the ability to interact with animals to a degree suggesting a special affiliation with them. One film shows tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE in a dog mask, walking on the hands and knees through the streets of London serving as a guide dog for a blind companion. When the two board a bus, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is not charged a fee – tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has, in the context of the bus, become what tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE appears to be. A videotape from the same European expedition has a nude tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE wearing a ‘Donald Duck’ mask to increase the animal appearance as tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE communes with seals on the coast of Scotland. These otherwise timid animals appear entirely at ease near tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE; they are intimidated by the camera operator more than the animal / scientist.

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is a magician, but of no previous school. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has demonstrated, time and again, that with only an application of thought and effort the marvelous can erupt in the mundane. In December 1979 tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE and several collaborators took two boxes of live crabs to a shopping mall in Baltimore, Maryland, where Santa Claus was meeting children. Prior to arrival they had tied the arms and legs of plastic babies to the crabs’ backs. They released the crabs around Santa’s cottage and stood back, watching the reaction of the crowd that gathered around the confused and weak crabs. “I’m glad someone’s doing this,” a woman was heard to say. The introduction of a random / magical element into the mundane world of Santa’s cottage at a shopping mall brought forth an even more random, even more magical response. The wizard gave a public demonstration of powers, and spontaneously a member of the crowd found herself ‘understanding’ it more, perhaps, than the wizard himself.

Mathematics has been advanced by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. Using stencils, tentatively a convenience initiated ‘folk math’ on the walls of public buildings in Baltimore. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE engineered a perpetual pataphysical calendar, and has performed music on synthesizers by reading the parameters of a patch created by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE (the mathematical information holding more potential for the listener than its application). Grammar and diction have also been accelerated by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE: here is an example of his own script:

i 1st met gayle at a halloween party in t he apt building turned commune
in wch she resided in wash d c wch was temporarily housing
a suggestion box i made t he ntrance 2 wch was made
from a simulated cunt made from rubber.
t he friend i’d given t he suggestion box 2
was wearing a dildo on his head like a unicorn horn
& gayle (wearing a black leotard) was sucking on it.
later t ha t nite i wsa playing w/ a computer connected keyboard & CRT
when gale came in2 t he room w/ an approximately 8″ in diameter
frozen wad of actual bulls’ eyes
& placed them next 2 t he keyboard at wch i was seated.
i was impressed.
t he computer room had a couch in it
& i later learned t ha t some1 had spent t he nite in t he room
w/out having noticed t he eyeballs
& upon awakening in t he morning 2 find them no longer frozen
& scattered about on t he floor of t he small room
ran screaming in terror thruout t he commune..

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE injects humor into his reports by revealing the hidden laughter in words – the becomes ‘tee hee,’ that becomes ‘tee ha (t).’ tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has transmitted information via telephone, television, radio, audio and video cassette, vinyl and computer – no medium is outside the parameter of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE, but the use each medium is put it is always at the parameter of its abilities.

The most common mistake made by those attempting to classify tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is that he is an ‘artist.’ tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE understands art and has created art, but he is not an artist. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has used paint, film, video, sound and words in his research, but the process of the research and its results are science. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s attention to detail, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s willingness to carry out the research far beyond any hope of personal gain or safety, and the quality of his documentation, give credence to the title tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE gives tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE: mad scientist.

Over the course of sixteen years, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE wrote down the word and phrases that appeared in the mind of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE while half-asleep. The resulting text was gathered into a book titled ‘telepathy receptivity training,’ and includes

blinkey modeling
i can’t see washing my hands in cake
something backwards, you have to have one of those things and two of everything
i call upon the rules and the grey moving sand…

For sixteen years work, the results are only ten pages of large-typeface text – not unlike the notebook of a botanist who searches for plants so exotic they are found only once in a lifetime. Few artists would be willing to present such a small return for so many years work, while any scientist would be proud of such dedication.

Another of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s projects is ‘mike film.’ In the late 1970s tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE conceived of a way to transmute a certain number of artifacts he had created into a context easier to transport and store and which lent itself readily to further research by others. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE made a Super-8 film of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s possessions, processed the film, gave away or destroyed tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s possessions, and proceeded to cut the cells of the film into individual photographs… approximately 46,800 photographs. The ‘mike film’ (mike as an abbreviation for microscopic and suggestive of microfilm) was then bundled in small packets and distributed to individuals and organizations all over the world. The recipients were then encouraged to distribute the film in the most creative way they knew, document the distribution and return the results to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. Every few years tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE publishes a ‘mike film distribution form’ which serves as a scientific journal on the dissemination of mike film. Mike film has been deposited in art brut museums, launched from balloons, consumed, worn as pasties, hidden in national monuments, smuggled into prisons and dropped in the ocean. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE dreams (with advance knowledge of the future?) of an archaeologist discovering mike film and examining it under a microscope.

No fringe group will accept tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE – neither will any reputable institution. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has petitioned the international museum of the extreme, Ripley’s Believe it or Not, to exhibit tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. So far, they have refused. A very small amount of advance funding or sales has supported tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s research, but for the most part tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has invented (that is, created from discarded or stolen items) the majority of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s life support systems.

What evidence is there that tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE comes from the future? tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has in the past affiliated himself with the Krononautic Society, an international and informal society of time travelers. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE seems exceptionally unable to assimilate into normal society while being entirely familiar with its customs – and yet year after year, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE survives and continues the research without funding, a steady income, and sometimes without a home. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has exhibited the ability to change tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE and tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s environment in ways that appear magical but are in fact based on a superior technology of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE own creation.

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is outside normal definitions of benevolence and wickedness, although tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE does have a highly articulated definition of both as applied to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. There have been reports of violent tantrums and theft by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE, of indifference to others and cruelty. It is difficult to evaluate the behavior of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE by any but tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s own standards.

tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE lived in Baltimore for many years: after an unsuccessful experiment in creating a book and record store (called NORMALS), tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has left Baltimore and is currently in perpetual transit in North America. tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE has been spotted in several cities, each time sending out a progress report just before the circumstances of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s residence are suddenly altered (sometimes by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s design, other times by a host’s intolerance of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE’s experiments). While the rest of us advance backwards towards the future, tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE is simply returning from whence he came. What will happen when the present and the future intersect, and the world of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE and our world become one?

- 1997, previously unpublished.

