Boycott CRASS @ MUFF 2004 : Melbourne Indymedia

When I learnt that MUFF was going to be screening two films -- Semi Detached & Christ: The Movie -- by the anarchist punk band Crass (1977-1984) I was curious: after all, according to the festival's neo-fascist Director, Richard Wolstencroft, 'real-life violence' is objectionable "not from any moral perspective" but because "real life violence is the ultimate in bad manners. It is rude." He also openly admits to admiring Hitler, Mussolini and Mao; seemingly on the basis that these are powerful historical figures, and Wolstencroft worships power.

Crass, on the other hand, are well-known for both their anarchism and their pacifism, and their objections to violence -- as expressed in both film and music -- are rooted in a deep moral commitment to egalitarian social change. Further, they are notorious for having lampooned other 'powerful' historical figures: Margaret Thatcher as The Mother of A Thousand Dead, among others.

So I wrote to one of the filmmaker's -- Gee Vaucher -- to ask how Crass felt about their films being screened at the Festival, and to ask them if they were aware that an appeal has been made to boycott the Festival on the basis of its alleged promotion of fascist ideology.

(For more details, see Simon Castles, 'Storm in a despot', The Bulletin, May 26, 2004: http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/57C5A54B2AD9D127CA256E960082C728?open)

The reply I received from Gee stated that she had tried to email the Festival organisers <info@muff.com.au> but was unable to reach them, and requested that I try and contact them on her behalf.

Her statement reads as follows:

"Dear people who organise the festival, it has come to our attention that you are showing two films made by GEE VAUCHER and MICK DUFFIELD at this year's event. Due to your not asking or informing us of your intentions we would be grateful if you could remove them from your schedule which I believe is allocated for Tuesday 13th July. Apologise for the inconvenience but maybe another time. With respect. Gee and Mick"

I've also tried to contact MUFF but, like Gee, have been unable to reach them. (It appears that their mailbox is permanently overflowing.)

In any event, I think it unfair of MUFF to profit from the labour of independent filmmakers, especially when permission to do so has been neither sought nor granted. I therefore think it appropriate for those who genuinely care about underground filmmaking to not support those who would so cynically exploit it; by not attending the film screening tomorrow and by asking MUFF to explain their decision to screen these two films.

For more on Crass:

http://www.southern.com/southern/band/CRASS/

For more on MUFF:

http://www.muff.com.au

For details on the screening:

http://www.muff.com.au/film_info/apocalypse_crass.htm

On anarchism and the fight against fascism:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/fight/fascism.html

Well last year I think we put the kibosh on the transcedental fuckwit quite succesfully so has it been a year already!

My, how time flies when yr having fun!

I will endeavour to reach out to all the MUFFS sponsors and venue's I can to try and talk some sense into them for their own health.
They may have been advised by the Tyrantasaurus fartface that this is something akin to censorship.

Goodness no!

Tricky fullnappy can always take his roadshow on line, I hear he enjoys streaming media in his mouth.

No harm- no foul

No MUFF's.

"fight war not wars, kill the power not the people"

Richards had a gentle love tap so far, maybe he should experience a little of what Sharon Tate did.
She watched as her friends were all murdered in front of her and then pleaded for the life of her unborn baby.
She was then stabbed to death several times and her and Romans child died an estimated 30-45 minutes later.
By then Charlie Manson was probably at the scene and may have witnessed Sharons brutal and savage execution. He certainly chose the house and was in almost complete control of his ' family' of drug addled stone killers. He ordered them to create the scenes of absolute horror that were to be blamed on Blacks and hopefully start a RaHoWa for Charlie.
The La Bianca murders that followed were random as can be.
In Mansons defence he was as much a product of America's Gulags as anything else but whats Richard Dubya's excuse?

What kind of sick beast wallows in crimes like these?

What kind of idiots sponsor it?

Major sponsors

http://www.afc.gov.au/

Toll Free
(available nationally)
1800 226 615
1800 338 430 General Email
info@afc.gov.au

Website Queries
web@afc.gov.au

Sydney
GPO Box 3984
Sydney NSW 2001

or

Level 4
150 William Street
Woolloomooloo NSW 2011

Phone: 61-2-9321 6444
Fax: 61-2-9357 3737 Melbourne
PO Box 404
South Melbourne VIC 3205

or

Level 2
120 Clarendon Street
South Melbourne VIC 3205

Phone: 61-3-8646 4300
Fax: 61-3-9696 1476

http://www.cinevision.com.au/

Phone, Fax or snail mail enquiries can be made to:

CINEVISION
552 CITY RD
SOUTH MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3205
Ph: +61 03 9690 2199
Fax: +61 03 9690 6125

http://www.parca.com.au/

51 a Grosvenor st South Yarra
Ph +61 39827 0888
e-mail info@parca.com.au

Melbourne Title Company.

In your face.net.au
Promotion and distribution services

Inside film

Lexus awards

Metro hospitality group.

http://www.panasonic.com.au/

Head Office/New South Wales
Austlink Corporate Park, 1 Garigal Road
Belrose NSW 2085
(PO Box 505, Frenchs Forest, 1640)
Tel: (02) 9986 7400
Fax: (02) 9986 7450

Victoria/Tasmania
1 Keith Campbell Court,
Scoresby VIC 3179
(Private Bag 13, South Eastern Mail Centre VIC 3176)
Tel: (03) 9213 6455
Fax: (03) 9213 8800

Aaron Poster
Studio ADFX Pty Ltd

Andi Coventon makeup. 0422549989

http://umbrellaentertainment.com.au/News.php

Address 51 Wellington Street Collingwood Vic. 3066
General Inquiries info@umbrellaent.com.au
Web Related webmaster@umbrellaent.com.au
Phone (61-3) 8415 0877
Fax (61-3) 8415 1955

http://www.polyester.com.au/

http://www.thinkcreative.com.au/

157 Greville st.Prahran.3181

Ph (61-3) 9510 2566
Fax - (61-3) 9510 5122

e-mail think@thinkcreative.com.au

Palace cinema's

Platypus.

http://www.eryk.com.au/

Phone: (61 3) 9827 5397
Fax: (61 3) 9824 0483
Mobile: 0418 382 849

15 Simmons Street, South Yarra
Victoria 3141, Australia
Email: info@eryk.com.au

Ask about their childrens folio's.

http://www.viceland.com/

E-mail: vice@viceland.com

EMAIL: info@muff.com.au

Contact Information
Melbourne Underground Film Festival
PO Box 822, South Yarra VIC 3141 AUSTRALIA

EMAIL: info@muff.com.au

A fascist anarchist and a new age Jewish Thought Nazi.

