Rollins Teaser - "Lucifer's Lexicon" (updated)

UPDATED on 05/04/2008

In addition to the eponymous monograph, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays will include a generous assortment of rare and never-before-published writings by L.A. Rollins, perhaps the most notable -- if not the most notorious -- being an "updated abridgment" of the underground classic, Lucifer's Lexicon.

Here follows a small selection of newly-minted nuggets for the craw:

Banquet, n. - 1. A sumptuous feast.  2. A presumptuous frozen dinner.

Dualism, n.
- Duelism.

Godfearing, adj. - Afraid of nothing.

Holocaust revisionist, n. - One who denies being a denier.

Hurricane, n. - An act of God, which proves that God is a terrorist, an evildoer who should be put down like a mad dog.

Islamofascist, n. - A Muslim follower of Mussolini.

Jesus Christ, n. - The sin of God.

Jungian, n. - One who is a Freud of his own shadow.

Koran, the, n. - A holy source of toilet paper, like The Bible, The Talmud,  The Book of Mormon, the Urantia book, etc.  The Koran is also useful for children's games of "kick the Koran."

L.D.S., n. -  A psychedelic drug more dangerous than L.S.D.

Legislation, n. - The poetry of power.

Liberal, n.
- One who believes a woman has the right to kill her fetus, but not with a gun.

Moral Compass, n. - A direction-detecting device uses by American and Israeli pilots to find bombing targets. 

Mithras, n. - An ancient savior-god who stabbed the bull, as distinguished from Jesus, who shot it. 

Ombudsman, n. - A watchdog without teeth who works for the thief.

Our Troops, n. pl. - Our thugs and assassins. Of course, we all support our brave thugs and assassins, because we are all cowardly conformist cunts, aren't we?

Politically Correct, adj. - Intellectually crippled.

Satan, n. - The son, not the father, of lies.

Senseless Murder, n. - A murder that makes no sense, as distinguished from a sensible murder, the only kind of murder that a sensible person, wearing sensible shoes, would commit.

Solipsist, n. - 1. One who has only himself to blame. 2. One for whom masturbation is the only kind of sex possible.

Sour Grapes, n. pl. - Fruits, which when fermented, produce fine whines.

Suffer, v. - 1. To be human, according to Buddah. 2 To be a Jew, according to Judah.

Village, n. - What it takes to raise a village idiot.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, n. pl.  - The most dangerous weapons of all, so dangerous that they constitute an intolerable threat, even when they don't exist.

Work ethic, n.
- Slave morality.

Memento mori.

Random Rules IV

Elsewhere. . .

  • 4/22/08 Update: Jim Crawford, host of the essential Antinatalism blogkicks off a series of posts in which he promises to provide chapter-by-chapter commentary on David Benatar's maligned and misunderstood monograph, Better Never to Have Been.  If you have more than a passing interest in the multi-fanged case against breeding, you should know that Jim is also contributing several essays for the Hog-edited anthology, Against Life, Against Death, which will be released by Nine-Banded Books in 2009.         
  • Via Hit & Run comes news that John Stagliano, director of the seriously great (if unheralded) confessional documentary, Buttman Confidential, is being prosecuted for obscenity. You can follow the press links here, and you can contribute to his defense here.

Memento mori.

"A series of dreamlike vignettes"

The Lawnchair Philosopher posts a most thoughtful review of Bradley Smith's The Man Who Saw His Own Liver. An excerpt:

The writing style is at the same time sparse, and elegant. This is no dry accounting, but a work of poetic prose, rich in metaphor and emotional content. Each reminiscence stood alone for me; which might be a drawback to the reader expecting a more linearly styled memoir. Doubly so for those who don't like their diatribes leavened with subtlety, or self examination. Being the sort of fellow who likes to bury his head in the cat box at the mere mention of politics, extremist or otherwise, I was fairly taken aback upon delving into the author's 'infamous' political predilections (addressed by Chip Smith in the introduction). It made me glad that I read the book first; I still haven't ever read 'On The Road', and probably never will, because I made the mistake of reading the bios first, and can't get past the fact of Kerouac being a total ass-wipe. Now, instead of picturing Bradley Smith as some cartoonish Art Bell reject with a penchant for paranoid conspiracy theories, I'll always see him as a zen aspirant on his way to cracking that last koan. And how can you be mad at a guy who writes a line like this?...

I've always felt the urge to slip through desire, like an eel passing through nets cast out for bigger fish.

If you like great prose, written by a man just an epiphany or two short of emergence into a new, brilliant sphere, buy this book. There's an innocent clarity here, as well as a surprising sense of humanitarian compassion.

Another recent review characterizes Liver as having "the feel of Ludwig von Mises passed through the filter of, say, Errol Morris (or, in his artier stages, Roman Polanski)."

Curious? Order your copy here, here, herehere, or here. Autographed copies are available upon request through Nine-Banded Books.

Memento mori.

Coming Soon . . .

 The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays, by L.A. Rollins (With a new introduction by TGGP)

There's work to be done, but we're still shooting for a mid-summer release. Ordering information will be posted here and at Nine-Banded Books soon.   

Bear versus Hog

First off, I should mention that The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays is coming together, slow and sure. In the next few days, I expect to post the cover and will probably begin taking advance orders. I'm still shooting for a mid-summer release, but this may need to be pushed back as Mr. Rollins keeps  providing new material, much of which is too entertaining and ornery not to go in. The man is on a roll, and I mean to give readers their thirteen dollars worth.

Recently, I've been engaged in some polite discussion with the Christian conservative folks at The Bear Diaries over the spirit-depleting subject of antinatalism. In the first round, I jumped in to correct a common misconception linking David Benatar's ethical position with the more commonly encountered people-culling polemics of radical environmentalists. Soon after, I was joined by Jim Crawford, host of the singular Antinatalism blog, who proceeded to pollute the well with the usual counter-intuitive iterations. I chimed in to bat the pong and it went back and forth for a while, mostly to the snarkily professed amusement (and increasing irritation) of TBD habitués. The usual.

It must have jogged something, though, as it seems the eponymous Bear has since filed another antinatally-themed dispatch, this one banking off of Michael Cook's overconfident dismissal of the dismal (which the Hog previously banked off of here). Rather than using the occasion to point up the meretricious content of Benatar's thesis, however, the focus is trained more conveniently on the always available question of motive. Or more accurately, readers are asked to consider what environmental and nurtural factors might predispose a person to advance a particular view. "Did [David Benatar's] mother not hug him enough as a child?" Herr Bear thus inquires, further averring:

It is important in our analysis of ideas to reckon with their origin. If a given idea can be produced only by a certain kind of mind — well, that should be of especial significance.

While I would not dispute that from a certain vantage this reckoning may be of marginal curiosity, it is too easily employed as a deck-shifting tack, and ultimately as means to avoid engagement with an argument that reflexively evokes hostility or incredulity. Such misdirectional responses are parcel not merely to antinatalism, but to the disparate catalog of "dangerous ideas" that inevitably rouse the synapses of mild-mannered thought criminals like me, who cannot but make the mistake of asking the next question

When I read the work of those who question genocide, or who openly doubt that racial differences can be explained without reference to genetic factors, or who defend those hurtful  Ron Paul newsletters, I am wisely aware of the fact that such views may be more or less informed by extra-rational factors. Atheism may be a badge of conformity in certain rarefied cloisters. And for all I know, Kevin MacDonald's dissident Jewish studies may be animated by an abiding hatred of Judd Hirsch. There's simply no telling with these things. Suspicion may may be due, and trust is as reassuring as gossip.  But even an argument made in bad faith by an unhuggable motherless child may yet prove to be correct on the merits. And if the argument fails, it will always be possible to demonstrate why this is so without trotting out the couch.