See also:
OVO 12 Science (November 1991)
OVO 7 Information (October 1989)
OVO 2 (July 1987)

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

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

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

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

(from OVO 9 July 1991)

OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!

The above does not reflect the intention of OVO, and in fact stands opposite to it. The above is provided to feed the presuppositions of those who will not actually read this issue of OVO. Any review of this issue that quotes the words above is likely to have been written by someone who never read beyond them to learn what OVO actually states. This issue of OVO has a purpose, but the likelihood that it will be misrepresented is great enough that a clear statement of what the purpose is not is in order.

OVO does not advocate the criminalization of Christianity. Existing criminal law suffices to address what is harmful, and law is among the least appropriate means of addressing what is merely mistaken. Christians deserve equal sanction by the law, and voluntary and informed activities among consenting adults (including religion) should not be outlawed.
OVO does not advocate the murder of Christians except in self-defense. Because of the potential for legal error, capital punishment is immoral in all cases. War and murder are immoral in all cases except in self-defense. Except in self-defense, it is always immoral to kill (including killing Christians).

OVO does not advocate the replacement of the Christian God with another God, a Goddess, a pantheon of deities, nature worship, or similar substitution. OVO does not advocate worship, be it of the Christian God or any other. To any reader who uses OVO to build up their own superstition: your faith is equally contemptible.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it does not understand it. Many years research went into this issue, and along the way misunderstandings about Christianity (whether in its favor or against it) were abandoned. OVO criticizes Christianity not because it does not understand it, but because it is worthy of criticism.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because the editor had a traumatic experience with Christianity. The editor had a generally positive experience with Christianity while growing up and has Christian friends today. It is a silent admission of defeat that Christians use this psychological, secular explanation for why someone might criticize their superstition. The editor came to reject Christianity the old fashioned way: by reading the Bible.

OVO is not critical of Christianity because the editor is possessed by Satan, demons or evil spirits. Such ghosts have never existed.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a socialist publication. OVO is not a socialist publication.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Christianity is false. Christianity is false, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to advocate that it wither away. There are many non-fiction books, films, plays, poems and recordings that are also false but serve to inspire humanity. But these false stories do not claim to be true, are not taught to impressionable children as true, and are not used to support legislation that meddles in the affairs of non-Christians. No one is arguing that the epics of Homer be taught as history; no one is legislating that Aesop’s fables be posted in courtrooms. These stories, though false, serve to inspire those who seek them out and are rightly preserved. It is the secular power of Christianity that is the problem, not merely its falsehood. Christianity does not attempt to identify and lessen its falsehoods: it revels in them as ‘tests of faith.’ Christianity is holding back science and art, culture and philosophy, tools that actually can and actually have improved humanity’s lot in an indifferent Universe.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a good religion perverted to bad ends. It is much more the case that a few good people (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, perhaps) have perverted the bad religion of Christianity to good ends. All the good done in the name of Christianity could and does occur through entirely secular means. What remains distinctly Christian if such duplication of labor is removed? Threats of eternal damnation, denial of the pleasures and wonders of this short life, confusion and deception. When Christianity has supported individual rights it has done so only after a ‘revelation’ that (a) goes against its own history and (b) miraculously is in harmony with contemporary public opinion. For example, many Christians opposed slavery in the United States; but many more supported slavery and did so for much longer. Even today the Bible contains many passages supporting slavery and not one passage condemning it. Christianity is a slave religion, a misogynist religion, a queer-killing religion, a nonsense religion, but good people keep twisting their bad faith to good ends. Wouldn’t it be better to just do good deeds without wasted efforts to placate an invisible monster that lives in the sky?

OVO does not criticize Christianity to criticize individual Christians. It is often the case that an attack on a person’s unconsidered beliefs is perceived as an attack on their person. If a person’s beliefs are profoundly unconsidered, to merely state that one holds differing beliefs is perceived as an attack. For example, Christians who see other superstitions get equal time in the eyes of the law sometimes complain that their freedom of religion is under attack. Those who hold considered beliefs are secure when challenged and (hopefully) willing to admit error. Those who hold unconsidered beliefs, who repeat what they have been told without deliberation, are more likely to confuse who they are with what they believe. Christianity, like all religions, encourages strong belief but also encourages a lack of consideration. Posturing, bullying and stubbornness are substitutes for consideration of belief among most Christians.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because its claims contradict the evidence of our senses, science, history, archeology, astronomy, mathematics, common sense and the like. It is true that Christianity is incompatible with all of these, but science progresses by way of challenges to all our claims. If Christianity challenges the evidence of our senses, all the better: let the challenges be considered and considered again. If the Bible contradicts science, science can be tested to see if the Bible has a better explanation for reality. Where the Bible holds true, the Bible holds true. Where the Bible is found to be false, it should either be re-written or re-classified as folk tales. Resolving contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses can be of value to us all, and so the contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses are not in themselves why the Bible should be criticized. Internal contradictions in the Bible, and holding on to falsehood when falsehood has been identified, are worthy of the greatest of criticisms.

OVO does not criticize Christianity as an argument for atheism. The editor is preparing an argument for atheism that is distinct from this argument against Christianity.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Jesus Christ was a good person whose followers have gone astray, or because we do not have the secret teachings of Jesus, or because Jesus was a complex person with both good and bad qualities. Jesus never existed.

In 1991, the editor published A Call to Heresy on a BBS in Knoxville, Tennessee USA. The document found its way onto BBS’ around the world as well as other formats, including an Internet domain in Hong Kong and a CD-ROM of public domain texts published by Palm Computers. Various editions of the text can be found on the Internet today. Some of the research done for that text has found a new home here in OVO 16 AntiChrist.

OVO criticizes the Bible. Some Christians say that it is an error to overly attend to what the Bible says, and one should rely on the Bible as inspiration rather than fact. But the Bible itself makes claims of perfection, and so taking it at its word in claims of perfection are as justified as any other perspective; perhaps more justified than some ‘inspired’ interpretations. If any interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, then Christians in no way can distance themselves from the worst among them. Having failed to amend the contradictions, atrocities and absurdities in the Bible with over two thousand years to do so, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is considered factual among Christians. Some Christians (called Dominionists or Fundamentalists or Conservatives or the Christian Right) are explicit in their claim that the Bible is factual, while the rest hold it to be factual but requiring ‘interpretation’ (often by way of asking the reader to simply ignore parts of the Bible).

