LEFT OF THE "LEFT"
News from the Undead
The Rude-imentary Truth
Published in the United States of Mohawkia,
a subsidiary of the Republican States of Nightmarica
and PNOC: the Project for a New Orwellian Century.
One Critic’s Journal of Fact & Opinion.
Telling Truth, via First Person politics,
in a Culture of Lies.
The gadfly in everyone's ointment and
the home of befouled belles lettres.
ISSUE #885 DEC. 2013
by Mark S. Tucker,
provocateur, hector, meta-anarchist
“Have brain, will use; have pen, will poison.”
ASKING THE UNASKABLE, SAYING THE UNSAYABLE, REMOVING THE "LEFT'S" ARTIFACTS.
THE V.V. MISSION STATEMENT!!!: Fuck mission statements.
Slice, dice, saute, braise, cook over high heat, serve with toxic garni, shake vigorously, then throw in the trash. (The V.V. recipe for consuming conservative and "Left" radio.)
One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up. - Arthur Koestler
Modern journalism, by giving us the opinons of the uneducated, keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde
While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people...it is true that most stupid people are conservative. - John Stuart Mill
The beginning of wisdom is in the definition of terms. - Socrates
Every compulsion is put upon writers to become safe, polite, obedient, and sterile. - Sinclair Lewis
Neither man nor God is going to tell me what to write. - James T. Farrell
The press is the hired agent of a monied system and set up for no reason than to tell lies where the interests are involved. One can trust nobody and nothing. - Henry Brook Adams
Truth offends worse than falsehood. - Jack Vance
All I have is a voice / To undo the folded lie. - W.H. Auden
Journalism consists in buying white paper at 2-cents a pound and selling it for 10-cents a pound. - Charles A. Dana
The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live. - Nisargadatta Maharaj
A harmful truth is better than a useful lie. - Thomas Mann (quoted by Arthur Koestler)
You read 100 good reviews and 1 bad one, and the bad one always seems to make more sense. - Johnny of Radiohead
History is on our side but not time. - Malik Sekou Osei
Never underestimate the power of ridicule.
…a failure to be arrogant enough. - Ralph Ellison, commenting on what was holding him back as a writer while he penned Invisible Man
To tell the truth, rightly understood, is not to state the true facts but to convey a true impression; truth in spirit not truth to the letter is the true veracity. - R.L. Stevenson
The work of art may have a moral effect, but to demand moral purpose from the artist is to make him ruin his work. - Goethe
There's no home like place. - M.S. Tucker
Politics is violence. - CTraffik
...I guess I'm just an annoying guy. - Bill Hicks
For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1:18
Veritas Vampirus' patron saints: Sarasvati & Ikkyu
THE HOLY TRINITY OF DOCTRINE:
* With the intestines of the last priest, let us strangle the last businessman.
* When you see the mouth of a conservative, Republican, businessman, priest, or politician open, what you're hearing are lies.
* Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups; in fact, never underestimate the stupidity of any group.
The two irreducible basics of Leftism: 1) No religion, 2) No capitalism. Lacking conviction in those, you can't possibly be a Leftie. End of story. Sorry!
THIS ISSUE: I'm moving kinda fast lately as despair and chagrin grip true Leftist hearts, mine included. In that, I'd like to remind kindred that the fight isn't won in an hour, a day, a week, a month, or a year. We're trying to force evolution to speed up - that's really what we're doing, that and nothing else - and it ain't easy, as we're experiencing. I'm no different from anyone (um, save that I'm mouthier, fouler, more vitriolic, assholier, and all the other pretty adjectives), and it hasn't been a holiday of late. Ah, but there's where unorthodoxy steps in and my admonition to out-create the insanity rears its chaotic head.........so I'm stepping up my already frantic schedule a bit and will be presenting V.V. issue rapid-fire for for a while. Don't know how long I'll be able to keep that up before burning out, but it's worth the effort.
