Jeff Webb & the Reality of San Francisco's Terroist War against Homelless

THE RICH YUPPIES LIVE IN HUGE LOFTS AS BELOW. HATERS AGAINST THE ABJECT POOR WHOSE HOMES THEY DISPLACE! PIGS FROM HELL!

 Surveillance Camera Police Snitch Ku Klux Klan in New Internet Culture.

The Minna Street Recycler
i kinda thought i had seen it all. and i figured if i hadn't seen it all then i had seen pretty damn close to it all. but i guess the old dirty alley still has a surprise or two left in her.
it was a pleasant wednesday afternoon. hearing some noise outside i poked out my head to see what was up. hmmm. a naked guy. i wonder where this is going?
what else is there to say about a guy high on smack who is being watched while he is naked and masturbating, lying on minna street between 5th and 6th, at 4:30 on a wednesday afternoon, with a wine bottle shoved up his ass, and with the needles in his hand which he had just "cleaned" using the puddle on the street?
http://www.olddirtyalley.net/2010/09/01/the-minna-street-recycler/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 <h3>HATE HATE HATE. The 21St. Century Yuppies & Reagan Cultists</h3>


Big Brother has arrived
Jeff Weber [sic] has found a good way of getting rid of the crack dealers from the street he lives on, which is near Market Street in San Francisco. Instead of calling the police, he displays the dealers of Stevenson Alley for the whole world to see. On 16 July [2001], the 37-year-old messenger installed a cheap webcam in the window of his room in the Seneca Hotel, which has been his modest home for the last six years. Gunshots, knife fights, dealers with furtive gestures and drug-using bums lighting their pipes: street scenes such as these appear in "real time" on his free web site.
"I want to shame the Mayor and the San Francisco Police, and get them to clean up the neighborhood," explains well-named Jeff Webb, during a conversation that was interrupted several times by the sound of police sirens. When the residents of the neighborhood called the police to complain about the dealers, he affirms, the police said that they were overwhelmed and that, by the time they arrived on the scene, the criminals would have already left. "With the webcam, the police can't say they didn't see anything," Webb says.
This bizarre initiative comes at a time when the video surveillance of public places by the authorities is beginning to alarm the American public. When private cameras are utilized on a public street, "they are always widely known about," reports Jeff Fryrear, director of the National Crime Prevention Institute in Louisville, Kentucky. The personal cameras, which exist in uncounted numbers, are often installed in residential neighborhoods in partnership with law enforcement.
The schools, too. In San Francisco, the provocative webcam receives a lot of praise: following an article about him in The San Francisco Examiner, Jeff Webb says he received dozens of encouraging e-mails. "It's brilliant," says one of these messages. "I have also had enough of the homeless problem in San Francisco, but I've never found a way of attacking the subject in a active fashion." Other residents and a school have said that they will install webcams of their own to surveill their respective neighborhoods. "I have recently seen a dealer point the camera out and ask his clients to go several streets down," Jeff Webb affirms.
Allergic to video surveiilance in all of its forms, the anarcho-situationist collective Surveillance Camera Players (SCP) have many reasons for protesting directly in front of webcams. If a number of citizens have already filmed crime scenes taking place right in front of their eyes (the beating of Rodney King in 1991 is the most famous example), Jeff Webb's gadget raises several new questions. "In principle, a webcam pointing at the street threatens the privacy of those who walk by it," says Dave, also known as "Redmist," the founder of the SCP [sic] and its representative [sic] in San Francisco. "But, in practice, I don't see how, because Mr. Webb has tried to publicize the fact that his webcam is pointing at the street. On the other hand, if it wasn't known to the public, it would constitute a threat to privacy. People wouldn't know that they were being observed."
Legal blurriness. In the legal point of view, blurriness reigns. According to the Privacy Foundation in Washington, American laws concerning the audio recording of private conversations are relatively clear, but those concerning video recording of public places, webcams or not, are quasi-nonexistent. For Redmist, it would be more ethical and effective if one "took photographs of crimes as they were being committed, rather than filming the entire street all the time."
The San Francisco Police have their own doubts about the effectiveness of the web cam of Stevenson Alley. Officer Anna Morales told The San Francisco Examiner that the camera can't distinguish details. Faces, in particular. Where Jeff Webb sees a man who is crying and searching the sidewalk for crumbs of crack, a novice might see a shaking silhouette. The same can be said for his collection of Best Images. "The people who smoke crack hold the pipe the pipe in a certain fashion that is immediately recognizable," Webb maintains.
The idea of webcams all over the United States bothers Bill Brown, co-founder of the Surveillance Camera Players. "When webcams use face recognition software, they will capture faces very clearly," says the guerilla of anti-videosurveillance. For him, clandestine webcams display crime as if it were an entertainment, to the detriment of the criminals and their victims. They banalise the use of surveillance cameras and incite voyeurism.
[Written in French by Emmanuelle Richard and published in the 25-26 August 2001 issue of Liberation. Translated into English by Bill Brown. Note that it appears that Jeff Webb's motives have been misunderstood.]
Contact the Surveillance Camera Punks
By e-mail SCP
By snail mail: SCP c/o NOT BORED! POB 1115, Stuyvesant Station, New York City 10009-9998
Return to
Surveillance Camera Police Snitch Ku Klux Klan in New Internet Culture.