But this issue of OVO does not limit itself to criticisms of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church claims a history pre-dating the Bible. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, wrote inspired texts. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints and the Watchtower Society claim to have Christian revelations in modern times. All of these Christians are well deserving of criticism and contempt.

There are a set number of responses offered by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs. The first and most common is to be told that these Bible verses have been taken out of context. It is claimed that the verses surrounding these quotes give them a meaning other than their apparent meaning. If this is the case it will be easy to demonstrate; full citations for each quote are given throughout. The reader is encouraged to read the Bible. There is no more sure path to rejecting Christianity than understanding it. Some claim that the contexts of the times change how we should understand the Bible. But does the Bible say it is relevant only until the time of Job (the last time God speaks directly to humanity), or does it claim to be relevant to all times? Some claim that one translation of the Bible offers a more accurate account than another, but existing fragmentary early Christian texts contain their own contradictions, atrocities and absurdities.

The second common reply made by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs is that the Bible, God, Jesus and the rest are not to be understood by reason in the way math or science is. Christianity is to be understood by faith, by the heart, by the spirit, by the soul. Therefore any apparent contradictions, atrocities or absurdities should be ignored because those are all ‘reason’ and not ‘faith.’ But there is no ‘alternative to reason’ as faith is said to be. One can hope, one can wish, one can pretend and ignore, one can scream or run away or kill one’s critics, but none of these are alternatives to reason. Even if there were an alternative to reason, how is the ‘feeling’ that Christianity is true (and all other religions false) different from the ‘feeling’ that Islam is true (and all other religions are false)? Why is it that Christian ‘feelings’ are so regional – does God not inspire such ‘feelings’ everywhere equally? Why don’t children have that ‘feeling’ until an adult tells them to say they do, and why do adults spend so much effort making sure that ‘feeling’ is planted in children?

All religions claim to be the only true religion. Even the ecumenical religions claim to be the only true religion, by claiming that the non-ecumenical religions are false. But since all religions contradict each other at most only one can be the only true religion. Since all religions by definition put themselves outside what can be demonstrated as true, it would be unjust to establish any religion as secular law because the likelihood of error would be too great. Suppose Mithrism became the law of the United States when actually it was Ah Pook that was the real living God? Those countries that have a legal assumption of atheism serve freedom the most. At times this has been the case in the United States, where OVO originates. Christianity threatens the legal presupposition of atheism in the USA, necessitating this issue of OVO. Christianity is the superstition behind the US support of Israel, the war in Iraq, lack of access to Plan B and a vaccine for two strains of cancer-causing HPV, the removal of science from public education, the ongoing imprisonment of the West Memphis Three (among others), blue laws, laws forbidding atheists from holding elected office and more. Reform from within should occur in Christianity. Civil discourse should occur between Christians and non-Christians. But should Christianity elect to ignore the opportunities of positive reinforcement, let it learn the sting of negative reinforcement. OVO is not reforming Christianity from within, nor is it a civil discourse. It is an attack – using only Christianity’s own beliefs as weapons. When Mithrism or the faithful of Ah Pook establish their superstition as law in the USA, they will be equally worthy of criticism. Readers in countries where Islam or Judaism are the majority superstition are encouraged to make similar efforts.

This issue of OVO advocates the withering away of Christianity through reason and scorn. Reason alone withers Christianity to a hostile party guest that has long overstayed his welcome; scorn provide us with laughter and satisfaction as we show him to the door. Perhaps reason alone, or reason and compassion, might be a more noble endeavor. But any belief that cannot withstand a little mockery is perhaps not worth holding in the first place.

Subject religious organizations to the same requirements as secular non-profit organizations: demonstrate they perform a quantifiable public good to receive tax-exempt status. Do not donate any funds, labor or resources to Christian organizations: there are secular equivalents to any Christian organization for those who seek to aid others. Do not vote for politicians who make their Christianity a part of their platform. Oppose ‘faith based’ funding and theocratic laws. Learn more about Christianity than the Christians themselves. Confront Christians with their own claims and history.

OVO is fortunate to originate in the United States, where Christianity and other superstitions may be legally practiced and criticized. The United Kingdom, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Canada and other countries forbid criticism of religion as a form of ‘hate crime,’ while China, North Korea and other countries forbid religion as a form of ‘thought crime.’ In the United States religion may be both practiced and criticized – for now. If Christianity continues to become the state religion of the United States, this may not be the case much longer.

OVO is a tool kit to disabuse the reader of Christianity.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

This essay makes the case against tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon. The amount of revenue lost as well as the harm caused by religious organizations is not compensated for by the social good they are alleged to provide (this alleged social good being the justification for their tax exempt status).

Tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon brings about three problems for Oregonians. First, there is no definition of religion to differentiate ‘real’ religious organizations from ‘fake’ ones, thus making any decision for or against tax exemption on the part of the government arbitrary. Second, religious organizations are not compelled to make contributions to their community that are comparable to the amount they are awarded in taxes breaks, nor is there any effort or means to hold them accountable for aiding the community. Third, the revenue needs of Oregon could be met by taxing religious organizations at only a fraction of the rate other organizations are taxed.

It is helpful to delineate what is under discussion in any argument. In this case, the topics under discussion are Oregon, taxes exemption and religion. Oregon is the state to the North of California and Nevada, to the South of Washington, to the West of Idaho and with a Western boundary of the Pacific Ocean. Tax exemption means that the agencies in question are not compelled to pay taxes. The definitions for Oregon and tax exemption are easy to find, confirm, and understand. But the search for a definition of religion is doomed to failure.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is, be it on the international level, the national level or the state level. Although many nations define religion as something deserving of political protection, there is no legal definition of what a religion is in international law [1].