Keep this in mind, too: we ARE winning the fight, it's just not terribly obvious because the "Left" is such a pack of unconscionable liars and presently grappling with a knife already sawn halfway through its collective throat, a saber held by its own hand. When I see BradBlog down to a truly pathetic 10 financial contributors; when I read Rob Kall admitting his OEN supporters are deserting in droves and money is worse than it's ever been; when I note that Thom Hartmann is weak, pathetic, and barely able to keep his prevarications straight from one day to the next, looking as exhausted and bewildered as I've ever seen him; when I read AlterNet flogging a prolificity of lurid dippy sex articles rather than hazarding yet more of its accommodationist Democrat nonsense as the whole schmeggege flies apart at the seams and slaps its adherents uncontrollably; when I note Ian Masters FINALLY plotting a palpable open move against Pacifica and KPFK; when I see no end of the horrible truth welling up beneath everyone's feet, then I know we're winning. But it's painful, it's slow, and no one can say whether or not the end game will eventuate as we'd wish.
I'm part of that and so are you, don't ever believe otherwise. As readers are increasingly noticing, there's a very weird parallel between what appears in V.V. in one day and then what "Left" bobbleheads all of a sudden decide to tackle in the following week. Even I, in all my ego, am a bit surprised at the extent of that lately, but that secondary enemy is reading V.V. (the Right doesn't bother, it's too busy sodomizing children) and has been for quite some time. Any who doubt are welcome to drop by, and I'll show 'em e-mails with VERY prominent names...first lauding, then damning Veritas Vampirus. And it's certainly not just me engaged in this, by no means is that true, it's everyone who refuses to sing in the bifurcate DemoRepubliTarian choir (that's what Brad Friedman's telling you he belongs to when he claims he has no Party loyalties, same with Rob Kall, two peas in an exceedingly rancid pod, among myriad others desperately now trying to distance themselves from their sordid, lying, swindling, corporate pasts).
There are times when you just have to struggle mostly blindly. This is one of them. Fight. Just fight. That's all.
The following are links to some of my CD / DVD reviews recently-ish posted at FAME:
We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe. - Goethe
He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion. - Goethe
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. - Emerson
WHAT THE HELL WAS MARX REALLY TALKING ABOUT???
Mailk Osei Begins the Attack on the Problems of Thought and Language
by M.S. Osei & M.S. Tucker (ed. by Tucker)
Malik Osei sent me an essay hitting on aspects of dialectical materialism, from which I've extracted the core because his translation of that odd mode of regard is so much more compact, so much better than anyone else's that I've read up to this point. He started the pertinent section in saying:
In my view, the crisis of the American Left is that it has a profound need for science in reflection and thinking. The basis of that science would be dialectical materialism.
And indeed the true Left has become much like its dazed and blathering red-headed stepchild, the accommodationist "Left": all hot air, endless ballroom dances on the heads of pins, polemic for the sake of airy polemic rather than any sense of credible fix or resolution, a search for fame and money by vainly attempting to fashion unique new slants on philosophical nothingnesses, and the million and one masturbatory ramblings one reads daily or weekly in TruthOut, TruthDig,AlterNet, OpEdNews.com, BradBlog and other magpie forums. Osei continues:
Dialectical materialism has been broadly celebrated as the philosophy of Marxism, that and historical materialism. Back in 1891, the term was first use by Plekhanov. The word used by the first generation of Marxists after Marx's death was 'diamat'. At this point in its history, Marxism was to become more coherent with its use of the dialectical method in its central philosophical constitution.
And here is where I begin to part company re: linguistics and certain historical debates. As I will show, Marx had zero to do with dialectics, as had Hegel before him, and Kant before them both. What they were really indulging in will be shown in the series, but it wasn't even close to dialectics. Osei is quite correct, however, in showing that Marx didn't really coin the phrase 'dialectical materialism', but neither did Plekhanov ...though I'm certainly open to persuasion on this, as much of what we think we know about Karl and his work has been, unsurprisingly, torqued to fit the incredible and incredibly long campaign of distortion worked by capitalist propagandeers.