Send in the clowns...hang on, don't bother, they're already here.

give a fuck, CRASS sold out many a year ago, just check how expensive their back-catalogue is, as for gee voucher, don't make me laugh...do u know how 2 say pretentious rich bitch???? these people gave up on their ideals many a year ago to cash in, so who fucking cares if their films are being shown without their permission? what r u, some kind of narc? fuck off and stop spamming the bloody newswire!!!
here are some links to what those so-called anarchists CRASS have been up too of late...
CRASS members to join propertied classes and plan to stand in elections: http://www.uncarved.org/music/apunk/guardian050101.
html
the sad state of @ndy's anarcho-punk heroes : http://www.uncarved.org/music/apunk/nme.html
one of gee voucher's many capo endeavours:
http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/Banksy/Banksy_Santas_Ghetto_store.htm
u may think i am merely nit-picking @ndy, but honestly, gee voucher designs CD covers now for bands on major labels such as MCA etc...i think you are being rather juvenille attempting to create some sort of controversy around this.

Punk is dead and soon you will all die too.

If the members of a once radical band go conservative does that make the politics of their orginal work null and void? I don't think so because their art doesn't change and it may have a life of its own in the broader culture.

The famous American writer John Steinbeck turned into a pro-war right winger at the end of his life but The Grapes of Wrath never ceased to be a great book that continues to inspire.

Many bands go on to disgrace their pre-existing catalogues but that doesn't mean you can no longer listen to their albums, unless you're too hardcore for breakfast.

Showing movies with Crass soundtracks is quite simply sadistic. I can remember that sound over 20 years later.
The lyrics are right on - the noise right off.

" anarchist fascist?" WTF!

" You talking to me!" " You talking to me!" " You talking to me!" " You talking to me, you fuck!"

FUCK YOU and the HORSE'S ARSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Live by the sword and you could get the shaft dick. Are you up to snuff?

Two questioned over vagrant attack
July 13, 2004

POLICE were today questioning two men after an attack on Ziggy, Brisbane's most famous vagrant.

Two flaming plastic bread crates and a soda bomb were last night thrown at Ziggy, whose real name is Tim Jenkins, as he sat beside High Street in the western Brisbane suburb of Toowong.

Ziggy said the soda bomb had exploded behind him.

"I went like this and the shrapnel would go over the top of me," said Ziggy as he demonstrated for Ten News cameras.

"They are scum and there is also something wrong with their brain," he said of his assailants.

HA HA! Made you look!

Interesting that when someone says "fascist anarchist" Pr replies.

We [also] need to win over large amounts of people to actively confronting the fascists. This means physically shutting down their book shops, meeting, offices and paper sales. It means physically defending those the fascists attack and attacking fascists before they can mount such attacks. As I have said a good section of the fascists know they are unpopular, we have to do more than prove this to be the case. Those who organise racial and other attacks have to be physically attacked themselves until they stop such activity.

http://struggle.ws/talks/fascism.html

Flamebaiting and trolling wear down real peoples patience troll boy. Whats so interesting about that?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/73176.php

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/70775.php

http://muff.com.au/film_info/sexy_autobio.htm

I am looking for an actress to play Sharon Tate in a new Aussie underground movie...Rebecca Sutherland...interested?

The festival is scheduled to take place from July 8-18 with the George Cinemas in St. Kilda as the main venue for the third year running. No other venues have been confirmed.

One artist confirmed as a festival guest is American photographer, Gina Garan. Her photo series, This is Blythe, is to be exhibited under the MUFF Kunst banner at Outre Gallery from July 3-13.

Gina?

BYO eight month old fetus and I will supply very sharp knives.

The Corporation

The conceit of the doc is clever. It psychoanalyzes the corporation as if it were a person, using the standard definitions used by modern psychiatry to define a psychopath. The film argues that corporations exhibit all the tell-tale signs callous unconcern for the feelings of others; incapacity to maintain long-term relationships; reckless disregard for the safety of others; deceitfulness. You get the idea. It’s a gimmick, but it works.

AND

Six months after Germany's infamous cannibal Armin Meiwes was jailed for killing and eating another man, one of the country's most controversial film directors is to make a film of his bizarre life.
Rosa von Praunheim's film is to be entitled Your Heart in My Brain, and is expected to be shot later this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1255574,00.html

A Hellfire club with Lucky Grills - I'd like to see that.

A MAN suspected of killing his family in a murder-suicide in the New South Wales Hunter Valley may have asphyxiated his two young children before stabbing his wife and turning a gun on himself.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10120838%255E421,00.html

Poor depressed Guy probably didn't want to watch Australian story that evening...Ann O’Neill is 34. She’s attractive, dynamic and intelligent and many people wonder why she’s single. Ten years ago her life was very different. She was a married woman, 24, with two small children, Kyle, 6 and Latisha, 4. Then one violent night she lost everything and almost her life.

In the early hours of the morning as Ann slept with her two children beside her, her estranged husband, Norm broke into her home and turned a gun on all of them. She was the only one to survive. Hours later her leg was amputated.

That catastrophic event ripped away all the roles she had ever known and she had to negotiate a whole new life as a disabled person stripped of her motherhood. Determined not to allow her children to have died in vain, Ann O’Neill threw herself into an advocacy role as a powerful support for others grappling with the aftermath of homicide.

Yet, despite all this, Ann O’Neill has real compassion for the man who perpetrated this shocking crime and with extraordinary courage has drawn on her experience to become a powerful advocate for victims of crime.

Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims Support Group will join Ann O'Neill and producer Wendy Page on an internet forum after tonight's program. The forum is set to start at 8.30pm eastern time and will remain open for Western Australia viewers.

Program transcript

RELATED LINKS
Web Forum

http://abc.net.au/austory/

Yes, compassion for the murderer's and don't fight with fascists as that is authoritarian...brilliant.

1) CRASS "sold out" many years ago? Um, if you say so. Hell, who am I to argue?

2) Their back catalogue is "expensive"? Er, I guess that depends on where you purchase it.

3) Gee Vaucher a "rich bitch"? See 1).

4) "Who cares" if their films are being shown without their permission? Well, based on all the available evidence, certainly neither MUFF nor Matt C.

5) Re links:

The first link is to an article by Iain Aitch, 'Country House Anarchy', The Guardian, January 5, 2001, which reports that members of Crass were engaged in (an eventually successful(?), see http://www.southern.com/southern/band/CRASS/dialhouse.html) fund-raising effort in order to buy the home they had lived in for about 25 years and which had served as "the birthplace of the Stonehenge festival... a temporary home to many of the bands who recorded for Crass's eponymous record label" (including Bjork) as well as numerous other visiting anarchists and homeless people generally. The article concludes: "If successful in buying the cottage, Rimbaud says he may break another anarchist convention by standing for election to the local parish council to repay some of the help that has come from the North Weald villagers. Perhaps then, Rimbaud and his housemates, who are now aged from 42 to 57, will cease to be referred to, as they still are by one local shopkeeper, as "the students"."