There is also no legal definition of what a religion is in United States law. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that the religion of a US citizen cannot be used to deny them public accommodation, equal protection under the law, segregation in public education or college education, the right to vote, or employment [2]. While the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensure protection of religion, neither define what it is they are protecting. The United States has never offered a definition what a religion is, although it has offered a definition of what a religion is not. In Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the Supreme Court determined that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection [3].” In the eyes of the law, a religion is anything that declares itself a religion.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is in Oregon law. ORS 128.620 (4) states a “religious organization means any organized church or group organized for the purpose of divine worship, religious teaching, or other directly ancillary purposes [4].” ORS 307.140 states property owned or being purchased by religious organizations is exempt from taxation [5]. ORS 65.001 (39) states that a religious group “is designated a religious corporation by a statute or is organized primarily or exclusively for religious purposes.” The Department of Revenues states that exemption from property tax is available for any religious group that has a constitution, bylaws, or charter which states its mission and purpose [6]. Religious organizations in Oregon are clearly given exemption from property tax, and are clearly expected to ‘be religious.’ But there is no legal definition of what a religion is or how to ‘be religious’ in Oregon law.

Whether it be international law, United States law or Oregon law, there is no legal definition of what a religion is. What if legal sanctions and prohibitions for other issues were left similarly vague? For better and for worse, there are legal definitions to who is and is not a Native American; what is and is not an endangered species; which chemicals are and are not legal to ingest. If there were no definition of who is a Native American, anyone could collect federal benefits reserved for Native Americans. If there were no definition of what an endangered species is, any species could be declared no longer endangered and hunted to extinction. If there were no definition of who is authorized to sell morphine, anyone who would like to make some fast money would do so. The reason legal definitions exist is so that laws may be fairly applied to all, and so that exemptions from the law may be justified. But a religious group is a religious group merely because it claims to be a religious group. Religions exempt themselves from definition, aside from the definition of ‘that which is tax exempt.’

Because there is no legal definition for religion in Oregon, there is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly applied. Some religious organizations may be tax exempt but not deservedly so, while other religious organizations may not be tax exempt and deserve tax exemption. There is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly granted to all applicants because there is no way to determine which applicant is ‘being religious’ and which is not. Whatever ‘being religious’ means, religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. This includes taxes related to their property, businesses, income, and donations.

The justification offered for religious tax exemption is similar to that of secular groups that qualify for non-profit status (501c3). Secular non-profit organizations earn their tax exempt status by providing services that might otherwise be provided by the state, such as housing or medical care. Since the state does not have to pay for these services, no taxes are gathered from organizations that offer such services. Since the perceived need for taxes is thereby reduced, secular non-profit organizations can justify their tax-exempt status.

But there is an important difference between the tax-exempt status of secular organizations and the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Secular non-profit organizations are held accountable for their work. They must demonstrate that the service they provide is necessary, that they have provided that service, that the service they provided was taken advantage of, and that the cost of lost taxes is less than the benefit of the services provided. If a secular non-profit organization cannot demonstrate each of these characteristics, they do not retain their tax-exempt status.

The standards that secular non-profit organizations are held to makes them very different from religious tax-exempt organizations. Religious tax-exempt organizations are not held to these standards or to any other standard. A religious organization may deliver food to the hungry, offer shelter to the homeless and counseling to the troubled – or they may do none of these things, or it may do these things to a standard far outside accepted norms (such as offering “prayer” as a substitute for medical care or counseling). Religious groups are exempt from taxes whether or not they serve their community and lessen the tax burden. There is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to demonstrate they have delivered food, shelter or other tangible services; there is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to do anything to retain their tax-exempt status other than filing or re-filing the proper forms. It is not possible to measure measures how much religion Oregonians need, how much religion religious organizations provide, how many people take advantage of religion, whether one form of religion is more beneficial than any other, or whether or not religion is cost effective. While is it possible to state how many people claim religious affiliation, it is not possible to state what that means. It is not possible to determine if a two-year-old just as religious as an adult. It is not possible to legislate how often or in what way a group must be religious to qualify for tax exempt status. Because there is no oversight to determine how much a religious group serves its community, there is no justification for tax exempt status for religious organizations in Oregon.

Oregon law does not state what religion is. Oregon law is also not consistent in when individuals are exempt from legal punishment due to religion. Sometimes activities are forbidden by law irregardless of religion, other times they are allowed if religion is said to be involved. In the case of Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith it was determined that the state of Oregon is not compelled to allow the use of peyote [7]. Although peyote has been a part of Native American religions for centuries, and although the plaintiffs were themselves Native Americans and were using peyote for what they claimed were religious reasons, the state Supreme Court determined they were not entitled to unemployment compensation after being fired due to using peyote. The legal injunction against peyote use trumped their religious claims. This is an example of an activity being illegal whether or not it was ‘religious.’

Conversely, Oregon law provides immunity to many charges if the crime occurred as religion. These crimes have included homicide by abuse or neglect, first and second degree manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, requirements for children to wear a bicycle helmet, and nonsupport of children. Until recently, all of these crimes could be excused if the defendant claims they were committed as religion [8].

All newborns in Oregon are given a drop of vitamin K by law, but parents can prevent their children from receiving protection against spontaneous hemorrhaging for religious reasons.

The Followers of Christ Church in Clackamas County took advantage of religious exemption for murder by allowing nearly eighty children to die since the 1950s from treatable medical conditions. In over half of these deaths, the state did not attempt to establish the cause of death, the record was lost or their deaths were listed as due to ‘natural causes.’ Even when an Oregon medical examiner brought these deaths to the attention of the District Attorney’s office, the prosecutor declined to file charges. In the words of Rita Swan, “a parent may be beating or torturing a child, but if he or she can show that the child was prayed for, criminal charges must be dismissed [9].” Oregon House Bill 2494 revised criminal exemptions for parents who treat children only with prayer in 1999, after hearing opposing testimony by Oregon churches [10]. While child sacrifice in Oregon now carries some consequences, other criminal exemptions such as not requiring a religious child to wear a bicycle helmet remain [11]. These are examples of an otherwise illegal activity made legal by calling it ‘religious.’