Joseph Dietzgen is credited with coining 'dialectical materialism', though similar constructions had existed, and also with originating the "process" in 1887. Plekhanov, father of Russian Marxism, intro'ed the term somewhat rather upon Engels' 'materialist dialectic'. There was kind of a linguistic fight going on, y'see, and, as the academic squabble progressed, the use of 'diamat', a reductionist version of 'dialectical materialism', was Stalin's contribution to the cafeteria food fight…though I've never been able to determine if he personally coined it or not. It seems so, but Stalin was nothing if not a thief and criminal, not to mention a psychopath, and such an obvious neologistic nicknaming would be rather swift to eventuate regardless, so, Uncle Joe co-opting everything in sight, I doubt he really started the word up. I could be wrong.
Malik went on to write:
The first generation of Marxist thinkers was influenced and impressed by the two most famous books by Marx and Engels of that time: Marx's Capital and Engels'Anti-Duhring [Ed. Note: this was a tome written to refute Eugen Duhring's attempt to formulate a socialistic alternative to Marxism; not having read it, I cannot comment upon it]. In this period, it was Engels' book that represented the basic economic science of historical materialism. To Plekhanov, Anti-Duhringpresented the final shape of the philosophy of Marxism. Thus the genesis of Marxist dialectical materialism was to become a more powerful force in the ideas of the Left-radical activism of the Second International. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, dialectical materialism was to become the necessary requirement to communist party orthodoxy.
That last part was indeed Stalin's attempt to rigidify aspects of Marx & Engels' propoundments in order to bring discipline to the movement. Well, what he actually brought we already know, so how much we should concern ourselves with Unky Joe's alleged brainchildren in any respect is up for grabs. I, for one, must cast serious doubt on anything and everything that bastard did. Osei continues:
To further understand, one should know that dialectical materialism was cross-bred from two bourgeois philosophies: the mechanistic materialism of the Scientific Revolution / Enlightenment and Hegel's idealist dialectics. The mechanistics of the former is incompatible with the dialectics and idealism of the latter, which is rejected and opposed as metaphysical and ideological.
As we'll see in my series, incompatibilities were not only inevitable but absolutely guaranteed precisely because the dialectics claimed to be present were in fact entirely missing. Nonetheless, Malik brings up a very important point: mechanistics. That's all reality is composed of, perhaps excepting spirit (I'm undecided on that). If anything is physical, it's insunderably mechanical, even…wait for it!!!…thought. As to the ideological and metaphysical versus the scientific, I'd like to inject a Biercian insight from Mark E. Smith, V.V. reader and creator of the FUBAR site (see the Veritas Kindred section in the tail end of this and every issue):
Science: the business of taking things out of context so as to misunderstand them better.
Like Malik, I trust in science first, everything else second, but that shuffles us into the nature of reality and truth as sieved through highly flawed human perceptics and mentality, precisely what Smith is aiming at. Science is in fact, as zen has always had it, just a matter of passing descriptions of what we up to the point of positing them so far seem to know. Science at one time had it that the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited our sloggy little mudball. It also averred that bad air caused malaria. For the longest time, it swore there were a number of races of humanoids - seven, I believe. For these and about 35 trillion other reasons (to the tenth power), science, to the thinking man and woman, must be regarded with skepticism just as religion is…though that pairing is somewhat unfair.
Even with its numerous flaws, 'science' is nothing more than the quest for truth and truisms, an inquiry ownable by anyone but a tool more quicksilver than the lion's share of human monkeys perceive. I know that, Mark Smith knows that, and Malik Osei knows that; I'm merely bringing it up in order to illuminate what must be considered whenever we speak axiomatically of anything. Regardless, do not for a second lose Osei's citation of mechanistics as foundational, or you'll not grasp a whit of what he further exposits or what I show in the coming series.