The article doesn't state if Rimbaud actually did so, or if he was successful.

The second link is to an article by Steven Wells, 'Veg Wedge', NME, May 23rd 1987. Aside from being over 17 years old, Wells makes no allegation that Crass have 'sold out'.

The third and final link is to an exhibition of works in London some time in 2003 by Banksy, Jamie Hewlett, Mode 2, 3D, Faile and Gee Vaucher. If selling the products of your labour makes you a 'sell out', then Gee is indeed a 'sell out', along with every other artist, artisan and worker who does so. Of course, that was obvious from the moment, many years ago, in 1977, that Crass launched their first recording.

What all this has to do with MUFF's unauthorised screening of films by Gee Vaucher & Mick Duffield, I've no idea.

...and loser, your shitty boycott failed now kindly get a life and fuck off hippy dipshit.

''Fascism'' is not an exaggeration. It is, among other things, a political philosophy that says that the leader is above the law, that a commander in chief in a time of war has unlimited power in the name of national security. This is a claim that has been made seriously by lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department in recent years.

Some documents have been released, some have been leaked, some are still hidden lest Congress find them in an election year. They argue more or less explicitly that in time of war the president as commander in chief can suspend the Bill of Rights, hold men it has designated as enemy aliens indefinitely without trial or legal counsel, imprison American citizens in the same circumstances, authorize moderate or even intense torture for intelligence purposes, and suspend the treaty-authorized Geneva Conventions. Indeed, one memo seems to suggest that there is no limit to the power of what the president can order in wartime. Commander in chief has morphed into generalissimo, caudillo, el jefe.Victorian State Premier.

Anyone who does not think that such a philosophy is incipient fascism doesn't know what fascism is. Like me.

wow andy, u know how to summarise, u must be a genius!! where did u go 2 school? i bet it was somewhere where u have 2 wear blazers!!
ok dickhead, where exactly do they sell crass records inexpensively? i know barricade and several other anarcho distros have had to sever ties with crass's distro (which is more of a comopany than a distro) due to excessive costs.
the 2nd article 'veg wedge' is an article that despite what andy would like u to think shows how far his anarcho-punk heroes have strayed from their original beliefs, oh no, it's 17 years old, and it's from NME....don't read it cos andy has so u dont need to!
the 3rd article is about a bunch of sell-out artists including andy's goddess gee voucher promoting works by herself and other dodgy 'underground' artists like 3D (ex-street artist gone mainstream and member of 'alternative' band massive attack.
don't be fooled by andy's line of bullshit, boycott something worthwhile like companys that cause death & destruction or companys profiting from the war in iraq...but this? FUCKING PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!
and the final indication that andy is full of it, when he backs down from his assertion that MUFF r showing CR@SS films 'illegally' (?!?!) and admits that they are actually films made by gee voucher and mick duffield, rather than the alarmist CR@ASS @ MUFF headline designed to ensnare unsuspecting anarchists. do something worthwhile but dont try telling me what i can or cant watch and what can or cant be screened u arrogant jumped up little hitler. anarchist? dont make me laugh!!

When someone peddles out the 'all your heroes are fucked up sell outs' diatribe, without providing any real substance to the allegations, you have to wonder what their motives are. Why bother? Can it be explained by the 'holier than though' 'MORALISM' that the author of one of the linked articles above attributes to the demise of anarcho-punk and which Matt C ironically uses to defend his own Crusade?

Or is it just small cock syndrome?

A good anarchist is indeed so hard to find these days. And while Matt C pumps out the angry vitriol to support his obviously authentic no-blazer sensibility, the poor dude has lifted his skirt a little too high on this one.

CRASS = Fascists might make a nice t-shirt, but where's the meat Matt? (note: Im not talking about what you've got sliding about in your hand).

Mel

After looking at that website for the first time I just don't know why anyone would want to go to that.

I have never seen such an embarressing and qliched collection of total wankyness combined with lame jokes and really gross imagery.

I felt embarrassed just looking at their site.

...could u please point out exactly where i said that CR@SS (or anyone for that matter) were fascists? i would say that the only one being idiots on this thread are both yourself and andy, so when does this big boycott start u fucking gooses?!?! the blazer reference was in regards to private-school education; figure it out, dunno what skirts have got 2 do with anything, did u think if u came in here and said some crap about skirts and masturbation u could somehow deflect from how ludicrous an argument andy has presented us with in the first place...ie, showing films made by anarchists without PERMISSION, oh no, the outrage!! this is right up there with the wanker on UKindymedia, someone who calls themselves a 'community activist' mind u, calling on british police to serve anti-social behaviour orders on 'yobs'. fuck the police, fuck 'establishment anarchists' and fuck andy, mel and the rest of the PC police, ya fucken gimps!!

All too many anarchists-along with most other would-be radicals-seem to have mastered the evasion of rational discussion. This can be rather annoying and disappointing for those who would like to participate in the creation of a coherent new revolutionary movement which could genuinely confront and subvert state and capitalist power on the basis of anarchist theoretical principles and uncompromising practice.

This evasion of sensible discussion seems to be the worst on the web, but often it is nearly as bad elsewhere. On the internet this evasion is facilitated by the ease, immediacy and lack of responsibility-especially with regard to pseudonymous or anonymous posts-involved in writing for message boards, e-mail lists, and web sites. It may be partly a function of immaturity, since from my observations it appears that younger people more often seem to have the worst problems engaging in thoughtful and respectful discussion. (To be fair, this may also be more a reflection of the demographic of the contemporary radical milieu, in which people are sometimes already considered "older" when they've reached their mid- or late twenties!) It usually involves the refusal to reflect, self-critically evaluate and self-edit responses. The more unthinking, belligerent and vociferous participants tend to drive out the more thoughtful and considered opinions by making a never-ending stream of attacks, demands, and frivolous comments that must be dealt with (or, at least, patiently and consistently ignored by everyone else). With a plethora of ongoing irrational or illogical arguments, no one can engage in very intelligent discussion because anything self-critical and thoughtful-generally requiring carefully nuanced interpretation-is immediately lost in the tumult of relatively mindless noise.

In other anarchist media the evasion of discussion tends to be most obvious in the letters columns of periodicals (including, of course, the letters column in this magazine), and in some of the rants that sometimes pass for personal, point-of-view articles. These are also formats that tend to lend themselves to those writers too irresponsible, unprepared and unself-critical to put together more coherent essays that would need to be more thoroughly thought through, more logically structured, and more self-critically examined in light of other perspectives.