Comments are open, if anyone cares. . 

Memento mori.      

Random Rules III

Elsewhere...

Memento mori.



   

Nine-Banded Update: Against Life, Against Death

This may be my last post for some time, as I really need to get the L.A. Rollins book ready for press and devote more energy to other Nine-Banded Books in the wings.

...Speaking of which, once The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays has topped the bestseller lists, the humble Hog's editorial attention will turn primarily to Against Life, Against Death, a collection of writings on antinatalism and related ideas that's currently slated for release in early 2009. Being just past the germinal phase, I can say that the book is shaping up nicely, with several contributors providing provocative chapter-essays on the personal and philosophical dimensions of Schopenhauer's orphaned nostrum. In addition to being the first non-scholarly treatment of a subject that has too hastily been dismissed as nihilistic, counter-intuitive, reductionist, apocalyptic, hostile, misanthropic, and, perhaps most conveniently, as the sad product of depressive ideation, Against Life will present the moral case against procreation in engagingly human terms. If David Benatar's important but academically-bound meta-ethical discursion provides a useful overview of the antinatalist position (and it does -- read it), my hope is that our anthology will serve as an accessible yet philosophically undeceived  underview -- a book that takes full account of the profound, and perhaps intractable, biases that lead decent and thoughtful people, often in this instance alone, to reify genetic interests in moral terms; a book that will not flinch before the implications of a strange and long-forbidden dialectic that pits eternal nothingness against the tempting language of parental agency, or against the ever-shifting formulations of some dismal short-sighted calculus.  If you believe the proposition that "no one should ever have children" to be preposterously untenable or simply mistaken, Against Life, Against Death, will beg you, earnestly and emphatically, to reconsider the stakes.

For more information, keep checking the soon-to-be redesigned Nine-Banded Books site.  And while you're there, please consider ordering a copy of Bradley Smith's  disarmingly poignant novella, The Man Who Saw His Own Liver.  Sales are slow, but the hipster clerks are slowly catching on

Memento mori.

Memento mori.

Memento mori.
   

One Person With Proof

Bradley Smith's latest experiment is premised on a deceptively simple question. These days, I'm told that Nazi gas chambers are passé, and that works like this, and this, and this, for all their meticulously phrased rational-empirical pretense, can be safely ignored or dismissed as the predictable fits of polished crankery one has to expect from misguided or ill-motivated brokers of such insidiously captious sophistry. Clearly, and despite every marrow-chilling detail I learned and believed as a child, there must be something flawed or even immoral about Bradley's stake in such old business. Mustn't there?  Surely, it would be gauche to take the bait. Better to leave the dirty work to these guys, who remind us that Bradley, the poor old fart, can't even spell.

With due regret, I am compelled to note that the The Hoover Hog's publishing imprint, Nine-Banded Books, has rather foolishly released Bradley Smith's novel, The Man Who Saw His Own Liver, which may be purchased by bad people and poor spellers through Atomic Books, Quimby's, Germ Books, and Amazon. Mae culpa.

Memento mori.    

Race-Baiting on the Brink of Apocalypse

As promised, here is another slightly revised and link-enhanced review-essay from the time-worn pages of the print incarnation of The Hoover Hog, which existed from 1996 to 1997. Touching as it does on the mid-nineties militia panic, it seems quaintly dated now. But we know how the pendulum swings. William Luther Pierce has been feeding the worms for half a decade now, but "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds" remains good fodder for racist and anti-racist alike.     

__________________________________________________


The first thing I saw in the moonlight was the placard with its legend in large, block letters: "I defiled my race." Above the placard leered the horribly bloated, purplish face of a young woman, her eyes wide open and bulging, her mouth agape. Finally, I could make out the thin, vertical line of rope disappearing into the branches above. Apparently, the rope had slipped a bit or the branch to which it was tied had sagged, until the woman's feet were resting on the pavement, giving the uncanny appearance of a corpse standing upright of its own volition.   

                                        -- "Andrew Macdonald," The Turner Diaries

In 1973, an erudite melanophobic Frenchman named Jean Raspail authored a patently racist novel that read like high literature. It was called Camp of the Saints, and it was received with measured praise from some important people. People like Sydney Hook and Max Lerner and James Kilpatrick.

Envisioning the impending arrival of a vast fleet of Ganges refugees ("The Last Chance Armada") to the naked shores of Mother France, Raspail's tale depicts the the chaos and implosive social declension that take root following the Armada's media-celebrated "peaceful invasion" of precious Western soil. In structure and tone and pace, Camp of the Saints has a certain undeniable resonance. It stands as a high-minded requiem, a tragically-framed exaltation of a fragile and glittery blood-willed occidental world in collapse.

Fascinating how the limn devolves, in calculated Boschian reels, to evoke perfect and specifically prurient chords of lizard-brain revulsion.  Toward the dark-skinned "other." In one rhapsodically salacious sequence depicting a free-for-all orgy aboard one of the refugee freighters, the flood gates are let open. 

. . . everywhere, a mass of hands and mouths, of phalluses and rumps.  Young boys passed from hand to hand. Young girls, barely ripe, lying together cheek to thigh, asleep in a languid maze of arms and legs, and flowing hair, waking to the silent play of  arms, and legs, and flowing hair, waking to the silent play of eager lips. . . Everywhere, rivers of sperm, streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers. Bodies together, not in twos, but in threes, in fours, whole families of flesh gripped in gentle frenzies and subtle raptures. Men with women, men with men, men with children, children with each other, their slender fingers playing eternal games of carnal pleasure.

Which, apparently, is just what we might expect from a heaping boatload of malnourished sand-niggers who "never found sex to be a sin."  One can only wonder whether Monsieur Raspail jerked off between sentences.

And one can only speculate about a more acutely atavistic -- yet comic -- penchant for fecal metaphor.  The self-imagined messiah of the Indian masses is affectionately dubbed "the turd eater," and our French scribe dwells, presumably without ironic intent, on the "the horrible stench" emanating from the fleet due to the refugees' resourceful practice of utilizing shit as fuel with which to cook their depleting rations of grain rice:

. . . the decks became weird workshops, where hands deft at molding this curious coal -- children, for the most part, down on their haunches -- took each new batch of turds, kneaded and shaped them, pressing out the liquid, and rolling them into little round briquettes, like the kind we used to burn in our stoves not very long ago. . . Other children, quick and clever, kept them supplied, eyes peeled for anyone, man or woman, poised in the humanoid fecal position. Zip! zip! there they were, hands flashing between two outspread thighs, grabbing the precious substance and trotting it off to the dung rollers while it was hot.

Yech.  The intent, I gather, might turn on making the foreigners seem, well, foreign.  When the enemy comes, he will smell like shit.  And he will be brown, like shit. Capisce?      

Anywise, this is one way of looking at things. But there are others.