The result is philosophy in the sense of a world outlook, the 'communist world outlook' as Engels calls it in Anti-Duhring: a body of theory taken to be true of concrete reality as a whole and conceived as scientific as a kind of generalist 'natural philosophy' supported by the findings of the special and the singular as they advanced into maturity, including the social science of historical materialism.
Whew!!! The above is why I never take anything Malik says lightly, even when it may seem a trifle more generalizing than it is. Every time he fakes me with a left hook, he speeds in a right to the jaw that lays me on the floor. Note especially that "taken to be true". He's echoing what I just said two paragraphs above, not to mention re-quoting the same in "conceived". "Generalist natural philosophy" only re-fortifies everything, as does "advanced into maturity", the time factor: what one generation absolutely knows to be true is laughed at only 100 years later, often less. My question would be: is a final form of maturity - that is: an end point - ever reached? One should be slow in coming to any form of surety on this, as what's being proposed is religion: we're talking about God in disguise or godhood in abeyance.
It therefore must be noted that Marx's theoretical work is a study of society. Engels based dialectical materialism by developing a “dialectics of nature” founded on the claim that "[within] ...nature...the same dialectical laws...force their way through as those which in history govern…events". The central theories of dialectical materialism then are presented as scientific laws of a completely general kind, governing "nature, society, and thought" (Anti-Duhring, chapter 13). The political point of such a theory, as of Engels's distinctive contributions generally, is to argue that the 'scientificity' of Marxism recruiting of historical materialism lies in the support of cognitive authority enjoyed in natural science, at the same time depriving of the support in other political and cultural movements claiming it, like the Duhring work or social Darwinism.
"Study of society" indeed, with Engels covering the non-social Creation and that inexplicable presence's "forcing" of events via an intractable automaticity arising from anything mechanical…even, as I noted above and has been pondered by science for quite some time in recent-ish decades, the true origins of thought (biochemical, mimeographical, reflexive, subconscious, and maybe, just maybe, once in a great while: original). I'm pretty sure 'scientificity' is an Oseivian neologism, I've never seen it before, I like it. It dilutes and bolsters science simultaneously. He presses on that:
It has to be noted that the combination of materialism with dialectics actually transforms both. The correct way of understanding the materialism of dialectical materialism is that it is nothing like traditional mechanical materialism. It does not simply reduce ideas to matter, declaring their final identity. It holds that, dialectically, the material and the ideal are very different and in fact are opposites, but are also within a unity in which matter is the basic, the primary. For matter can exist without the mind, but the reflective mind cannot exist without matter. The mind was historically emergent from matter and remains dependent on it.
This is where, while agreeing and disagreeing, I get really fascinated. Again, 'dialectics' is being misunderstood, but that's not Malik's fault: it's been bastardized since Plato, and Marxists in general are chiefly responsible in modern days for furthering that, hence Osei has been caught up in it. So was I…until Marxists, Marx, and the whole enchilada started to piss me off. What Osei's showing here is what zen shows everywhere: paradox. THIS, I think, though I don't get much into it in my series, is what Marx was either trying to resolve ('n good luck on dat, Papa!) or just credit as being bafflingly so. On the one hand, absolutely!: the material (matter) and the ideal (mind) are opposites.
I agree that matter and mind are completely independent (up to a point, which is the paradox Osei describes: they co-exist in an all-engulfing unity), though a ridiculous percentage of philosophers will say matter arises from the mind or doesn't truly exist at all. Marx rebelled against that, as does Osei, as do I. On the third hand, though, I completely disagree that mind emerged from matter. If anything, in the broadest metaphysical sense, mind pre-existed matter…but that can't be proven, and one's adherence to it is predicated heavily on ego, though such matters as the Observer Effect, Heisenberg's Principal, and other science theories indicate a very high probability of which has precedence: matter or mind (and it's mind, not matter).