Wherever the evasions and whoever employs them, they most often seem to boil down to strategic or tactical decisions (whether conscious or not) to avoid dealing with particular perspectives or arguments simply because these writers have no intelligent arguments or rebuttals to make in their turn. We've all seen examples of this many, many times. Frequently, in response to a thoughtful and carefully worded essay that takes a principled stand on a controversial subject, an irrelevant (and often irrational) attack is launched on the author of the essay (she or he is castigated as "racist", "sexist," "elitist," "bourgeois," "fascist," etc. with no convincing justification, or no attempted justification at all). Alternatively, or sometimes simultaneously, there is often an attempt to put some other undefendable ideas into the original author's mouth, which can then be easily knocked down; or an attempt is made to change the subject and talk about something else, in order to ignore the controversial topic at hand; or else there is an attempt to bend over backwards making the most flimsy of excuses for the targets of the author's critique, while in turn criticizing the most irrelevant details of this critique to excess.

In past editorials I've tended to interpret some of these gambits of evasion as examples of simple bad-faith. But I'm increasingly beginning to realize that many, if not most, of these gambits are the result less of bad-faith than an inability to make a rational defense of one's own perspective. Perhaps there is less irrational hatred in the radical milieu and a bit more inarticulate ignorance than I originally perceived.

Still, the cures will be similar, whatever the bases for the evasion of discussion.

1) Always attack the comments rather than the author. This is accomplished by avoiding a number of things, and by accomplishing one simple goal. Avoid making spurious, irrelevant, or patently false accusations by sticking resolutely to actual points made in the words and context in which the author you want to criticize has actually made them! If you can't quote the author (without distorting the context) and address your criticisms directly to the quoted words, then simply don't comment!

2) Refuse straw man arguments. Challenge the actual meaning of the words you quote by either accepting the definitions used by the author you want to criticize, or by making it clear why you think the author's definitions are so inadequate as to require different definitions. If you can't find any place where an author actually has said something you want to criticize, don't argue that she or he has said it, or would agree with it, or secretly believes it. If one person makes a particular statement, this does not mean that all people you may want to group with that person agree with that statement. If you want to draw some logical conclusions from the author's statements in order to criticize them (or to show that the statements lead to absurd conclusions), then first run your alleged logical conclusions by several people to make sure that your conclusions are more solid than idiosyncratic, and then be sure to acknowledge that it is your conclusions that are absurd, and not the author's.

Above all, read any texts you want to criticize with extreme care. Avoid superficial readings and always make a conscientiousness effort to understand what is at stake. If there is something you don't understand, then simply ask about it before you criticize it.

I guess some people would have us believe that they're the type of purists who wouldnt seek to trade their art to make a living - even if they were destitute, even if they had family to support, to feed an addiction or whatever...

Of course, if we identify the production of art as 'work', as labour, which I think has already been said, then to deny workers their right to seek reasonable return from the product of their own labour, is precisely what should be avoided.

But, no, we have hypocritical morons getting about circulating thoughtless allegations - and effectively dictating to wise and intelligent people that trading their own labour through methods of their own choice amounts to 'selling out' - or in other words not being pure to the cause - which Matt would have us believe he is through his own boundary maintenance strategies. That is, the old 'if i can identify and police false (anarchist) behaviour then I can establish myself as true (anarchist)' project.

And I say hypocritical, because this type of behavior belies its own 'political correctness''. Its an anal anarchism that Ive seen time and time again, and that is all the more insipid for it replicates the serial 'im more fucking anarchist than you are you fuck' moralism that saw the decline of anarcho-punk by 1987 (as reported in the NME article Matt C linked) and which continues to make anarchism an unpopular choice despite its resurgence throughout the 1990s. Onanists like Matt arent helping the cause.

I could continue to dance rings around your static noise Matt, but the time has probably come for this thread to return to its oringal topic.

...on ze couch, Ja, you said " anal anarchism" and " dance rings," Ja?

Would you like a line of coke and a cigar, ja?

For the past seven years, almost, the enemies of the Makhnovist revolutionary movement have wallowed in so many lies about it that one might marvel that these people do not take a red face, once in a while at least. It is rather characteristic that these shameless lies directed against myself and the Makhnovist insurgents, indeed against our movement as a whole, can unite folk from very different socio-political camps: among them one can find journalists of every persuasion, writers, scholars and laymen who place obstacles in their path, mavericks and speculators, who occasionally have no hesitation in putting themselves forward as pathfinders for avant-garde revolutionary ideas. One can also come across supposed anarchists, like Yanovsky, from the Freie Arbeiter Stimme. All such folk, folk of every persuasion and every hue, have no shame about employing lies against us, without even knowing us, sometimes without any real belief in their own allegations. Such lies are rounded off with innuendo, which consists of forever and always railing at us, without any attempt to verify the grounds for that ranting and raving. In fact, where are the probable grounds to justify this hysteria in the slightest degree? A little while ago, all these bare-faced lies against us Makhnovists, alleging us to have been pogromists, without offering one shred of evidence or any sort of authentication, led me to address the world's Jews through the good offices of the French and Russian libertarian press, to ask them to spell out the sources of all these absurdities, so as to supply specific details regarding pogroms, incitement or instigation of pogroms carried out or launched by the Ukrainian toilers' revolutionary movement led by me.

The well known Parisian 'Faubourg' Club was alone in replying to my "Appeal to the Jews of All Countries". Through the press, the club managers let it be known that, at a meeting on 23 June 1927, the following question would come up for debate: "Was 'General' Makhno the friend of the Jews or did he participate in their slaughter?" It was added that our French comrade Lecoin would be speaking in defense of Makhno.

It goes without saying that as soon as I learned of the holding of this 'Faubourg' debate, I immediately approached the club chairman, Poldes, requesting him by letter that Lecoin be withdrawn and that I be afforded the opportunity to address the club on my own behalf. Following a positive reply, I appeared before the assembled club on 23 June 1927.

However, the particular manner in which debates were conducted in that club and the fact that the matter of concern to me was dealt with only towards the close of the proceedings meant that I was only able to make myself heard very late on, around 11:00 P.M. and I was not able to go into the matter thoroughly. The best I managed was to broach the subject by dealing with the historical nature, sources and patterns of anti-Semitism in the Ukraine.

Perhaps my enemies will make capital out of this factor which was beyond my control and above all of the fact that I was bound hand and foot by it. In fact, according to French police regulations, I was forbidden to communicate with my like-minded French colleagues: as a result, there was no way that I could have organized a public meeting of my own to put my rebuttal of these slanders. Also, some people have brazenly lied and talked about my having been "tried" in Paris. This is a further lie, which has been taken up by my enemies, hypocritical defenders of the rights and independence of the Jewish people who have suffered so much over the past thirty years in Russia and the Ukraine.