In 1978, a paranoid Aspergery American writer named William Pierce authored a patently racist novel that read like downmarket smut.  It was called The Turner Diaries, and it was received with unequivocal condemnation among all the important people. At least those who deigned, invariably for transparently self-serving reasons, to notice it.

The Turner Diaries is clumsily written, preposterously plotted, and unremittingly psychotic in its  masturbatory portrayal of full-on violent caucasoid insurrection. Still I can't help but like it, if for no other reason than it's just about the meanest goddamn book ever written.

Following the passage of the ominous "Cohen Acts" of 1993, goes the story, the dreaded "equality police" set about large-scale confiscatory gun raids, thereby fomenting the formation of a covert paramilitary counteroffensive among a theretofore complacent aggregation of racially conscious white patriot-revolutionaries. Our hero and eponymous narrator is Earl Turner, a  nascent fanatic who, having seen the light, rises through the ranks of "The Organization," punctuating his ascent with schizophrenic flourishes of charmingly overwrought Hitleresque polemics.

Turner and his guerrilla compatriots start off small, blowing up central FBI headquarters in the nation's Judaically compromised capitol.  But the pyrotechnics amp up in short order, with the destruction of ZOG-controlled media establishments and with federal targets being picked off like lice.  Chaos ensues, and although the moribund enemy-government vainly returns fire, the bloated Zionist machine is no match for our intrepid team of firebrand Nordic warriors who make haste in launching a full-scale paramilitary takeover of California.

The Golden State provides the setting for the infamous "Day of the Rope," when bands of suspected race traitors are duly rounded up, beaten up, and strung up, all as the niggers, kikes, and chinks are "deported," shot and hanged as whim and circumstance dictate. Having somehow secured a modest arsenal of nuke-weaponry, the genocidal pranksters proceed to mount their penultimate offensive against The System by, naturally, blowing New York and Israel off the map. And with central command disabled, our man Turner has but to seal his  martyrdom, Kamikaze-style, in an air raid over the Pentagon.  In a fiery warrior's death, he secures a final tactical victory for The Organization, ensuring that future legions of race baitin' Jew hatin,' 14-word-recitin' milky white folk will inherit the  blood-ennobled task of instauration. So it is written.

Skip to the epilogue, where it is implausibly explained that, with a few minor and to-be-expected eruptions, the Organization continues apace and unabated in its racial conquests until the only impure nation remaining is China. To "stem the yellow tide," the industrious Aryan soldiers launch an all-out bio-chemo-nuclear attack over "16 million miles of the Earth's Surface, from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific and from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean."  And thus our tale ends happily with THE ANNIHILATION OF THE ENTIRE NON-WHITE WORLD.

What fun.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear the whole book was a hoax, concocted for the usual insipid reasons, à la Report From Iron Mountain or "Israel Cohen's" fabled playbook, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century. It's all just so ridiculously lurid and contrived and gratuitous.

And stupid. For example. When Turner  looks into the prospect of recruiting Organization foot-soldiers from a none-too-promising throng of young "dropouts," he is disgusted to learn of the netherworldly existence of one "Kappy the Kike," a Jewish white slave merchant said to sell nubile runaway girls to "certain exclusive clubs in New York  where the wealthy go to satisfy strange and perverted appetites." But it gets better -- I mean, um, worse -- because a number of Kappy's hapless teenyboppers, "it is rumored, are eventually sold to a Satanist club where they are dismembered in gruesome rituals."

And there's that bit after the Cali-coup, when looting and social discord lead to drastic food shortages, and black  folk reflexively "lapse into cannibalism."  Or the part where a hyper-Semitic TV news anchor, after reporting on the Organization's nuke attack on "his beloved New York City" shed's the mask and falls into paroxysms of comicbook rage, chanting in Hebrew and pounding his chest. That's right, pounding his chest.

I could go on.  About the sanguinary excesses attending the Day of the Rope, where the author dwells ever-lewdly on the curious punishments endured by (usually white and female) race-mixers.  About how Hitler is cryptically and admiringly called  "The Great One."  About further adventures in hair-trigger Negro savagery.  And so on. There's never a dull moment, kids. But I think you get the point.  It reads like a bad joke.

Both Camp of the Saints and The Turner Diaries portray racial strife in decidedly apocalyptic terms, but whereas the former tome has fallen into relative obscurity, Pierce's pseudononymously penned hate fantasy never strays far from the news cycle.  This is due in large measure to the occasional  right-wing terrorist who whose criminal actions are, in media-speak, "linked" to the novel or its ever-peculiar author. In the 80s, it was the "Brotherhood of the Order," or something. More recently, it was suggested the book "inspired" Timothy McVeigh in his call to infamy.

While the high-profile headlines surely account for part of the banked fascination, I suspect there may be something more at work. At a bookstore where I once worked, we made a point of carrying The Turner Diaries from time to time, usually when it was in the news for whatever reason. What struck me was that with scant exception, those who purchased the book were rather obviously creatures of  Chomsky-benumbed leftist pedigree. And they would always -- always -- make a point of emphasizing their cultivated disapproving stance toward the book's unseemly content, usually couching their regrettable transaction with some fatuous "know thy enemy" explanation-excuse. Yes,  I see.  You're writing a paper, then?  All in keeping with the research.

Curiouser, one notices that career anti-racists like Morris Dees and Ken Stern are conspicuously animated by Pierce and his little red book.  And a goodly chunk of mainstream reporting on the over-hyped militia movement gravitates lazily toward Earl Turner's saga, lending the festivities a significance well beyond due. Displaying a keen awareness of the liberal meta-market, Lyle Stewart's Barricade Books stole the punchline by announcing that fully half of Turner-derived profits would go to some obnoxious anti-gun group. What up wit dat?

It's simple enough, really.  Just as The Turner Diaries plays into reactionary fantasies of race-warfaring insurgency, it also slakes the liberal need for demons. Whether through accident or ingenuity, Pierce's tome neatly affirms the unacknowledged prejudices of those who wish desperately to believe that NRA constituents are closeted tiny-dicked frothing racist villains whose desire to bear arms may be read as a kind of transferred holocaust-lust. It feeds the needs of Nazi and Nazi-hunter alike.

Is The Turner Diaries a "blueprint for tyranny" as some have suggested?  Is it a "Bible of Hate" as FBI busybodies sanctimoniously advise? Is it scary or or dangerous or evil? Nah.  It is at base a silly book. A cartoon, really. But one thing seems sure: if The Turner Diaries did not exist, it would be necessary for liberals to invent it.                                     

 

Random Rules II

Irascible bus-hopping expat, Fred Reed, shares some thoughts on the latest American Renaissance conference, where he was a somewhat unlikely speaker.  His take on the Phil Rushton goblin sounds about right to me:

One of the speakers was Phil Rushton, of the University of Western Ontario,     whose specialty is the study of racial differences in intelligence. Only among     the ideologically befogged is the subject beyond the pale. The evidence for     these differences would be voluminous if there weren’t so much of it.     Further, measurements of intelligence are reproducible and highly correlated     with success of both individuals and groups. The people who do these studies,     as for example Rushton, are highly intelligent themselves and cautious in     their conclusions.