It would follow, then, that the developed special sciences form a unified hierarchy with physics as their base, though they are not reducible to physics. It follows also in epistemology that physics gives us knowledge of a mind-independent objective reality. What the component of dialectics asserts is that concrete reality is not a static substance in undifferentiated unity but a unity that is differentiated and specifically contradictory, the conflicts of opposites driving reality forward in a historical process of constant progressive change, both evolutionary and revolutionary. It is that its revolutionary, or discontinuous, changes bring forth genuine qualitative freshness and originality.
This is the real heart of the beast, and Osei has encapsulated it masterfully, beautifully. This is the part that woke me up to what everyone else was trying to say but failed at: that "reality is not a static substance", that it has conflicts and opposites and yet moves forward. Marx's was not a new observation per se however. It had been noted in the East long long ago but was most definitely an heretical utterance in the West. And it's important to again note that where this observation had cropped up in India, China, Japan, and elsewhere, it was as a reaction to religious ignorance and tyranny; that is: wu wei, zen, ch'an, taoism, and other modes of thought were not the religious vehicles the West still persistently misunderstands them as but instead philosophies and sciences. I cannot speak to the Upanishads and Indian vehicles as I'm not familiar enough with them to proclaim anything with sufficient confidence, but there had been, as far as I can tell, anti-religion scientific movements there as well; it's how India rose to be one of the mightiest nations this planet's yet seen.
It is in such a sudden new originality that the mind can be understood by the materialist version of the dialectic. At the most basic intellectual level, the contradictory nature of reality is taken to imply that contradictory statements are true of reality and consequently they require a special dialectical logic superseding formal logic, especially with the latter's essential principle of non-contradiction.
And this is where I fall out again. A materialist dialectic will never explain mind. It might lay down the terms of its linear processes but will never describe whatever mind is. The problem, of course, is that mind requires a self to operate…so which is mind: the self or the unknown something the self uses? No one has a clue. I'm somewhat persuaded, as zen avers, that mind and self are differentiated, completely separate actually, much as the body and its worn apparel are not the same thing, but, that said, what are 'mind' and 'self'? No one knows, and the arrogation to say otherwise is akin to standing at the Pacific Ocean's shoreline in Manhattan Beach and throwing a rock, thereafter claiming you hit China. Anyone with a brain knows better and saw what occurred - and if they didn't, they still know better - but if that's what you want to boast, then go ahead, for all the good it'll do ya.
What's really being looked at by Marx and by Malik are the processes of the mind, not the mind as such. And it's at this point that I have to finally say that not all science bases in palpability, or better yet: there is an adjunct of science that goes well beyond the range of what we have historically attributed as its limits. That's why the term 'metaphysical' was coined (merely meaning 'beyond the physical' and not all the occulty horseshit that's been attributed to it). This realm includes what are termed as psychic perceptions, past life recall, and so on. Those qualities occupy at the moment what microbes once presented as invisible wherewithal to our ancestors. It, pre-Leewanhoek and the microscope, wasn't that they didn't exist, it was just that man had no way to detect, quantify, and calibrate them and other matters. Same goes for much of what we call 'metaphysical'.
How do I know this? Because I have experienced some of the phenomena in as close to scientific methodologies toward them as have so far been formulated. I have, as I've intimated a number of times in this venue, undergone some experiences 99.999% of humanity hasn't a clue exist. This isn't a boast - one of them came very close to killing me, more closely and more damagingly than I'd ever care to repeat - but rather an exclamation of the extent of my curiosity re: the nature of things and the willingness to not be shackled by convention and conservatism. I may or may not divulge these matters at some point but to do so would take so much time by way of explication that an entire book would be required and would have to include the pensees upon Alice Miller's work that I've mentioned.