Can the facts be squared in any degree at all with these lies? All of the Jewish toilers of the Ukraine, as well as all other Ukrainian toilers are well aware that the movement of which I was for years the leader was a genuine revolutionary workers' movement. At no time did that movement seek to divide the practical organization of the deceived, exploited and oppressed toilers on grounds of race. Quite the opposite: it aimed to unite them into a mighty revolutionary union capable of taking action against their oppressors, especially against the Denikinists who were dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites. At no time did the movement make it its business to carry out pogroms against Jews nor did it ever encourage any. What is more, the vanguard of the Ukraine's (Makhnovist) revolutionary movement contained many Jewish toilers. The Gulyai-Polye infantry regiment for instance had one company made up exclusively of two hundred Jewish toilers. There was also a four-piece artillery battery, the gunners and defense unit of which were all Jews, commander included. And there were lots of Jewish toilers in the Makhnovist movement who, for personal reasons, preferred to blend in with mixed revolutionary fighting units. These were all free fighters, volunteer enlistments who fought honestly on behalf of the joint endeavors of the toilers. These anonymous fighters had their representatives inside the economic bodies revictualing the entire army. All of which may be verified with the Jewish colonies and villages in the Gulyai-Polye region.

All such Jewish insurgent toilers were under my command for a long period, not for days or months, but rather for entire years. All were witnesses to the manner in which 1, the Staff and the entire army conducted ourselves with regard to anti-Semitism and the pogroms that arose from it.

Every attempted pogrom or looting from our side was nipped in the bud. All found guilty of such acts were invariably shot out of hand for their misdeeds. This was the case for instance in May 1919, when some peasant insurgents from Novo-Uspenovka, on leaving the front line for some rest in the rear, came upon two decomposed corpses near a Jewish settlement: assuming these to be the corpses of insurgents murdered by members of the Jewish colony, they vented their spleen on the colony and slaughtered around thirty of its inhabitants. That same day, my Staff dispatched a commission of inquiry to the colony. It discovered the tracks of the perpetrators of the butchery. I immediately sent a special detachment to their village to place them under arrest. Those responsible for the attack on the Jewish colony, namely six individuals, one of them the Bolshevik district commissar, were all shot on 13 May 1 91 9.

The same thing happened in July 1919, when I found myself caught in the crossfire between Denikin and Trotsky - Trotsky was then promising his Party that "it was better that the Ukraine be surrendered to Denikin in its entirety than the possibility of the Makhnovshschina's expanding be allowed to arise" and I was forced to cross over to the right bank of the Dniepr. This was when I met with the famous Grigoriev, the ataman of the Kherson region. Misled by the inane rumors circulating about me and the insurgent movement, Grigoriev sought to conclude an alliance with me and my Staff with an eye to waging a concerted campaign against Denikin and the Bolsheviks.

Talks were opened on the condition, which I required, that, within two weeks, ataman Grigoriev furnish my Staff and the Soviet of the (Makhnovist) Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine with documents proving that all reports of pogroms carried out by him on two or three occasions against the Jews of Elizavetgrad were baseless, given that, with time at a premium, I was not able to authenticate them for myself.

That condition gave Grigoriev something to think about: then, as a good soldier and strategist, he consented. To prove to me that he could in no way be a pogromist, he boasted of the fact that his retinue included a Ukrainian representative of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Then, accusing me of having issued an "Appeal" against him, in the name of my Staff, wherein he had been denounced as an enemy of the revolution, in token of his good faith Grigoriev introduced to me several political representatives who attended him: Nikolai Kopornitsky of the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary Party, Seliansky (alias Gorobets) and Koliuzhny of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Party.

This happened at a time when I was on the outskirts of Elizavetgrad with my main combat detachment. I deemed it incumbent upon me as a revolutionary to avail of this opportunity to verify for myself just what the ataman Grigoriev might have done during his occupation of the town. At the same time, some intercepted Denikinist agents revealed to me that, unbeknownst to the toilers of the Kherson region, Grigoriev was preparing to coordinate his movements with the Denikinist headquarters in a build-up to a concerted campaign against the Bolsheviks.

From inhabitants of Elizavetgrad and neighboring villages, as well as from some partisans from Grogoriev's units, I learned that every time he had occupied the town Jews had been massacred. In his presence and on his orders, his partisans had murdered nearly two thousand Jews, including the flower of the Jewish youth: many members of the anarchist, Bolshevik and socialist youth organizations. Some of these had even been taken from prison for slaughter.

Upon learning all this, I promptly declared Grigoriev, the ataman of Kherson - a "Socialist Revolutionary" (sic) - a Denikinist agent and open pogromist, directly culpable for the actions of his supporters against Jews.

At the Sentovo meeting on 27 July 1919, Grigoriev was denounced for what he was and executed on the spot for all to see. That execution and the reasons for it were announced thus: "The pogromist Grigoriev has been executed by Makhnovist leaders: Batko Makhno, Semyon Karetnik and Alexis Chubenko. The Makhnovist movement accepts full responsibility before History for this action." That declaration was endorsed by the members of the Soviet of the Insurgent Army and the Socialist Revolutionary Party members present, including Nikolai Kopornitsky (NOTE: The Social Democrats Seliansky and Koliuzhny had vanished utterly following the execution of Grogoriev.)

That was the sort of treatment I always reserved for those who had carried out pogroms or were in the throes of preparing them. And looters were not spared either, whether from the Insurgent Army's own ranks or outsiders. For example this is what happened in August 1920 when two detachments of Petliurist nationalist leanings, under the command of Levchenko and Matyansha, encircled by us, sent emissaries to us to suggest that they be incorporated into our ranks. The Staff and I received them and agreed that they could be enlisted: however, as soon as we realized that the nationalistic elements from these detachments were engaging in looting and blatant anti-Semitism, we shot them out of hand, in the village of Avereski, in Poltava province. A few days later, their commander Matyansha was also shot for his provocative behavior in the town of Zinkov (Poltava province). His detachment was stripped of its weapons and most of its members cashiered.

In December 1920, there was a repeat of this with Red Army troops, when we successfully withstood the onslaught from Budyenny's cavalry and completely routed the XIVth Division of his army, near the village of Petrovo in the Alexandrovsk district, followed by the XIVth Cavalry Division, taking the entire command and Staff prisoners in the latter instance. Many prisoners from the XIth Division expressed an interest in joining the Insurgent Army to combat the autocratic political commissars as they described them. As they were crossing the Kherson region and reached the village of Dobrovelitchka, over half of the population of which was Jewish, certain former Budyennyist or Petliurist cavalrymen, acting on the rumors current in their former units regarding the Makhnovists' hostility towards the "Yids", set about looting the homes of the Jewish villagers. As soon as this came to the attention of experienced Makhnovists, they were all arrested and shot on the spot.