LIFE NOT WORTH LIVING

 1.

 In the minds of many moderns, the horrors of the 20th century represent far off events wholly detached from our present understanding of the world.  They belong in the same mental compartment as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or the barbarian pillages of Rome.  As an icon of evil, Hitler is roughly in the same category as Attila the Hun, representing an extreme and singular perturbation of history, with no cause and no effects, and no relevance to the present day.
As of this writing, however, the 20th century concluded only thirteen years ago.  Let that sink in.  It was not some far off event.  It was practically just yesterday.  The Third Reich concluded ignominiously, even if drenched in the blood of millions, just seventy years ago.  This will be within the lifetime of many readers.  There may even be those alive who remember it;  certainly, there are still many who heard of it not in history books, but out of the mouths of parents and grandparents, from those who endured it first-hand, and may indeed have been a part of toppling it.
Perhaps because of its staggering scale, there is reluctance to look upon the last century with the kind of scrutiny it requires.  Yet it is precisely because of that scale that we must make sure that we learn from it.  To begin with, we must face up to the fact that the atrocities of the 20th century did not spring up out of the universe as historical accidents.  They followed from particular events in human history that paralleled the emergence and dominance of particular philosophies.   Some of these philosophies have become dominant once again.
The bloodbath that was the 20th century did have causes and contributing factors.  The book you have in your hand right now is one of them, but modern readers may have trouble fathoming why on earth that should be the case.  Except for some occasionally jarring language to our modern sensibilities, most of Binding and Hoche’s arguments are within the mainstream of today’s ‘ethical’ thought.
And what is there to object to?  After all, can’t we all agree that a person facing a future of perpetual, intense suffering, is facing a life that is not worth living?  Only a heartless and cruel person could possibly stand in the way of allowing that person a quiet, dignified, and humane release.  Right?  On top of that, considering the fact that there are scarce medical resources available, society has a duty and obligation to ensure that those resources are allocated towards those who can expect a good quality of life.  Right?
Perhaps the reader doesn’t appreciate that characterization of the issue, but it is in fact the kind of language and argumentation being advanced in health care today.  Documenting it is outside the scope of this essay, but for a treatment specifically on the topic, turn to Wesley J. Smith’s Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America.  It has an entire chapter titled “Life Unworthy of  Life” that draws the connection making specific reference to the present book by Binding and Hoche.
The purpose of this essay is different.
Not everyone finds the information that Mr. Smith has documented to be all that disconcerting—obviously, since there must be people out there actually saying and doing those things in order for him to document them.  Indeed, many find the ideas more or less acceptable.  That they happened to be latched onto by the National Socialists is unfortunate, but that doesn’t necessarily discredit them, does it?  Those ideas don’t necessarily have to lead to a holocaust, do they?
For the purpose of this essay, we will suppose that such a thing is hypothetically possible, but it must be strongly stated that if that is to be the case, then it can only be the case if the right lessons are actually drawn from recent history.  As will be argued, it is highly doubtful that this is what has happened.  Lessons have been drawn, but they are the wrong ones.   In the handful of contemporary examples that illustrate this, we will touch on what some of those lessons are, but that also is not the purpose of this essay.
To even begin drawing the right lessons, we have to ask ourselves how it was that something as ‘innocuous’ as Binding and Hoche’s Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life could serve as a catalyst for some of humanity’s worst atrocities.  There are reasons why that was the case, and it is to those reasons we turn to now.  It is to the reader to connect the dots after that.

 2.