Regardless, much of what man has proclaimed as inviolable truth has too often been just a matter of assumptions based on presumptions founded in a mixture of ignorance and fear, and that's what we actually battle our way through when we essay to know things as they truly are (if indeed there really is any such fixed condition, something I'm happily but frustratedly doubting more and more). That's what Marx did, that's what Osei does, that's what I'm doing, and that, I presume, is what at least a decent percentage of V.V. readers are engaged in (other then you lazy bastards out there who sit back and gorp up what some few of us labor to produce…which, actually, hmmmm, is precisely why we do it). We are all of us right and we are all of us wrong in what we purvey. It's the "being wrong" part that spurs us to ceaseless inquiry if we're of a mind to spend the hours of our lives doing so.
Still, catch that "contradictory statements are true of reality". ABSOLUTELY! This is the beating heart of everything, and it and they do indeed require a dialectic, but not a "special" one. There is no special dialectic, there is only the one dialectical method and no more than that. Again, this is the crux of my series, and I'm quite sure most, if not all, will be swayed by it. A dialectic is exactly formal science, nothing else, BUT ponder what Osei is explicating when he refers to the "essential principal of non-contradiction". That's what's being sought and is reflective of the basic human desire to locate unified field theory(ies). Can it be done? We haven't a clue so far, but if it is apprehendable, dialectics will unearth the matter. Malik carries on with:
Thus the fundamental laws of dialectical materialism are these:
1) the law of the transformation of quantity into quality, according to which gradual quantitative changes give rise to revolutionary qualitative change;
2) the law of the unity of opposites, which holds that the unity of concrete reality is a unity of opposites or contradictions;
3) the law of the negation of the negation, which claims that in the clash of opposites one opposite negates another and is in its turn negated by a higher level of historical development that preserves something of both negated terms (a process that sometimes is expressed in triadic schema as thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis).
And I'll not take the time to refute the above as I've already done so in the coming series. The above is NOT, though, a dialectic. What it actually IS will be revealed momentarily.
There is no doubt that Marx's theory of society is both materialist and dialectical at the same time in its claims of scientificity. For its justification in claiming the cognitive advantage of scientificity, it must have important continuities with the established natural sciences. But it may be that there are other and more reliable continuities than those argued by Engels and by dialectical materialism, namely: a shared content constituting a very general theory about reality as a whole, the 'communist world outlook'.
Yes and no. The 'communist world outlook' is just one viewpoint, nor is it unique, preceded by 'weltenschaung' as a term, but also by every culture that has ever existed as a practice. It's the arrogance of ego but also the reality of a culture's collective mindset and perceptions. The "other and more reliable continuities" maintain the individual outlook, and thus keep the realities open.
In any case, there is a problematic tension in the union of dialectics and materialism, especially the materialism of the natural sciences with its strong tendencies towards mechanistic reductivism and detached objectivism. It is the emphasis on the natural sciences and on historical materialism as a natural science of society that is distinctive within Marxism, of dialectical materialism.
In effect, Osei is reflecting the tripartate flow chart shown earlier by him, derived from Marxism. My question, though, is: is it really a flow? Or is it instead an idealized flow? As I'll demonstrate starting next issue, it's frequently not reality, though it's sometimes true, and it's not a dialectic. I like that "mechanistic reductivism and detached objectivism", though. It's what a dialectic always strives to achieve.
In effect, dialectical materialism has pressed historical materialism towards 'economism' - here, the supposition that, as the material base of society, only the economy and even perhaps only its most material characteristic, productive technology, has any real contributory value and usefulness, with the political and theoretical superstructure being epi-phenomenal.