Thus, throughout its entire existence, the Makhnovshschina took an uncompromising line on the anti-Semitism of pogromists: this was because it was a genuinely revolutionary toilers' movement in the Ukraine.

NESTOR MAKHNO

From Dyelo Truda No 30-31, November-December 1927, pp. 15-18

Charles Manson unavailable stop Will you settle for Trotskyist theory and praxis question mark stop

From Charles Manson to Leon Trotsky to Paul Wolfowitz

With almost 900 Americans dead, thousands horribly wounded, and talk of canceling a national election that is taking place in the shadow of terrorism, one has to ask: how did we get here? Seymour Hersh, speaking at the American Civil Liberties Union conference on July 7, gave a pretty good answer:

"Rather than deal with the obvious stuff about Bush and this election and what it means, I think the real question we have to answer , and this is the question that I'm inchoate about: my friend Dan Ellsberg would say this is heuristic, 'I have some heuristic thoughts about it' , he's a great expert on heurism . The question we have to say to ourselves is, okay, so here's what happens: a bunch of guys, eight or nine neoconservatives, cultists , not Charles Manson cultists, but cultists , get in.

"And it's not, with all due respect to Michael Moore, (his movie's fine) but it's not about oil, it's even not about Israel, it's about a utopia they have. It's about an idea they have. Not only about that democracy can be spread. In a sense I would say Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyite of our times. He believes in permanent revolution. And in the Middle East, to begin with, needless to say.

"And so you have a bunch of people who have been, for ten or twelve years, fantasizing, since the 1991 Gulf war, on the way to resolve problems. And of course there'll be beneficiaries, Israel would be a beneficiary, etc., etc., but the world in their eyes, this is a utopia.

"And so they got together this small group of cultists. And how did they do it? They did do it. They've taken the government over.

"And what's amazing to me , and what really is troubling , is how fragile our democracy is. Look what happened to us, They took the edge off the press, they also muzzled the bureaucracy, they muzzled the military, they muzzled the Congress. And it's an amazing feat. We're supposed to be a democratic society. And all those areas of our democracy bowed and scraped to this group of neocons."

It was a riveting talk, delivered in a tone of understated modesty, each interruption of applause visibly anticipated and borne by the speaker as if the audience were shooting arrows at him: as if to say there's no time for self-congratulation, because we have to get at the truth and time is running out.

I've lost track of how many major stories Hersh has broken in the past few months: Abu Ghraib, the financial shenanigans of neocon guru Richard Perle, the lie factory called the "Office of Special Plans," and the list goes on. In this age of journalistic servility to the State, he has no peers as an investigative reporter. The boys in the Pentagon shudder each time The New Yorker rolls off the presses.

Here is a topnotch journalist , an empiricist by profession, and necessity , trying to discern some pattern in the facts he's assembled. With access to all sorts of Washington insiders , including Pentagon generals, whose disaffection, he said in his talk, "has never been so acute" , Hersh comes up with a story remarkably similar to that recounted by others, including General Anthony Zinni, intelligence expert James Bamford, retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, and a number of authors and journalists , including the present writer, who has been continually underscoring the threat posed by the neocons since the very first installment of this column.

"It's not the Manson clan," said Hersh to the assembled civil libertarians, "but we really have been taken over."

By whom , or what?

Like other such sects, religious as well as political, the history and beliefs of the neoconservative cult come in two versions. As Murray N. Rothbard pointed out in a trenchant 1972 study of the Ayn Rand cult:

"Every religious cult has two sets of differing and distinctive creeds: the exoteric and the esoteric. The exoteric creed is the official, public doctrine, the creed which attracts the acolyte in the first place and brings him into the movement as a rank-and-file member. The esoteric creed is the unknown, hidden agenda, a creed which is only known to its full extent by the top leadership, the 'high priests' of the cult. The latter are the keepers of the mysteries of the cult."

An ideological cult, Rothbard observed, has many of the salient features of a religious cult, and essentially the same belief structure: leader-worship, dogmatism, and a hatred of heresy, characteristics the neocons exhibit in abundance. Leader-worship fairly describes the neoconservative theory of the Presidency: the President, as Warrior-King, can order torture, and even suspend the Constitution. As for dogmatism: instead of acknowledging and analyzing the utter wrongness of their expectation that we would be greeted with cries of "Hail our liberators!" by the Iraqis, the neocons are now blaming the disaster on the allegedly flawed "execution" of their policies. Hatred of heretics is certainly an animating force among them, second only to blood-lust: just ask Michael Lind, or, indeed, anyone who has crossed their path.

The official exoteric story is that there is really no such creature as a neocon, it's all an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy theory dreamed up by Pat Buchanan and myself. The Iraq war was driven, not by highly-placed individuals with a specific agenda, but by historical necessity: the necessity, that is, of responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The neoconservative vision, they innocently aver, is based on building "democracy" not only in the Middle East, but throughout the entire world, and establishing what they call the "benevolent global hegemony" of a rising American Imperium, an "empire of liberty."

The real story, as Hersh clearly realizes, is quite different: Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyist not only of our time but of all time. Certainly greater than Trotsky himself, the founder of the Red Army and prophet of world revolution who wound up in some rundown Mexican backwater with an icepick sticking out of his head. Trotsky's "Fourth International," stillborn, lived in Stalin's shadow for all of its brief half-life, but in that time managed to generate a tendency that would eventually culminate in another sort of world revolution , and yet, on second thought, not all that different.

Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, whom Hersh describes as the "genius" of the neocon operation, knows well his antecedents, as Jeet Heer has reported in the National Post, citing neocon writer and "ex"-Trotskyist Stephen Schwartz:

"To this day, Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as 'the old man' and 'L.D.' (initials from Trotsky's birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). 'To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D,' he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman.

"'I've talked to Wolfowitz about all of this,' Schwartz notes. 'We had this discussion about Shachtman. He knows all that stuff, but was never part of it. He's definitely aware.' The yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd, but a long and tortuous history explains the link between the Bolshevik left and the Republican right."

The Trotskyists believed that the Revolution had gone off the rails, due not to the inherent brutality and immorality of the Bolshevik program, but because the Party didn't have the revolutionary zeal to carry the struggle forward into Europe and beyond. They sneered at the Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country," and correctly pointed to the Marxist classics, including Lenin, as proof that the Kremlin had betrayed the cause of true Communism, which they identified with a militant internationalism. Instead of sitting around liquidating Russian kulaks, Stalin, the Trots averred, should have gone on to liquidate all kulaks, everywhere.