It amuses me that such as Rushton are often regarded as right-wing racists,     drone. They point out that Jews are intellectually superior to other whites,     which is hardly a traditional right-wing view; and that East Asians are smarter     than whites, also not normally regarded as a white racist idea. Look at the     IQ hierarchy they find: Jews at the top, followed by, East Asians, whites,     South American mestizos, American blacks, African blacks. Now compare the     intellectual achievements of the groups. Kinda sorta fits, don’t it?     But we can’t talk about this because (a) we wouldn’t like the     results, and (b) because it takes an eighth-grade understanding of mathematics     to grasp a standard deviation, which eliminates most of the population.

I still have trouble with eighth-grade math, but that didn't stop me from sharing my thoughts on the subject of intractable race differences and Bell Curve bugaboos in a series of posts (here, here, and here) that more or less launched this here Hog thing.

More interesting is Fred's take on the demographic composition of the conference attendees:

The audience was anything but homogeneous. Someone who had been to various     such conventions said the crowd consisted of twenty percent Neo-Nazis and     twenty percent Jews. Jews, yes; Neo-Nazis, perhaps. If the latter means people     who want to exterminate this or that group, I encountered none. The closest     anyone came was an overwrought dingaling who, in question and answer, denounced     me as a race traitor for having married Violeta, my Mexican wife. I considered     an appropriate but anatomically unorthodox repositioning of my microphone.     However, the audience told him to sit down and shut up. Later a dozen people     apologized for his behavior, and I met a fair number of men who had Chinese,     Mexican, and Colombian wives. Race traitors all, I suppose.   

Two cheers for racialist gentility.

Elsewhere, the happily hetorodox Satanist cum Androphile polemicist, Jack Malebranche, channels Anton LaVey (channeling Ragnar Redbeard)  in "The Luxury of Empowerment," an undeceived meditation exposing the "epidemic confusion about the nature of power" while serving up a "pimp slap of cold, hard reality" to those who would seek safe refuge behind semantic soap bubbles. To wit:

"Empowerment" is a pathetic salve for low self-esteem, a comforting, ego-inflating illusion dreamed up by those who have little or no power but who covet a sense of vital importance. The illusion of "empowerment"  is prized by the powerless and humored by those who wield real power. The illusion of "empowerment" is a luxury, like cable television, air conditioning, imported gourmet food, chemical anti-depressants, plastic surgery, the "civil rights" lawsuit or anything else which is made possible only by the extreme wealth and military might of modern industrialized nations.

Elsewhere yet, looks as though there's a new antinatalist site on the grid.  It seems more targeted toward ever-impressionable young folk who might -- naturally -- contemplate breeding without having thought through the implications. Iterations being necessary, here's the entire opening salvo, more or less:   

You are going to die. I’m not telling you this to depress you. It’s just a simple fact…everybody dies. Everything living dies, period. Always. And along the way, we suffer. Oh, not all the time, and not equally. But suffering is part of what life is all about, and some people suffer horribly. Disease. Accident. Starvation. Abuse. And then, sooner or later, there comes death. To all of us. Always. Of course, we all know this, right? Right.

Still, we try to ignore the facts, and there are many ways in which we do this. Little games we play with ourselves and others. We invent magical beings who tell us what to do, and who promise to protect us. We imagine fairytale places to go to after we die, so it all won’t seem so bad. Of course, these are lies, but lies invented with the best of intentions; to make us less afraid. And then, there’s the biggest, and most harmful lie of all. We have children, imagining that we somehow live on through them…a kind of fake immortality. But make no mistake; our children, each and every one of them, will suffer and die, and no one will really live on at all. The only thing that lives on is the fear, and the story…the lie.

With modern birth control methods, nobody needs to have children anymore. The world is over-populated, but I’m not going to ask you to save the world. I’m simply asking you to save a child; your child. A child who is never brought into this world will never suffer, nor do harm, nor die. An unborn child will never fear, or lose anyone close to him. But, you might ask, doesn’t an unborn child also lose out on all the good stuff life has to offer?

Close your eyes. Now, imagine a little boy or girl in your head; any color or shape you choose. Now, open your eyes, and let the image fade. Did your imagined child lose out on anything? Of course not…he or she was an imaginary being, after all, and never existed even one little bit. The same goes for an unborn child; it never misses out on anything at all. However, a real child brought into the world can be made to suffer in all the ways you can imagine, and probably many ways you’d really rather not think about. Of course, any single child’s life might turn out relatively well, though everyone suffers somewhat. But are you really willing to take the chance that your child MIGHT be one of those who suffers terribly through life? Even if you think that chance is somewhat small? It’s a dice throw, after all. Why take the risk?

Of course, many people will pressure you throughout your childbearing years to ‘have kids’. That’s because of the pretend game I mentioned before; and also, because they want your kids to work, and pay taxes, and help to support them when they get old. If fact, until very recently in history, most people had children for this exact purpose, as many still do today. Oh, and in the past, lots of people owned or worked on farms, and every child was an extra hand to help do the chores. Children as farm tools…does that sound right to you? Well, anybody who tells you to have children, so that your children can contribute to the ‘future’, is basically saying the same thing. “Have a kid! You owe us!” Does anybody else find that idea upsetting?

If you really feel a need to have a child, adopt. There are plenty of already existing kids who need good homes. The world doesn’t need any more of them. Or volunteer somewhere; there are lots of organizations where you can help kids and adults get through life a little bit easier. I’m just trying to get the point across that there is absolutely NO need to have children, besides the obviously selfish ones. And that’s another thing- don’t let people accuse YOU of being selfish for refusing to breed. There is nothing more selfish than breeding, especially considering what a child might go through. And of course, no matter how good a particular child’s life is, in the end it must die. In a very real way, to have a child is also to condemn that child to death. Now, do you really want to do that?

Memento mori.

Bubble and Scrape

Been on the road and off the grid.  Semi-regular posting will resume as soon as I catch up on the non-required reading and tackle some long-procrastinated priorities.  For the moment, allow me to stray off topic and introduce you to the virtually unknown recordings of my good friend, Ugly Squab, whose self-styled brand of "Rest Stop Rock" once edged at the inconspicuous margins of a forgotten cassette mythos revolution.

Prone as I am to wallow in lugubrious lo-fi nostalgia, I will point out that I made up the words to "Toledo Birmingham" and "Eva Braun." I was living in a roach-infested studio apartment back then, sleeping on a painfully lumpy Murphy bed that took up most of my leased real estate. I was fat and poor and perpetually half-drunk. Just another shut-in, given to spiraling self-pity and pathetic crying spells.  I remember waking up one mid-afternoon and noticing I had developed a rather painful zit on my scrotum. Wincing, I popped it and sniffed the translucent product on my fingertips. Nothing.  Scrotum puss is odorless, I said aloud. To no one there. Not even the chair. I think I washed my hands.

Years later I landed a better job and moved into a garage apartment without the roaches. Then I quit eating meat and lost a ton of weight.  Then I rescued a sick little gray kitten from the pound and named him Boris. I would go to work and think about Boris and things seemed better. When I would come home, Boris would be there wanting to play fetch with plastic milk carton rings.  A perfect distraction. When Boris grew restless in his lonely days, the Ugly Squab let me adopt a sprightly little gray-and-white fucker from an unplanned litter.  I called him Jack. Jack the cat. Boris's conspirator. 