One of the larger religious organization in Oregon is the Archdiocese of Portland. The Archdiocese of Portland is under the direct orders of the Roman Catholic Church, led by the Pope of Rome. In 1962, Pope John XXIII gave his approval to a document outlining the policy of the Roman Catholic Church in the event of child abuse by clergy. The policy was to keep child abuse by clergy secret and to transfer abusive priests to new parishes. The policy itself was to be kept secret but was revealed in 2003. The policy has never been retracted [12]; in fact, the current Pope stated in 2001 that the policy was still in effect [13]. More than one hundred and sixty nine victims of clerical child abuse have sued the Archdiocese of Portland for child abuse, and more than $53,000,000.00 has been assigned to settlements so far. While the Archdiocese of Portland filed for and received permission to delay paying its victims, it did have the funds to make building upgrades costing $1.6 million dollars [14]. The Archdiocese of Portland is estimated to own between $300,000,000 and $500,000,000 in property, none of which is taxed. It also owns special-purpose funds, investment funds, and loan funds, none of which are taxed. In 2003 its revenue was no less than and perhaps greater than $8.2 million, none of which was taxed [15]. The Archdiocese of Portland is only one out of 6,862 religious organizations claiming ORS 307.140 tax exemption in the state [16]. To quote the Oregonian, “The Catholic Church operates not by secular law, but by church law [17].”

Religious organizations in Oregon are not compelled to follow the same standards of education and employment as any other educator or employer in the state. Fundamental facts of nature which are part of the basic curriculum for any other school in the state may be omitted or deliberately misrepresented in religious schools. Any secular employer who hires and fires based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality, marital status or beliefs is subject to legal sanctions, but if the employer is religious they may hire and fire at will are protected by law in doing so.

Non-profit organizations (both secular and religious) are forbidden from endorsing political candidates. But some religious tax-exempt groups want to have their cake and eat it too. The Sonrise Church of Hillsboro lost its tax exempt status after partisan campaigning on its property [18]. The Christian Coalition has published the same sort of voting guides that cost the Sonrise Church its tax exempt status [19]. The New Hope Community Church of Clackamas has held partisan campaign meetings on its property [20]. The campaign to elect George W. Bush solicited the support of hundreds of religious organizations [21]. To further blur the line between state and superstition, the House of Representatives has initiated a bill that will merely fine religious organization that engage in partisan politics rather than revoke their tax exempt status [22]. Religious organizations can now avail themselves to federal funds through George W. Bush’s ‘faith based initiatives’ law – but apparently this money is made available mainly to Christian organizations, as few other religious organizations that have applied have received such funds. Under faith based funding, tax dollars can go to agencies that refuse to hire or serve minorities, women, homosexuals or anyone else for any reason.

In 1998 the Audits Division of the State of Oregon Department of Revenue conducted an audit of property tax exemptions. It determined that among religious organizations claiming tax exempt status under ORS 307.140, the sum of $2,010,492,000.00 was lost in tax year 1995-1996 [23]. This figure represents only revenues lost from property taxes, and does not include other lost forms of revenues connected to employment, businesses, museums and other sources of income for religious organizations. The audit states that 41 of the 154 organizations audited that were granted tax exempt status did not even meet the minimal state standards for tax exempt status (whatever those might be). The audit does not specifically state how many of these organizations were tax exempt under ORS 307.140. But the fact that one third of the organizations that claimed (and were granted) exemption totaling seventeen percent of $170.9 billion dollars in property taxes [24] were not qualified to do so suggests that Oregon religious tax exemption law is in dire need of supervision and revision [25]. Among other recommendations, the audit suggested that Oregon needs a clear definition of what a religion is to be able to fairly evaluate applications for ORS 307.140 tax exempt status [26]. This recommendation was not mentioned in the Department of Revenue’s reply [27] nor in a 1999 report on their progress in implementing 1998 audit [28]. Religion continues to go undefined, but religious tax exemption continues to be granted.

At what cost does Oregon grant tax exempt status to religious organizations? The state deficit for fiscal year 2004 was between $950,000.00 and $1,267,000.00 [29]. If religious organizations were taxed only for their property and only at half the rate of any other organization, the state budget would be all-but balanced within a single year.

Being religious, the defining trait that has no definition, is in the main an excuse to do as one pleases without consequence in Oregon. The majority of religious organizations in Oregon do not abuse and sacrifice children. Instead, they do nothing. Doing nothing and ruining childrens’ lives should not be rewarded with tax exemption.

Notes:
[1] Gunn , T. Jeremy: The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law. Harvard Human Rights Journal Volume 16 Spring 2003. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
[2] Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document Number: PL 88-352. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
[3] Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division. 450 U.S. 707. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/450/707.html
[4] ORS Chapter 128 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/128.html
[5] ORS Chapter 307 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/307.html
[6] Property Tax Exemptions for Special Organizations. http://www.dor.state.or.us/InfoC/310-664.html
[7] Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html
[8] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[9] Swan, Rita. Letting Children Die for the Faith. Free Inquiry, Volume 19, Number 1. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/swan_19_1.htm
[10] Larabee, Mark. Shield-law bills face easy win in House. Oregonian, March 5, 1999 http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc9.html
[11] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[12] BBC News. Excerpts: Vatican document. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157859.stm
[13] Pope ‘Obstructed’ Sex Abuse Inquiry. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html
[14] Funds are Released to Florence Parish http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/111813879118220.xml&coll=7
[15] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[16] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[17] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[18] Americans United Reports Eight Churches to IRS for Distributing Christian Coalition Voter Guides During November Elections. December 10 1998. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6112&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=i6cieg36h2.app1b&news_iv_ctrl=1502
[19] Christian Coalition of Oregon http://www.coalition.org/
[20] Dobson speaks to NW pastors about same-sex debate. KATU April 5 2004. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66042
[21] Bush Campaign [...] To Forge Church-Based Political Machine. Americans United, June 2 2004. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6692&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
[22] House steps into church-politics debate. USA Today, June 8 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-06-08-church-politics_x.htm
[23] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[24] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 56. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[25] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page iii. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[26] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 44. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[27] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 55. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[28] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Status of 1998 Audit Recommendations as Reported by State Agencies. November 17, 1999. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1999_year.html
[29] State Budget Shortfall Map http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/budgetmap.html

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Between April 11 and April 15 of 2004, I hosted an atheist table at Portland Community College in Portland, Oregon. This is an account of what I did, how I did it, and the response to what I did.

Getting the table was not difficult: I submitted the same paperwork that the religious groups on campus submit every other week of the year and my request was approved right away. I only asked for an hour a day for four days, due to other school obligations. Most religious groups have their tables out all day for weeks on end.