Trotsky, by this time, had been forced into exile, and, after wandering through Europe, finally wound up in Mexico just as Hitler and Stalin concluded their infamous Pact , and sent the small Trotskyist grouplet, as well as the rest of the international Communist movement, into a tailspin of confusion.

Trotsky, always sensitive to the charge by Stalinists and their fellow travelers that he was really a bourgeois traitor, had always insisted on defending the Soviet Union "against the Stalinists and in spite of the Stalinists." But with the Nazis and the Commies now in alliance against the Western democratic powers , and poor little Finland in the Soviets' sights! , how was it possible to any longer defend the "workers' fatherland"? That's what Max Shachtman and James Burnham, two of Trotsky's top disciples in America, wanted to know. Trotsky, for his part, could give them no answer they found satisfactory, and so the Trotskyist movement split, with Shachtman and Burnham leaving the Fourth International's American grouplet, known as the Socialist Workers Party, and founding the Workers Party. Burnham departed the newly-minted party almost as soon as it was set up, going on to translate his anti-Stalinism into a full-fledged and full-throated anti-Communism by joining the CIA and winding up as a top editor at National Review.

Shachtman took a much longer, tortuous path to basically the same position: what his leftist opponents and erstwhile comrades in the SWP called "State Department socialism." Shachtman was a tremendously charismatic figure, a pyrotechnic speaker and learned (self-taught) scholar of the Marxist classics, whose ability to justify his latest "turn" in terms of Marxoid dogma might be fairly characterized as acrobatic. Each turn, when it came, took him farther away from his ideological origins , he had started out his political career as a Communist Party functionary in the 1920s.

When the Cold War began to press down on his isolated grouplet with such force that it was put on the list of "subversive" organizations, Shachtman regurgitated a brand new theory: the Soviet Union, in the Shachtmanite view, no longer represented socialism, but instead constituted a new and even more terrible danger than Western capitalism: bureaucratic collectivism. From that point on, Shachtman and his followers began to advocate a hard foreign policy line against the Soviet Union, a line that got progressively harder with the years. The Shachtmanites eventually disbanded their grouplet, at least in a formal sense, and merged with the remnants of the old Socialist Party, which they effectively took over, changing the name to the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA).

Shachtman's new strategy was to work within the Democratic party, and the unions: his followers in SDUSA held key positions in the AFL-CIO and the teachers unions. In 1968, he pushed through a Socialist Party resolution endorsing Hubert Humphrey for President, over the feeble protests of Norman Thomas, who lay dying in a hospital. Shachtman ended his days as a key supporter of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, known affectionately as the Senator from Boeing, and fully supporting the Vietnam war. Key neoconservative cadre came directly out of the SDUSA: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Carl Gershman, Max Kampelman, Penn Kimble, and Elliott Abrams, to name just a few. Scoop Jackson's aides, such as Richard Perle and Abrams, went on to become prominent neocons. Reinforced by successive waves of ex-leftists, such as the Commentary crowd and Irving Kristol (a former Trotskyist follower of Burnham's), Shachtmanism, especially after Shachtman's death, in 1971, essentially morphed into neoconservatism.

"It's not about oil, it's even not about Israel, it's about a utopia they have. It's about an idea they have."

It's widely recognized that we were lied into war by a group of ideologues, but what is this "idea they have"? What kind of "utopia" is Iraq? The old Trotskyist idea of internationalism is here preserved, but for the red flags. Some of them even call themselves "Trotsky-cons." But this "outing" of the neocons has caused them considerable embarrassment , since they are currently masquerading as "conservatives" , and they've struck back by seeking to label the outers "conspiracy theorists" and "anti-Semites." Most deny their Trotskyist heritage , the more strenuous denials coming from the very people who embody it, such as Joshua Muravchik, once a youth leader of the SDUSA and now a rising neocon star over at the American Enterprise Institute.

Similarly vindictive protests at this dredging up of the true history of the neocons are coming, surprisingly, from the ostensible left. Although one might think that they would welcome the chance to excoriate their renegades, the orthodox Trotskyists that still exist on the far-left fringes are angry because they believe Trotsky's good name is being maligned. The "World Socialist Website" goes into a particularly dreary recitation of Trotskyist history that essentially admits the neocons' Shachtmanite lineage, but reduces its significance to a "journalistic turn of phrase" that "is a travesty of historical or political analysis, and only serves to obscure the ideological roots of the neoconservative movement."

But it is the World Socialist Website that is doing the obscuring here: the "world-historical" grandiosity and Jacobinism that animated the Shachtmanites merely changed flags, without changing either its goals or its methods. SDUSA is just as committed to international socialism as it was in Shachtman's day: that they are using the United States Army instead of the Red Army to impose it is only a detail that, in the end, matters little.

The Socialist Workers Party, which still exists, although it has long since given up Trotskyism for Castroism, is also pissed off at us for maligning their hero, and attacks Antiwar.com in much the same terms as the neocons employ. The headline in their newspaper, The Militant, proclaims: "Jew-hatred, red-baiting: heart of claims of 'neocon' conspiracy." Antiwar.com, in their view, is part of a sinister anti-Semitic conspiracy, along with Seymour Hersh: together, we are trying to "set up" the neocons for getting us into the Iraq war. They go so far as to repeat specific charges made by former Coalition Provisional Authority official Michael Rubin, in National Review, and directed at Karen Kwiatkowski , who exposed the manipulation of intelligence by the "Office of Special Plans" , that somewhat fancifully attempt to link her to the LaRouche group because she once was interviewed by one of their number.

Shoot, what about the fact that LaRouche used to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party , would it be fair to identify the SWP as LaRouchite, on the grounds of mere contact with LaRouche? These people are such hypocrites, and, what gets me is that they're so vulnerable to the very tactics they employ.

The SWP screed is a farrago of lies, evasions, and paranoid ravings. According to the Socialist Workers cult, not only Seymour Hersh and Antiwar.com, but also Michael Lind, the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, "and numerous other publications and internet sites," by identifying neoconservatives as the sparkplugs behind this war, are all engaged in a veritable orgy of "Jew-hatred" and "Trotsky-baiting." The SWP, like the World Socialist Website crew, admits the origins of the Shachtman group in the Trotskyist movement, but then lamely avers that

"Smears about 'Trotskycons' to the contrary, the fact is that no prominent figure among the so-called neoconservatives has ever been a member of the Socialist Workers Party."

But no one ever said that they were. The SWP never amounted to a hill of beans, except briefly in the 1960s and 70s, when they were a key element of the antiwar movement. Today they are an insignificant little sect devoted to selling books, and enriching the cult leaders, while the intellectual descendants of their renegade faction rule the roost in Washington.