Then, late one night on the patio of a local dive bar, I find myself on a good wave and I offer to buy the quiet one a drink. She says yes and we talk about nothing and everything.  I forget to get her number, but after a few awkward calls to mutual acquaintances, I am put in touch.  Turns out, she's always up for Indian food.  Turns out, she's gone to good schools, where she studied Heidegger and film theory.  She's traveled the world, she has.  And she's in love with Lillian Gish. She has beautiful black-brown eyes and a quietly striking Jewish countenance. That I cannot forget.  I tell her I feel sorry for Hitler.  I tell her my favorite film is Straw Dogs.  And the first time she comes over to meet Jack and Boris, I hand her an open beer (of cheap American vintage) and I make a nervous and ill-advised Rohypnol joke. I might have told her about the scrotum puss, too. I should remember, but I don't. Yet somehow, she doesn't seem to mind.  I make her laugh. And she pretends to enjoy the cumen-infused couscous and portobello sandwiches that I have prepared.  After the first bite, she tells me I am "fun guy," and as usual I'm slow to get the pun.  I don't like puns. 

She must be crazy, my wife. My Eva Braun.  The only one who ever really knew me.  The one I love.  We have six cats now.  And Jack and Boris are doing fine.                     

Life is short. Beer is cheap.  Don't have children.  Free Sylvia Stolz.

Long Live Ugly Squab.

Memento mori.          

The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays

The kittens are restive, so I thought I'd go ahead and announce that Nine-Banded Books will soon release The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays, a meaty collection of shibboleth-smashing performance pieces by the reclusive libertarian iconoclast, L.A. Rollins.   

Originally published by Loompanics Unlimited in 1983, the central monograph is a two-fisted display of lib-targeted philosophical shit-stirring that holds up well after 25 years. In its previous incarnation, The Myth provoked a fair amount of measured praise along with entertaining fits of blustery outrage among libertarian stalwarts and natural law votaries, with much of the tooth-gnashing playing out in the pages of the  Sam Konkin's old New Libertarian magazine. Rollins' thesis also famously prompted movement luminary Murray Rothbard to pen a delightfully truculent head-in-the-sand essay enjoining "The Duty of Natural Outlaws to Shut Up," and it inspired Robert Anton Wilson to publish a lively book-length companion essay entitled Natural Law: Or Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy.   

The Nine-Banded reprint will be padded with scads of  new material, including a duo of essays outlining Mr. Rollins' stigma-courting zetetic stance on Holocaust revisionism as well as a salubrious sampling of new and old satirical spleen in the spirit of Lucifer's Lexicon.  The post-paleo-libertarian-Stirnerite, TGGP, has also written a razor-sharp intro that brings the project into contemporary perspective while succinctly underscoring the timeless relevance of  Saint Max. It's going to be a cool book, kids.  We're still dressing things up, but one way or another, I expect to have The Myth to press by June, and I'll be sure post more detailed information here and at the 9BB site as the project develops.

Memento mori.

Gary Brecher and the Redemption of Soft Skull

Soft Skull lost major Hog points when they republished  unrepentant antigunner Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, but even with this shamelessly shoddy, obsessively discredited pseudohistorical screed staining their catalog, those metrohipster pinkos now stand partially redeemed. From the blogging dynamo -- and soon-to-be Nine-Banded Books contributor -- TGGP comes news that  the doyennes of indie-publishing will soon be releasing the first anthology of writings by the great "Gary Brecher" aka "The War Nerd" -- whoever he is. Can't help wondering if the inexplicably hiatused  eXile staffer, John Dolan, may have penned an introduction.

In less conspicuous indie-press news, Nine-Banded Books is pleased to announce that Bradley Smith's The Man Who Saw His Own Liver is at last off the press and in stock.  Intrepid bibliophiles can order copies through 9BB or Amazon, or you can always contact me for an autographed copy.  Our next title is tentatively slated for release in May.  I hope to have a formal announcement up in the next week or so.         

(My all time favorite War Nerd columns, by the way, are here and here.)

Memento mori.

"We are the future's dirt."

I haven't abandoned my antinatalism quintet.  No, it's just the matter of priorities, weighted by the obligations of a day job and an incurably lazy temperament.  The subject keeps coming up, though.  In odd places.  I notice there's now a Wiki stub, which more or less appropriately traces the core idea to Schopenhauerian pessimism. And I've engaged in the discussion now and then, as disparate currents have come to my attention. The semantical wrangling will surely inform my argument, such as it is, and such as it develops. But the comments appending these various and typically hostile online demurrals only harden my suspicion that the case against procreation represents a special, species-deep class of heresy.

No real surprise then, that the first forum to corner the discourse should describe antinatalism as "the greatest taboo." With some literary license, the host posits a carefully structured triarchy, which I am at present prepared neither to embrace nor deny.  It goes like this:

. . .there have been three schools of thought which, throughout history, have been held out-of-bounds to honest inquiry and criticism. The first is religion; at least, when it comes to questioning the efficacy of the idea itself, since certainly the supporters of the various creeds have spent no little energy in lambasting all metaphysical belief systems other than their own. The second is the concept of free-will, a belief that even many a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and/or scientific naturalist seems disinclined to let go of, mostly based on a rather ill-contrived 'intuition'; which, in my opinion, flies in the face of the modern scientific schema i.e. cause-and-effect, or "somebody get that ghost out of our deterministic paradigm!"

The third, and probably hardest, notion to stomach is the conviction that something is fundamentally wrong with life itself, and that we should therefore stop breeding, and let the race die out under one of two scenarios. . . This idea is so radical, and supposedly counter-intuitive, that the discussion is considered by most to be beyond the pale of serious conversation.

Thus elucidated, the forbidden questions cast antinatalism is as the ultimate breach of intuitive safety, with the great myths of all time reducing cleanly to Religious Truth, Free Will, and Existential Affirmation. This affects a singularly pessimistic gestalt -- one which begs deep consideration and tempts those dormant depressive-realist chords.  But I am not depressed. Not just now. I want to live and laugh yet am damned to suffer and die.

So the gestalt bleeds into a brute picture of Camusian absurdity, where there is but dim solace for the living.  You can play at Nietzschean affirmation, but the dismal calculus doesn't yield.  You can drift into an endless logomachy, and hang yourself with philosophical terms of art, and difference. But the choice -- or consequence -- defies abstraction . 

I'm not smart enough to plum the depths, but I know a few things. And the default position, however forbidden, requires no such mastery.  All that's needed is a shot of humility, and the sincere recognition of the true weight of risk,  that is so inevitably, and so lightly, presumed and dismissed.  Because suffering is real, and the stakes are always, crucially unknowable.

Obliquely challenged, I tried, in one of those meaningless threads, to steer nearer to the moral thing:

The question of whether antinatalism is or isn’t rational in comparison with, um, everything else, will depend on your premises and preferences. The point I continually come back to is insipidly simple. Where the interests of those who do not yet exist are at issue, speculation about deprivation is always misplaced while speculation about risk is always germane.