I spent about $40 printing some pamphlets I made. My pamphlets consisted of quotes from religious sources such as the Christian Bible and the Quran. The idea was that direct quotes from the source presented without comment would speak louder than any criticism I could offer. The quotes were gathered according to themes such as science, women, prophecies, etc. I also requested literature from atheist groups and several generously answered my request: Campus Freethought Alliance, Center for Inquiry, Council for Secular Humanism, and United States Atheists. I decided to keep the effort ‘ecumenical’ in that I wasn’t there representing any particular organization. By the end of the week I learned that the professionally published literature is taken more readily than the home-made photocopies, and that everyone loves stickers. I decorated a second-hand tablecloth with the word ATHEIST in large, black letters – no missing this table, no missing what this table was about (or so I hoped). PCC specifically forbids collecting personal information on campus, so I didn’t have a sign-up sheet as the Campus Freethought Alliance suggests. Nor did I primarily promote humanism rather than critique religion, as the CFA suggets. For this first effort on campus I want it to be clear that religion itself, not just particular groups or people or claims, was not exempt from criticism. I also set up a simple Web page for those who wanted to get or share more information.

Many people had questions about the atheist table. Some wanted to know if there was an official atheist club on campus, and what the club did. I said that there was not school-sponsored club because I knew that some students wouldn’t feel comfortable if their student activities fee went toward such a club. PCC offers up to $500 per group per year. There are at least five or six religious clubs on campus at all times, and no limit to the number of clubs that could exist. Two people said ‘but the Christian groups don’t hesitate in taking my money.’ I said that was a decision that PCC and the Christian groups made, and suggested they take it up with PCC and the Christians if they disapproved. I said many times that while there was no club, we did have a Web page and that I hoped in the future to either bring in or be a guest speaker on atheism, religion, church/state issues, and the like.

Some who stopped by the table had questions not about what I was offering but what I wasn’t offering. Why not have a separation of church and state table instead of an atheist table? Why aren’t there any pamphlets on creationism versus evolution? Why are there only pamphlets about Christianity and Islam, and not other religions? The general answer was that there was only so much I could do on this first attempt at an atheist table but all of these issues had relevant links and information at the Web site.

Some people had philosophical questions such as why we are here, where the first life came from, what happens when we die, whether or not there was a spiritual world, and ‘how do you live’ (which seemed to mean how can an atheist have ethics and a joy in living while remaining unconvinced by claims of God or an afterlife). I replied that I have read several theories as to how the earliest life appeared on Earth but I don’t consider myself versed enough in science to have a deep understanding of the subject, so I didn’t know for sure how life first formed. But I said it is more likely that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one. Regarding ‘how I live’ I said I was not convinced by claims that there was an afterlife or a spiritual world or God. I said people can have the purpose they give themselves, and that can be its own reward. I have worked at a homeless shelter and as an American Sign Language interpreter for many years. I’ve taken classes on how to teach children with learning disabilities and how to be a better counselor. I am a member of Amnesty International and donate to charitable organizations. That’s some of ‘how I live’ without God.

A few people offered their unsolicited analysis about why I was hosting an atheist table. They said I must have had a bad experience with religion, or I must have never read the Bible, or I must have never really read the Bible, or I must have never had someone explain the Bible to me in just the right way. I replied that I had an entirely positive religious experience growing up, and that part of my religious upbringing was being encouraged to read the Bible. I started reading it as a child, and I have read from it ever since. The more I read, the more problems I find. Is it possible that the right explanation from the right explainer will make it all true again? It is possible, but I think it is very unlikely this will happen. Some claim atheism is obviously false because it claims to have ‘all the answers,’ but I suggest it is religion that has a one-size-fits-all answer (‘God did it’) and it is atheism that keeps asking questions.

People asked me what atheism was. I gave two answers: that atheism is what is left over when the claims of religion are found to be false, and that atheism is a rejection of the supernatural. The former explains why atheism is not ‘just another religion,’ the later explains what atheism is against. It might have been less confrontational to have a secular humanist table instead of an atheist table, but I confess I enjoyed tweaking the noses of the religious on campus. The worst I can say about them is I don’t believe their claims. Their holy books say I should be put to death (the Christians have Deuteronomy 13:6-10, the Muslims have Quran 2:191). I think they can stand a little confrontation.

I managed to distribute nearly all of the literature I had, but the experience wasn’t only one of being a teacher. I also learned from the experience. I learned there was a uniformity in how non-Christians perceived Christians: without exception, non-Christians spoke of Christians as liars and bullies. I was asked seven times if I was ‘serious,’ if I was really an atheist. I was asked this more than anything else. The reason why people asked if I was ‘serious’ was they thought the table was a trick by Christian. Five times I was asked if any Christians had harassed me yet. Christians are clearly are not viewed favorably on campus outside of their own circle. Non-Christians see Christians as people prone to misrepresent themselves to ‘win souls’ and to abuse those who disagree with them. I hope Christians reading this do not use this as evidence they are a persecuted group; being disliked is not evidence of being put down, and there may be entirely valid reasons for their being disliked. If anyone reading this who is not a Christian has thought in the past they were alone in mistrusting Christians, that they are in a critical minority, they might like to know that instead they are the majority. But it is a majority that has been deceived and bullied into silence.

The dislike and mistrust for Christians on campus was one thing I learned from hosting an atheist table. Another thing was how clearly divided Christians are in their behavior based on gender. Of those who identified themselves as Christians, wore Christian jewelry or carried Christian Bibles, the men and the women acted entirely differently. The Christian women both asked questions and gave answers. They spoke and listened to me and to other people at the table. The Christian men, however, were angry and condescending. I was told by the Christian men I ‘must live an empty life,’ that I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about,’ that I ‘should read the Bible before I quote from it,’ and more. Men also tended to exhibit a ‘rant and run’ behavior – they would bark out a comment or a judgment, sometimes in the middle of my listening to someone else, then literally run away. Sticking around to hear anything I had to say in reply was not in the cards for these Christian men. It was a man who asked the confusing question ‘Why are you pointing out all the things that are wrong in the Bible that are true anyway?’ It was a man who said that asking Christians to defend their claims, as I did in my pamphlets, was saying Christians are stupid. If the bad reputation of Christians is based in experience, I suggest it is Christian men and not Christian women who are to blame. No other categorization of Christians, such as age or ethnicity, was apparent.