Against this Popular Front of Norman Podhoretz and SWP leader Jack Barnes, which includes Joshua Muravchik and the World Socialist Website, opponents of the Iraq war can only marshal the empirical evidence, and the insight that individuals, not abstract "forces" or historical "necessity," control events. And don't imagine this is some obscure debate over historical arcana: the idea that specific individuals are responsible for formulating and implementing American policy in the Middle East is the key to understanding the present debate over the "intelligence failure" that lured us into Iraq. Far from being a "failure," the perpetrators of this massive fraud were wildly successful, at least from their perspective, and the SWP, for some reason, is intent on helping them to get away scot-free.

The idea that animates the War Party is the same idea that has motivated Jacobins of the left and the right since time immemorial: a restless and malevolent energy that impels them to remake the world. Militant utopians inflicted millions of casualties in the twentieth century, and it looks like they intend to surpass their record in the twenty-first. The neocons may be temporarily discredited, and in eclipse: but it would be a mistake to count them out.

The cult of Power, with its roots in the Left and its present hegemony over the Right, is the eternal enemy of peace and liberty.

Not whether Crass are sell-outs? If you want hypocorts look at this photo...

Hearing Richard got a clip on the ear made my day so lets see some more BUMFIGHTS!

Only longer and with mpegs and jpegs and blood, lots and lots of claret.
Stand on me you will have the best and biggest MUFF ever.

RIP RICHARD A NEW ONE!

( my 2$ )

I'm trying to talk Chopper out of retirement and get him to fire up the old blowtorch. We could film Richards torture in real time over a three week period that could include secateurs, circumcision and small fire ants on top of the usual B and D and S and M Rich loves so much.

We never really explored electrodes either Chop!

Chop Chop Mark, spark up, it's been to long since we gave someone their very own ' jewish problem.'

If davo spent less time reading works of fiction and more time in the real world he would know how unwise it is to assume the identity of someone who went to ground long ago.

The funny thing about these self-proclaimed Nazi hunters is that they act like Nazis. Does the irony escape them? Its more like a demarcation dispute within a kinky fringe group. Could all these stalkers really be Richard in psy-op promotion mode? Do any of these people really exist?

1788 Cincinnati founded, named after the Society of Cincinnatus (and indirectly, after Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus, 5th c. BC Roman farmer and general, who, after being called to war and serving valiantly, returned to his farm.)

1829 Race riot in Cincinnati, Ohio.

1861 The Peepshow patented by Samuel Goodale of Cincinnati.

3 Dec 1890 Isaac Jordan, the U.S. Congressional Representative from the great state of Ohio, dies after an interesting elevator accident in Cincinnati.

9 Oct 1919 The Cincinnati Reds win the World Series, but only because key Chicago White Sox ballplayers agreed to throw the series for $100,000 in bribes.

12 Nov 1934 Charles Manson born in Cincinnati.

1971 Newly elected Sheriff, Simon Leis begins a crusade against pornography, attacking adult bookstores, massage parlors, and x-rated theaters. Those not prosecuted were hounded out of town.

Nov 1976 Future talk show host Jerry Springer elected Mayor of Cincinnati.

1977 Larry Flynt and his brother Jimmy tried for obscenity by the City of Cincinnati. Larry was convicted and Jimmy found not guilty.

18 Sep 1978 Television show, WKRP in Cincinnati, runs until 1982.

3 Dec 1979 At Riverfront Coliseum in Cincinnati, eleven concertgoers variously aged 15 to 27 years are trampled and suffocated trying to get in to see The Who. Insufficient exits were available, and a request by police to open more was ignored.

1990 The Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center and curator Dennis Barrie charged with obscenity over a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit of 175 photographs.

5 Oct 1990 After a ten-day trial, a jury acquits the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center of obscenity charges resulting from an exhibition of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe. So, bullwhips up the ass are now officially A-OK.

2 Feb 1993 Marge Schott, owner of the Cincinnati Reds, suspended from Baseball for one year after making repeated racio-ethnic slurs.

1995 Barnes and Noble prosecuted for obscenity, after selling a copy of lesbian periodical Libido to an eleven-year-old girl. It is later determined that the girl's father asked her to purchase the periodical in order to bring about a prosecution. Charges are eventually dropped.

10 May 1999 Larry Flynt tried for obscenity by the City of Cincinnati over the matter of videotapes sold from the Hustler store.

27 May 2000 Film Dirty Pictures documents Cincinnati's war on the Mapplethorpe exhibit.

9 Apr 2001 Race riot in Cincinnati, Ohio.

30 Nov 2003 A 350 pound black man, Nathaniel Jones, dies after an aggressive police beating which is videotaped and widely aired.

Self-confessed "transcendental fascist" Richard Woolstonecroft's current
Melbourne Underground Film Festival has showing this film. Bumfight is a
doco film that exploits homeless men, buying them to attack each other for a
small amount of money or alcohol.

Does pornography - imaged sexual violence - "objectify" people for rapists,
does fight films violence pornography "objectify" victims to be bashed or
in this case set on fire?

Probably!
........................

Teen 'admitted' torching vagrant
July 19, 2004

A 16-year-old was overheard admitting he and three others accidentally
fatally torched a homeless Victorian man, a court was told today.

Three teenage boys, two aged 16 and another aged 15, appeared in a
children's court today charged with the murder of Arthur Burrows, who burnt
to death in his humpy at a park in Mildura, north-west Victoria, early on
November 2 last year.
A fourth youth, 18-year-old Christopher Reynolds, was committed earlier this
year to stand trial in the Supreme Court on the same charge.
The court was told a worker at a juvenile detention centre overheard one of
the teenagers admit his role in Mr Burrows' death.
An earlier children's court hearing was told the murder may have been
motivated by a US video downloaded from the internet called Bumfights, which
showed attacks on the homeless.

The detention centre officer took notes after allegedly hearing the youth
say: "I burnt the ... with me mate. He's dead but it was an accident. There
were four of us".
The court heard Mr Burrows, a 66-year-old who lived by a river in Jaycee
Park for 25 years until his death, was killed in his makeshift shelter of a
tree and plastic sheet covering a mattress, chair and a milk crate doubling
as a table.
Under questioning from a defence lawyer, a forensic pathologist said a
post-mortem examination had not confirmed reports Mr Burrows' hand and feet
were bound when he was murdered.
"At the time of autopsy there was no evidence of ligature marks but the
deceased was severely burnt at the time of death," he said.
The pathologist said he found high levels of soot in Mr Burrows' lungs,
consistent with being caught in a slow-burning blaze in a confined space.
A forensic scientist said there was no evidence an accelerant had been used.
The three accused teens have not been required to enter a plea.
The committal hearing, which is expected to take five days, continues.

AAP