There is simply no way of knowing with any degree of certainty how good or bad a life will be until that life is set into motion. I would argue that most lives are worse than people imagine them to be, but one needn’t adopt the pessimistic view to recognize, in purely factual terms, that people — and other sentient critters — suffer horrible misfortunes every day. People succumb to debilitating afflictions. People are raped and assaulted. People starve. People are burned and tortured and shot and holocausted and conscripted into warfare. People mourn, and suffer from heartbreak and loneliness and failure. Yes, there is love and laughter and pizza, and the occasional blow job if you’re lucky. But there is no rational reason to believe that the never-existent miss out these things, at least not in the sense that implies experiential deprivation. Where there is no sentient (or potentially sentient) being, the absence of pleasure seems morally meaningless. Should a person be brought into existence, that person may or may not feel blessed by their lot, but as real as their potential for fulfillment may be, they are yet likely to suffer, and there is the very real chance that their suffering will be immeasurable.

I believe that chance is the salient point, and the prescription that follows is clear cut: play it safe. Don’t create new people and no one gets hurt. The alternative is to roll the dice, without the consent of he or she who is yet to be, and to hope for the best.

As the hipster chicks in my office are fond of saying, “that’s not ok.”

In concluding that the pessimistic lens is neither necessary nor sufficient to sustain the antinatalist default against wanton breeding urges,  I do not seek to expunge or deny the grim evidence.  Benatar's view from the veil probably stands. Things are far worse than they seem.  I know this as well as the new kid. But make no mistake, I aim to win this debate. Because the people-makers are acting in bad faith; with every new life they create, with every unconsenting heartbeat they countenance, they flout their own cherished rules.

It's not about words, nor the question of the good. Plainly and always, it comes to the problem of harm, a problem amplified by the obdurate fact of our eternal uncertainty.  It's the Golden fucking rule, if you prefer, pursued to its deepest logic. Or the physician's oath. Pitted against the rank arrogance evinced in these tired and smugly reflexive post hoc procreative justifications, the impetus rests simply in minimizing the potential pain that life entails. And in avoiding the murder that is death. Once the stakes are confronted, the last ditch appeal to memes and genes is revealed as the basest refuge. Factual reasons are not moral reasons, and those who pretend otherwise should and do know better.

No one should ever have children.

Memento mori.

Nine-Banded Update: The Devil and Bradley Smith

The current issue of Bradley Smith's monthly journal, Smith's Report, republishes my introduction to The Man Who Saw His Own Liver, along with a most thoughtful account by Bradley of how the work came to be.  Here's what the good man has to say:

WHERE I WAS WHEN I WROTE
THE MAN WHO SAW HIS OWN LIVER

It was 1982 and I was living in Hollywood, working in construction in Topanga Canyon and in the mountains above Malibu. For the most I was doing concrete and block. In the 1970s I had become involved with protesting the nuclear arms programs of the U.S. Government, and in 1979 I was introduced to Holocaust revisionism. In the 1970s it was one thing after another. Rather like it is now.

One afternoon I was off-loading concrete block from the bed of a pick-up truck with a couple Mexicans—illegals probably, I never asked—when in the middle of a “swing” with a block in each hand, something cracked in my back. The crack was so loud that one of the workers straightened up, looked around, and said: “Que fue eso?”—or “What was that?”

At first it didn’t hurt, but I stood aside from the work just in case. After about an hour it started to hurt. I thought it might get worse so I drove my laborers to their pick-up corner and then on to my mother’s little frame house in a canyon off Hollywood Boulevard a couple blocks behind Grauman’s Chinese Theater. Pretty soon I couldn’t walk, and then I couldn’t stand up. To make a long story short, I spent the next five months lying on my mother’s dining room floor.

Irene, my future wife, slept in a little sewing room a few feet from where I was laying. She was taking care of my mother, who had multiple sclerosis and was in a wheelchair. Marisol, her eight-year-old daughter, was there too. Years later Marisol was to tell me that that was the worst year of her life, having me lay around like that and having to go around or jump over me to get to the front door.

I don’t recall how it came to be, but I began working on a play that I would call The Man Who Stopped Paying. It would be a one-character monologue dealing with tax resistance and the nuclear arms race from a subjective and some-what unique point of view. The way I worked was with blank file cards and a pen. Lying on the floor on my belly I would print the idea for one passage across the top of one card, print the ideas for other passages across the tops of other cards, then arrange the cards on the carpet before me in a projected narrative order. It was a simple matter to change the structure of the narrative by changing the order of the cards.

After about five months, when I could sit up in a chair, I had Irene put my typewriter on the dinning room table and I finished the manuscript.

I began passing photocopies of the play script around. Never heard back. Turned out that Aldo Ray, the actor who starred in the screen adaptation of Erskine Caldwell’s God’s Little Acre, used the same post office I did on Highland Ave-nue off Franklin. I sent him a copy of the play. One afternoon a couple weeks later I bumped into him at the mailboxes and asked if he had found the time to read some of it.

He was rather a big fellow, and he looked down at me with a steady, unfriendly eye.

“I read it. I don’t do that kind of thing,” he said. He didn’t move. It was as if he wanted to get into something with me there in the little post office. I waited. After a moment he said:

“It’s not for me. I wouldn’t touch it.”

It was clear that while he wanted to say what he said, he wanted to say something else too.

“Okay,” I said. “Thank you.”

I had not gotten any positive responses to the play. I still couldn’t work so I kept sending it around. One night I went to a dramatic “reading” out in the Valley some-place and watched a big, burly guy read in a way that impressed me. I gave him a copy of the play and a week later he called me from Colo-rado where he was on vacation to tell me he liked it, that there were passages in the script that he wanted to speak. His name was Jon Ackelson.

Meanwhile, my friend Steve Leichter had read the play. Steve is a Jew, he had gone to Israel when he was a young guy and some Arab had shot him in the ass while he was driving a tractor. No hard feelings, but he decided to make his way back to America. There were a couple passages in the play that might offend some Jews, and in the event did, but Steve liked it and volunteered to be my pro-ducer. This was a real windfall for me because Steve was the kind of guy who knows how to do things.

It didn’t occur to me at the time, but Aldo Ray—he was a mainstream Hollywood guy—might have seen something in the script he read that could be seen as critical of Jewish tradition. Why would he risk it?

Ackelson and I began rehearsing the play in the garage in which the play is set. He and I were co-directors. We worked well together. We had one initial difficulty. There are passages in the text where the character is struggling with difficult material under difficult circumstances. Ackelson initially read in a way that emphasized the pain and I suppose the sorrow that he felt for the character. It took two or three readings to get it across to Ackelson that no line in the text could be delivered in a way that would suggest to the audience that his character felt sorry for himself. No complaining, no self-pity. No line.

About that time Steve Leichter got a business offer he could not refuse and moved his family to Berkeley, where I think he still is. In the end Irene loaned me the money to stage the play myself in The Theater of Note, a small house in downtown Los Angeles. It was money she had earned cleaning other people’s houses.

I announced the play in the Los Angeles Times, Dramalogue, The Free Press, and a couple other places. The first night there were maybe a dozen people in the audience. Then there was one review printed, then another, and another. Each was positive.

Robert Koehler, writing in Stage Beat for the Los Angeles Times, headed his piece:

“The Difficulty of Battling The Bomb”

“Something occurred to me the other day. What could be a more effective way of protesting the arms race than refusing to pay one’s tax bill that funds America’s side of that race?

“…How odd to see your errant notion, still fresh in the head, given life in a play, namely Bradley Smith’s ‘The Man Who Stopped Paying.’