A few Christians of both genders came to the table more than one day. And both a male and a female Christian gave the same reply to what turned out to be the most popular pamphlet I offered (see below). Regarding the fact that Jesus said that He would return and the world would end ‘soon’ (a ‘soon’ that came and went two thousand years ago), they said that a day to God was like a thousand years and a thousand years was like a day. Although one Christian mistakenly said this was a quote from Psalms, I found the quote in 2 Peter 3:8. The unknown author of 2 Peter references the letter of Jude, which was written around 80-100 CE. Thus the 1=1000 claim could only have been made after Jesus was already one or more generations late. In fact, the main point of 2 Peter Chapter 3 is to answer those who were asking, all the way back then, why Jesus hadn’t returned in their lifetimes as He had promised He would. People were asking if Jesus had lied (or been a lie) two thousand years ago. People are still asking today. But some aren’t asking anything: they just accept that when you put God into the picture, you don’t have to mean what you say or say what you mean. Jesus promised (thirty times or more!) to return within the lifetime of those who saw Him; He didn’t, but His followers claim He said that, He never lied, He is coming back, and somehow at the same time He is coming back two thousand years ago. Might all this confusion contribute to the perception that Christians are liars?

Based on conversations, repeat visits, and other signs of apparent interest it seems that my pamphlet questioning Christian prophecy was the most popular. It is possible that the topics presented in the pamphlets I offered were not the main reason people selected some and not others. Perhaps they picked up what was closest to them, or what was the most colorful. For whatever reason, here are the topics covered and how many of each pamphlet were taken:

Thirty Failed Prophecies: 28
The Bible Condones Slavery and Racism: 20
Women in the Bible: 16
Antisemitism in the Bible: 14
Papal-sanctioned Child Abuse: 10
Antisemitism from Martin Luther: 9
Fantastic Claims of Islam: 9
God Hates Homosexuality: 8
The Bible on the Origins of Life: 8
The Bible on the Origins of the Earth: 6

Only one person mentioned Islam at all (saying he had seen a table for an Islamic group before). Although there is no small Islamic presence on campus, no Muslim identified themselves to me, sought to understand what I was doing or challenge my claims. Nor was any other religion defended during this week. Instructors at PCC seemed to neither entirely avoid from nor come to the table: a few did each. It was only the Christians and those who have been cowed by the Christians who engaged me.

Some of those who came to the table were sympathetic but had concerns with atheism. One said ‘I understand the importance of the separation of church and state, but when they start banning Christmas in public grade school that’s going too far.’ I suggested that because not all religious holidays enjoy the same investment of tax dollars that celebrating Christmas was an instance of government establishment of religion and thus a violation of the First Amendment. One person said they liked what I was doing but ‘most people think atheism means evil’ (Devilishly, I said that’s why I did it). Another said I was just pushing my faith on other people: I reminded him that he came up to me and started the conversation, and that disbelieving the claims of religion was not a matter of faith.

A small number of people looked at the Web page. For all of four hours, there was a freethinker on campus that people could ask questions to and hear answers from. But what I value most out of the experience was the words of encouragement I got from the non-Christian majority who stopped by. Most of them appeared concerned about being seen talking to me but they each quietly said something nice. ‘Thank you for doing this!’ ‘I’m always trying to explain these things and it’s hard, can I take two pamphlets?’ ‘It’s good to see everyone get a chance, not just the religious groups.’ ‘I look forward to discussion with you.’ ‘This is great, I’m a recovering Catholic.’ ‘My boyfriend is an atheist.’ ‘This is interesting!’ Three people gave me the ‘thumbs up.’ And my favorite vote of confidence: ‘Good on you!’

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

for Ira Cohen

I
off to the beiad what ho for the Fayyum & Egyptian solitude. This yearning for renunciation out-seduces other Lesser lusts & becomes our secret vice our coenobitic luxe. Our athletic asceticism is crypto-aestheticism

our grottos

coat our grotesque bodies in mother-of-pearl we grow a few herbs nudge nudge & every day wink wink a raven arrives with a loaf of “bread.” The desert so monochromous to jaded urbanites offers auras & auroras to the

anchroritic eye

Our nothingness is a giant suck-hole

that

re-appropriates the world & our friends the devils

Little Anthony & the Temptations we succumb to every one of them

especially

the succulent succubus of dolce far niente

which the worldly call prayer.

II
Juice for Jesus

You yourself are a kind of food of love & love a kind of spiritual cannibalism – & not so totally spiritual for those whose taste in love runs to precious bodily fluids. Jesus is the juice of your genitalia your tears your underarm sweat et cetera music at best the sauce High Church Victoriana pompous as beeswax & ammonia.

Appetite

would never feed on itself if it could lick the dirt from your shoes. Real food is based on you like distant emanations from the Platonic kitchen

caviare

champagne

& other disgusting sacraments of the Libertine Gnostics

They laughed at Yeats because he never missed the dinner bell at Colle no matter how

entranced

with swans. Fools

the food of love is actually food.

III
Everyone talks about negative capability but nobody ever does anything about it

Every day

we cram ourselves with juicy disasters

planning

later to dry out our heads with whiffs of some bodhisattva’s farts

or Art

or ideology or shopping

hoping

to forget what the wise old elves always stage-whispered to me on the most radical afternoons of unreconstructed Summer

Psst! hey kid

come & eat clouds like us eat emptiness & feel the scintillating buzz the enticing somethingness of a rich

long-ago nothing that can hover in mid-air like a

dragonfly

or Jesus the water-bug.

IV Twelve Steps to Hell

1.
Abraham & Eggs
vaudeville duo advocating
the meltdown of monotheism
in a maelstrom sweet as treacle
Breakfast of heretics shed for me
blackpudding mushrooms kippers
rashers of bacon & lashings of tea
because it’s not what enters the mouth
that pollutes as the Borborites say
or pale Carpucrateans with their sacrament
of precious bodily fluids
but what comes out of it
language as puke

2.
The Sevenheaded Cobra demands
immediate re-paganization of the Abrahamic Traditions
or hostages will be shot
out of circus cannons & bounce
like swans in widespread nets
with Theosophical warps
& polymorphous wefts
too complex for even the most advanced
generation of military computers
to map with any degree of inaccurate
inaccessible mountain somewhere
in the almost Martian landscape
of Waziristan.