This is EXTREMELY important. It is, in fact, THE question facing us at the moment (and through all history, as Marx posited), this matter of distilling everything into 'economism'. We're commodifying everything…and I hate to tell ya, but if you think it's already in its terminal stages …hoo-boy!, you ain't even in the ballpark, bubba. It h'ain't even started, Jeeter!! "Productive technology" is what preoccupied Marx, rightly so, and God help the poor slob who thinks we shouldn't mechanize as much as possible…within Humanist constraints. Then the revelation that political and theoretical superstructures are epi-phenomenal (secondary phenomena resulting from and accompanying other phenomena) PERFECTLY explains what's going on all around us: everything is either already subordinated to economism (money lust) or in the process of it.
With that, I leave the readership to contemplate more fully what Osei has written. It's the PERFECT intro to what I'll be discussing. I'd originally intended to run it as an afterword…until I took more time to really ponder what he'd penned and a lightbulb suddenly appeared above my balding pate. You could read three books and not come away with as cogent a core as he's revealed in a few paragraphs. In fact, much of what he's written is completely to the side of what I'll be dissecting, and I have no quibble with it in the least because it's absolutely true, yet it's still very much inherent in the, to quote Bunuel, obscure object of desire we all sweat to unveil: truth. My multi-segmented 100-page essay merely clears up one small-ish but crucial aspect, the facet I think is the most important missing element in our mental processes, one that would, were it adopted universally, usher in that golden era we've been seeking for hundreds of thousands of years. It would revolutionize thinking and then, consequentially, consciousness itself.
And, of course, my radical Grammar book is, I say with all false modesty, the lowly vehicle that would carry forward from that ignition point. You, dear readers, may think I'm an egotitistical shite, and I am, but one day………
NEXT: Dialectics, what it really is and why it may be the most important artifact in any culture and in the world.
The priest tight-fisted with his money and the philosopher tight-fisted with his discoveries are both stealing from the poor. What is more, I think discoveries are only valuable and secure when they circulate among the general mass of people; I am impatient to take them there. - Diderot
...you will learn a little of its nature. You'll feel the rot of it, the leprosy that will not be stamped out, and you'll see that its face is always respectability. - R.A. Lafferty
Every 2012 issue of VERITAS VAMPIRUS is copyright 2012 by Mark S. Tucker but permission is hereby granted for reproduction in any format to any degree, except for profit, so long as the title (VERITAS VAMPIRUS), author (Mark S. Tucker), e-address (firstname.lastname@example.org) and issue and date are quoted in very close proximity to the article. People are encouraged to distribute V.V. as widely as they desire, except to OpEdNews.com, which is forbidden the above in full.
VERITAS VAMPIRUS is not available on any site, but solely as text message e-mail. Any who wish may receive it; just ask. Subscriptions are free. Unlike OpEdNews.com, TruthOut, and all the others, I’m not going to chivy your eyes out for gelt.
VERITAS KINDRED: the following are individuals, groups, and etc. with decidedly Left leanings or are in fact true Lefties (you figger it out). If the links don't work, just cut and paste the URL in the Subject line.
RE-DISTRIBUTE VERITAS VAMPIRUS FAR & WIDE.
PHUQUE PHIL HENDRIE.
Mark S. Tucker is a writer, editor, graphic artist, Commercial Jetliner Systems Analyst (747), martial arts quasi-trainer, paralegal, and holistic medicine interne-practitioner, among myriad other pursuits. He’s been published nationally in i/e, Progression, Expose, Sound Choice, E/I (founding co-editor), OPtion, Signal to Noise, Camera Obscura, and other magazines. On the Net, he intermittently critiques music and conducts musician interviews for Perfect Sound Forever and reviews CDs for the Folk & Acoustic Music Exchange (FAME) and The Buzz About. As well as being a decade-long past member of Rowrbrazzle, a cartoonists / animators / writers society, he was also published at OpEdNews.com - a sickness, granted, but he’s now better, though his 116 articles there were destroyed by the publisher, Rightie-in-hiding Rob Kall. Nonetheless, thousands of his articles and reviews have appeared over the last two decades, often formulated to piss someone off..........you, perhaps?
This e-mail was composed using 100% Free-Range Organic Electrons.