“…[Smith’s] man who isn’t paying is big, burly, bearded and working-class pure. He isn’t a col-legiate, but he’s well read (he compares the great “play” of to-day—nuclear arms protest—to the great plays of the past—“Lear,” “Antigone,” “The Oresteia”…

“…Bureaucrats are the enemy, for, while they maintain the wel-fare system, they also maintain the machines that will destroy that welfare…For the first time in a long time on stage an anarchist libertarian has sounded out.

“Perhaps it’s right, then, that he’s alone in his garage work space speaking to us. Even though he’s married, and speaks of that love as tenderly as he does of na-ture, he’s his own man in every sense. Jon Ackelson plays him with little abandon but a great deal of heart.

“…Smith could become a kind of playwright laureate of an American Greens party. But, then, he’d probably rather go it alone.”

Audiences grew slowly from the first performance, to thirty and forty, and on to the final performance. There had been a libertarian conference in town and for the final performance. Mike Everling helped me fill the house that night with the perfect audience. It was a rousing performance by Ackelson and the audience alike, and I went out in a small blaze of glory.

Within the year I had given up working with the nuclear arms issue and had turned to working with revisionism. Tax resisters could meet openly in the Unitarian Church on Eighth Street, while the Institute for Historical Review was burned to the ground on the Fourth of July, 1984. Tax resistance was radical, but had the open attention of principled people. Revisionism was radical as well, but revisionists were judged to be evil and aligned with the Devil. The artist in me chose to challenge the Devil Himself rather than continue to harangue the bureaucrats.

Of course, it’s always the bureaucrats. Republicans, National Socialists, Democrats, Communists. As a class, bureaucrats always choose to follow their leader and dedicate themselves to convincing the people that their leader has a program … a path … to righteousness, truth, and liberty when righteousness, truth, and liberty are themselves the path.

The Devil now…that’s where the drama is. He hasn’t let me down yet.

The Man Who Saw His Own Liver is the first book to be released under the Hoover Hog's ill-advised publishing imprint, Nine-Banded Books.  It's at the printer now, and copies are slated to begin shipping in the first week of February, possibly sooner.  You can place advance orders through Amazon or Target, but if you want an autographed copy please send your inscription request through PayPal, or contact me directly.
 

We're currently at work on three other books about which more information will be posted soon.

Memento mori.      

The Limits of Reproductive Freedom

From Atlanta Philosophy Events:

On Wednesday January 9, 2008, at 3 PM, the Jean Beer Blumenfeld Center
for Ethics will sponsor a colloquium by Professor David Benatar
(Philosophy, University of Cape Town) entitled "The Limits of
Reproductive Freedom."

Date/time/location: Jan 9, 2008, 3 PM, in the Philosophy Department
Conference Room (34 Peachtree, 11th floor, #19 at B-6 on the map at
http://www.gsu.edu/map.html).

Prof. Benatar's abstract is included below:

"The Limits of Reproductive Freedom," by David Benatar

Abstract: In this presentation I shall argue that the strength or scope
of the right to reproductive freedom currently recognized in liberal
democracies needs to be reconsidered, such that it does not include a
right to engage in very risky or harmful procreation. More specifically,
I argue that if there would be no right to impose risk X of harm Y to
some other person in non-reproductive contexts, then there should be no
right to do so in reproductive contexts. Thus, some (but not all)
methods, including some coercive methods, of preventing or discouraging
such reproduction are morally acceptable.

I consider two main arguments against my thesis. First, I consider the
non-identity argument that future people cannot be harmed by being
brought into existence. Second, and in much more detail, I consider the
argument that although the interests of future people are important,
these ought to be outweighed by their parents* right to reproductive
freedom. After discerning different senses of a right to reproductive
freedom, I consider four arguments for the special importance of
reproductive freedom. I argue that none of them are sufficient to
undermine my thesis.

Because of the long history of bias and arbitrary discrimination in
curtailments of reproductive freedom, I suggest how bias might be
avoided in deciding how severe a harm must be to defeat a right to
reproductive freedom.

Memento mori

Wiseman on DVD

You kids like those art-house documentary films?  Well then, you'll be heartened to know that Frederick Wiseman's  formerly all-but-impossible to obtain flicks are at long last available in reasonably priced DVD format through his site, Zipporah Flims.  As much as I appreciate the pioneering work of the Maysles brothers, along with Ulrich Seidl's starkly declensionist experiments, and, of course, the oft-maligned but brilliant télévision vérité of John Langley, somehow it always comes back to Wiseman, the master.  There are countless ways to read Titticut Follies, but don't stop there.

Memento mori.

Ron Paul, John Derbyshire, Gay Genes, and the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

To my mild surprise, John Derbyshire further shores his reputation as NRO's house contrarian by endorsing Ron Paul for President.  His reasoning is nested in properly righteous contempt, to wit:      

What I am seeking is an anti-JFK — a candidate who will transform our nation's capital from a city of hope for middle-class intellectuals, into a city of despair for them. The despair of those intellectuals, I am increasingly convinced, is the hope of our nation. Looking at all but one of the Republican candidates (and, it goes without saying, all but none of the Democratic ones) I see nothing in prospect but a new draft of office-seeking intellectuals, primed and eager to bring us new expansions of federal power, new pointless wars, new million-strong reinforcements for the Reconquista, new thousand-page tax loopholes, new inducements for idleness and crime, new humiliations for the saps who follow rules and obey laws.

Chided by a fellow Corner contributor for Paul's gently phrased skepticism regarding  the correctness of matters Darwinian, the Derb responds:

You'll have to get up earlier than that if you want to get up before the Derb.  In this particular case, about four and a half years earlier: Here I was on NRO in April of 2003:

I couldn't care less whether my president believes in the theory of evolution. In fact, reflecting on some recent experiences, I¡¯m not sure that I wouldn't prefer a president who didn't.

I must say, I think it's a bit odd for a trained and qualified doctor not to believe in the central paradigm of modern biology. But candidacy-wise, I still couldn't care less.

With which I am not inclined to quibble.  Without indulging in irrelevant apologetics, however, it does seem that Paul's off-the-cuff remarks regarding "the theory of evolution" are more in line with a kind of open-ended compatibalism than with anything that might be fairly characterized as a wholesale rejection of "the central paradigm of modern biology."  His buried reference to the "precise time and manner" of creation is telling enough, as watchwords go.  And in this, I suspect he differs little from the stooges on either side of the dais. 

But speaking as a convinced neo-Darwinian, I'm more than a little sick of  the noisome toungue-clucking among those self-annointed flying spaghetti monster types who impose their safely fashioned brand of evolutionary correctitude as a kind of litmus test for civic legitimacy.  There are countless examples of  Darwinian denialism on the left, a point that was most recently made clear in the ruckus over James Watson's statements regarding possible racial differences in intelligence and temperament. 