3.
Why should the Right monopolize
mystic runes groovy grafitti
skull-&-crossbones or the color black
Ice shelves of Arctic unreason
are melting melting
leaving behind
only a pair of red shoes such as
vegetarian spirits like to sport
hobgoblins haunting Europe
with nastly recrudenscence
of funkadelic thaumaturgy &
illiterate syncretism
the snakes cult to end all snake cults
return of the never quite sufficiently
repressed
in the form of goat panic terror
& shameless idolatry.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

The Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have predicted the end of the world no less than five times. According to their founder Charles Taze Russell, their second President J.E. Rutherford, and their official magazines The Watchtower and Awake!, the world was to end in 1914. But 1914 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1915. But 1915 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1918. But 1918 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1925. But 1925 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1975. But 1975 came and went without the world ending. So they stopped making public predictions about the end of the world and purged members (nearly 30,000 in 1978 alone) who questioned these false prophecies. Making failed predictions is a sure way to look stupid, but looking stupid isn’t so bad. Where the Watchtower Society really stands out is denying medical care for their children, based on fickle revelations from God to their leadership. Sometimes they ban medical procedures such as blood transfusions or organ transplants, sometimes they do not ban them – too bad if your child died while the ban was in effect. Maybe it wasn’t the end of the world, just the end of your child, that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to bring about.

THE WORLD WILL END IN 1914
“And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon , and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as is already shown from prophecy.” Charles Taze Russell, Studies In The Scriptures, Vol. III
“…we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914″ Charles Taze Russell, The Finished Mystery.

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1915
“In the coming 26 years [1889+25], all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved.” Charles Taze Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II
“The Gentile Times prove that the present governments must all be overthrown about the close of A.D. 1915.” Charles Taze Russell, The Time Is At Hand.

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1918
“… in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity.” The Finished Mystery (1917 edition).

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1925
“… there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful ones of old … we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth… Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection.” J.E. Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die.
“Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that (Christ) did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable… We understand that the jubilee type began to count in 1575 B.C.; and the 3,500 year period embracing the type must end in 1925… It follows, then, that the year 1925 will mark the beginning of the restoration of all things lost by Adam’s disobedience.” J.E. Rutherford, The Watchtower, November 1 1922
“Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.” The Watchtower, April 1 1923

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1975
“[...] according to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE, likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.” [...]  “According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 BCE.” [...] “Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ… Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth.” The Watchtower April 1, 1968; Awake! October 8, 1968; The Watchtower August 15, 1968.

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower September 15 1961 pp. 563-564
Watchtower February 15 1964 pp. 127-8

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS NOT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower November 15 1964 pp. 680-3
Watchtower June 15 2000 p. 31

ORGAN TRANSPLANT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower November 15 1967 pp. 702-4
Awake! June 8 1968 p. 21

ORGAN TRANSPLANT NOT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower March 15 1980 p. 31

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Those Mormons sure are friendly. But are they friendly to all of God’s children? The following quotations from Nephi, Jacob, and Alma are from the Book of Mormon. In modern editions of the Book of Mormon the word ‘white’ (skin) is often changed to ‘pure’ (character); the original text is quoted here. As the Book of Mormon is said to be inspired by God, dictated by angels and faithfully transcribed by Joseph Smith, any modern changes are less accurate than these original quotes. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mark Peterson and Orson Pratt were or are all leaders of the LDS. African-American men were not allowed to be clergy in the LDS until 1978, nor were African-American men allowed to lead LDS Boy Scout troops. Like the Mormon revelation that polygamy was not to be practiced on Earth (only in Heaven), the revelations to white-wash the Book of Mormon and allow African-American leadership came at exactly the same time as human discontent (and lawsuits) arose against them. What a miracle!

• And the angel said unto me: Behold these [Native Americans] shall dwindle in unbelief. And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. – 1 Nephi 22:23
• And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. – 1 Nephi 13:15
• And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. – 2 Nephi 5:21:24
• And then shall they [Native Americans] rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people. – 2 Nephi 30:6
• Behold, the Lamanites [Native Americans] your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father – that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. [...] O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. [...] Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. – Jacob 3:5,8-9
• And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. [...] And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. [...] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. – Alma 3:6,9
• “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.” – Joseph Smith
• “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” – Brigham Young
• “…after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God… ” – John Taylor
• “The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned [...] As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes [...] Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have [been] cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.” – Bruce McConkie
• “At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse – as a punishment and as a sign to all others. [...] If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to intermarriage with the Negro, is there? Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it.” – Mark Peterson
• “The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African Negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations of the earth.” – Orson Pratt

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Imagine that you meet someone who offered you a magic pony, a bag of candy, and to be your best friend forever. The generous stranger promised thirty times they would do these things for you within your lifetime, and then disappeared. They never came back in your life, or the lives of your children, or your children’s children, or any of your descendants for over two thousand years. Would it make sense to keep waiting for the generous stranger who made such amazing promises, or would you admit that he told a nice story but didn’t deliver the goods? Jesus said thirty times that He would establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth within the lifetime of those who saw Him speak. Two thousand years later, Christians are still making excuses for their lying Messiah.

• The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. – Zephaniah 1:14
• For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts. – Haggai 2:6-8
• But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I [Jesus] say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. – Matthew 10:23
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. – Matthew 16:28
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. – Matthew 23:36
• And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. – Matthew 24:14 [Romans 10:18 states: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.]
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. – Matthew 24:34
• Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. – Matthew 26:64
• And he [Jesus] said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. – Mark 9:1
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. – Mark 13:30
• And Jesus said, I am: and ye [“the high priest”] shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. – Mark 14:62
• But I [Jesus] tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. – Luke 9:27
• Verily, verily, I [Jesus] say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. – John 5:25
• And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. – Romans 13:11-12
• But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -  1 Corinthians 7:29
• Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. – 1 Corinthians 10:11
• Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. – Philippians 4:5
• For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [...] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. -  1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17
• That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. -  2 Thessalonians 2:2
• God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. – Hebrews 1:1,2
• For then must he [Jesus] often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. – Hebrews 9:26
• For yet a little while, and he [Jesus] that shall come will come, and will not tarry. – Hebrews 10:37
• Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. – James 5:8
• Who [Jesus] verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. – 1 Peter 1:20
• But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. – 1 Peter 4:7
• Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. – 1 John 2:18
• Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. – 1 John 3:2
• The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John [...] Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. – Revelation 1:1, 3
• Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown [...] Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. – Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 12
• And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. – Revelation 22:12

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)