And for the moment, I can't help recalling the silly row that ensued when Melissa Etheridge posed her oh-so solicitous "is homosexuality a choice" question to the candidates during a Logo-hosted Democratic gay and lesbian forum some time ago.  Bill Richardson's amusingly confused fumble drew predictable headlines, but the real story was the lock-step uniformity of response elicited among the others, who knew fuck-well  how to phrase the "correct" answer.  Of course homosexuality is exclusively "biological," they all chimed.  What sort of troglodyte could think otherwise? The problem was and is that the best available evidence does not support any such politically attuned degree of certainty, and I have little doubt that even the most dedicated ID-baiting new-atheist aparatchik would be challenged to deploy a plausible Darwinian explanation for the penetrance of the fabled "gay gene." I've done my best from the armchair, and it isn't easy.

The correct -- as opposed to politically correct -- answer to Ms. Etheridge's insincere volley would have been to note that the biological component of homosexuality is a subject of ongoing scientific study, that the best evidence from twin studies is inconclusive, that different types of homosexuality may yield to differing and complex sociobiological, hormonal, and cultural explanations, and that more research is needed. Beyond this, one might reasonably qualify matters by making it clear that the ultimate question of what causes homosexuality should matter not in the least where questions of individual rights are at issue.  No need to stir the vat with talk of gay germ theory, although that may be where things end up.   

But of course, the spaghetti monster cultists don't care about truth nor about ground level methods of  scientific inquiry.  They just revel in calling out the heretics, and then they gloat from the safely guarded redoubt of smug, self-congratulatory, thoughtless, sooth-faking certainty.  As sure as I am that Ron Paul is mistaken in his assessment of  the weight of evidence favoring evolution, I am no less certain that those most inclined to disparage his character and candidacy on this trivial account are no less foolish than Jack Chick pamphlateers who wax nostalgic about dinosaur hunts of yore.

Memento mori.                            

    
 

Nine-Banded Books

I'd hoped to have things a bit more polished before making a formal announcement, but since the indefatigable TGGP has been kind enough to mention it a couple of times, it seems only fair to make it official that the Hoover Hog's long-contemplated publishing imprint, Nine-Banded Books is at long last slouching into corporeal existence. 

Our premiere title is Bradley R. Smith's The Man Who Saw His Own Liver, a carefully novelized conceptualization of the acclaimed but largely forgotten 1983 play, The Man Who Stopped Paying.  It may seem odd to launch a small publishing venture with a book that will be seen by many as a relic of Cold War protest literature, but Bradley's writing easily transcends its narrow socio-political provenance. As I emphasize in my introduction, Liver remains resonant as a ground-level meditation on the problem of Man and State. Through the comically rendered gesture of war tax resistance, Smith proffers a poignant if ultimately hopeless expression of the libertarian idea as a kind of quixotic gambit. If it is less than fashionable these days to speak of "The Bomb" in terms of impending moral crisis, one needn't indulge in far-flung metaphorical retrofitting to see the deeper significance. Fermi's Aliens have yet to spoil our fun, and in the end it matters little just why they're running so goddamn late. 

I am not blind, obviously, to Bradley Smith's extra-literary reputation as a self-styled Holocaust revisionist gadfly.  To the contrary, his dalliance with "The Great Taboo" is to me at once fascinating and relevant, but no longer troubling. This is something that I attempt to address, though perhaps too obliquely, in my introduction to Liver, but for present purposes suffice it to say that despite the collective opinion of self-appointed arbiters of intellectual decorum, I see nothing inherently objectionable or anti-Semitic in questioning the canonical Holocaust narrative. That's as simple as I know how to put it.

And while I have no illusions about the unseemly motivations of many revisionists (or "deniers," if you prefer), I am no less certain that Smith's life-defining acquaintance with this impolitic subject is rooted in nothing so base or  fetishistic. His preoccupation, if that's the right word, more accurately stems from an abiding concern for the moral dimensions of belief. 

Years ago, The Journal of Historical Review ran a thoughtful review of Smith's Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist that comes awfully close to the mark. An excerpt:

. . . what shines through Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist is the author's adamantine resolve to concede other persons their humanity all the while he struggles to free himself from the shackles of "belief, the mere habit of faith," which he has come to see as "the most degrading passion of the species." From the moment when Smith accepts a leaflet disputing Holocaust gas- chamber claims, we are made privy to an inner struggle in which the author must reconcile the conflicting claims raised by civility, tolerance, shame, courage, and intellectual integrity. 

If Bradley is covering for something more nefarious, he's certainly fooled me.  Not that it matters.  Any more than Fermi's Aliens, or a bundle of Irwin Schiff Woopoo chips.

I'm currently at work on three other books about which there will be soon more to say.  In the meantime, if you want to order a copy of The Man Who Saw His Own Liver, you can go though the Amazon link on the Nine-Banded Books site, or you can save on shipping by sending  $15 directly to me at the following address:

Chip Smith / Nine-Banded Books
600 Virginia Street West, Apt. C
Charleston, WV 25302

We'll be set up for PayPal orders soon. Liver will begin shipping in mid-January.

Memento mori.                   

Peter Singer's Miserablist Karaoke Club

Over at Spiked, Michael Cook files a snarkily dismissive review of David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been, the book that informs my recent -- and still unfinished -- series on ethical antinatalism (here are parts one, two, three, and four). While Cook allows that Benatar "deserves a few rounds of fisticuffs with a fellow academic," his graveman centers on the logical implications of a dour and bedoomed utilitarian discourse, which he sees as inherently, if paradoxically, misanthropic and, um, worse.  In Cook's estimation the only real value of Benatar's thesis is that it demonstrates how the precepts of negative utilitarianism are but watchwords for....what's that word?  Oh yeah, nihilism.

Myself, I rather like the n word.  I dig the old west coast punk aesthetics it conjures, and from the cosmic lens, there's simply not much to to grasp in refutation. That the weft and weave of this atomized dumb-show untethers without objective Truth or Meaning, I take as a given. Background static.  What you do is the rub, as ever.   Even if you never had a choice. And so fucking what. 

But this doesn't mean Cook isn't cheating.  He is.  More specifically, he's following the lazy script of every other Amazon reviewer who dismisses Benatar's arguments without engaging them.  While the utilitarian caricature he deploys serves to buttress a tried-and-false appeal to common sense, it neatly avoids the content of Benatar's argument, which is only incidentally predicated on utilitarian grounds.  All you need is a harm principle, folks.  Posit that much, in whatever flavor, and you have some explaining to do.

Nor is it fair to color Benatar's argument as "misanthropic" -- as Cook does -- without at least acknowledging -- as Cook does not -- that Benatar addresses this inevitable complaint.  To be clear, Benatar's foundational reasoning is couched in explicitly and inherently philanthropic language.  Hence the centrality of harm.  People aren't the problem.  Pain is.  It's right there in Benatar's concluding remarks, under the heading, "Misanthropy and Philanthropy," where he writes:

Bringing a sentient life into existence is a harm to the being whose life it is.  My arguments suggest that it is wrong to inflict this harm.  To argue against the infliction of harm arises from concern for, not dislike of, those who would be harmed.  It may seem like an odd kind of philanthropy -- one that, if acted upon, would lead to the end of all anthropos.  It is, however, the most effective way of preventing suffering.  Not creating a person absolutely guarantees that that potential person will not suffer -- because that person will not exist.

Perhaps Cook believes Benatar is being disingenuous.  He should say so.  He doesn't. To him it's so obviously, so comically, absurd. And, er, nihilistic.  Apparently, Samuel Johnson kicked a rock. Or something. 

Memento mori.                            

My Photo

Affiliated Sites