 “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Few statements illustrate the human inclination towards self-deception as this one by physicist Steven Weinberg.  If anything, if one were to make an honest assessment from actual history, the correct rendition would be “for good people to do evil things, that takes science.”
Few people today realize that the Nazis, communists, fascists, and Marxists that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century all believed that A., they were good people and B., they were acting on scientific principles.   Insofar as it is recognized, their schemes and operating principles are now regarded as ‘pseudo-scientific.’   Naturally, the people at the time did not view it as pseudo at all.  Whether or not present day attitudes on what we regard as ‘scientific’ will be labeled as ‘pseudo-scientific’ in fifty years remains to be seen.  Fish do not know they are wet.
Invoking the term ‘pseudo-science’ usually comes without any analysis of what, in particular, made it pseudo.   Sometimes that analysis leaves us with the uncomfortable sense that perhaps the ‘blame’ has been put in the wrong places.  As a case in point, consider the argument put forward by modern (and avowed) eugenicist, Julian Savulescu, the editor of journal on medical ethics in a Reader’s Digest article:

Much of the unease about designer babies comes from the work of the 20th-century eugenics movement. It tried to use selective breeding to weed out criminals, the insane and the poor, based on the false belief that such conditions were caused only by genetic disorders. It reached its inglorious climax when the Nazis moved beyond sterilization to exterminate the “genetically unfit”. [emphasis mine]

I emphasized the word ‘only’ to ask this question:  “And so, if their belief had been accurate, and criminals, the insane and the poor, were in fact caused only by genetic disorders, would that have made the Nazi effort proper and justified?”
Ironically, Savulescu goes on to advocate for selective breeding for psychological traits that he implies only have a genetic basis, “such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and dispositions to violence.”  He says:  “[Y]ou could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.”
One comes away from Savulescu’s dismissal of the Nazi horror as less-than-scientific without being greatly comforted:  his argument seems to be more or less the same.  He only requires better information—a more scientific basis for his ‘selective breeding.’
It would seem that the Nazi premise remains sound, they just didn’t have their facts right.
“National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said Nazi thug, Rudolf Hess.  Savulescu and Hess seem to only disagree about the nature of that application.  Both seem to believe that the biological ‘facts on the ground’ lend themselves to res ipsa loquitur,  “the thing speaks for itself.”  They differ on the nature of the thing, so their application is also somewhat differ, but the core premise remains intact:
Whatever we conclude about the nature of humans and particular humans has implications that ‘speak for themselves.’
In framing it in this way, we now have a glimpse into how Binding and Hoche’s work could have morphed into the horrors that it did.  When one is talking poppycock about religion and ethics, one is in the domain of mere opinion.  When one is talking about science, one is talking about the world as it really is.  It is not the sort of thing to get squeamish about.[1]
Binding begins his part of the essay by saying, “The scientific clarification of the pertinent starting point is however so essential…”
Binding believes that he is proceeding along scientific lines as he reconciles German law with the propriety of destroying an ‘unworthy life.’
He goes out of his way to dispense with religious rationale, which has no place in secular society.  He specifically targets Christianity, labeling the Church’s refusal to let people die ‘good deaths’ as unchristian.   Binding believes he is standing on the firm ground of scientific reality:  “I can find absolutely no reason, from a legal, social, moral, religious point of view, not to allow those that want it, to kill those beyond salvation, who desperately desire it.”
Indeed, he believes that his is the compassionate view, saying that it stems “from the deepest compassion.”
Or, to put it another way, given what he knows about compassion, and what he knows about people, allowing people to kill themselves is self-evidently the proper position for a scientifically minded person exhibiting “cool calculated logic.”
It is this notion that certain conclusions follow self-evidently from scientific ‘truths’ that lies behind the 20th century global eugenics movement.  The same notion drove on the Marxists and the Nazis.  The same unspoken presumption is with us today, unnoticed, and therefore not repudiated.
Clearly, though, that notion is not enough to get us from this document to the Holocaust.
Let’s take it from a different angle.  Today, when the Nazis are remembered they are remembered as being fierce racists.  Their anti-semitism, of course, is well known, but they also despised black people, gypsies, and pretty much anyone that did not have blond hair and blue eyes.  Their despising was not of the visceral, sentimental sort.  It was the cool, dispassionate, scientific sort;  these despised groups of people reflected deficiencies within the human species that were continuing to propagate and pollute ‘good stock.’
To understand how even-handed the Nazis were in this outlook, it is important to recall that before there were extermination camps, there was the T4 program.  In the T4 program, disabled Germans of all ages were rounded up and quietly gassed.   Read that again:  these were Germans.  Even former German war heroes were not safe from Germany’s public ‘health’ policies—for that is what they were seen as:  public health policies.
The racial component is important in understanding the Holocaust but it cannot be seen as the root cause.  The National Socialists had in view all who were biologically inferior.   “National Socialism is applied biology,” after all.
This viewpoint is central in explaining how Binding and Hoche’s work served as such an important catalyst, but to understand why it must be put into greater context.
For that, it is necessary to at least make mention of the so-called “Age of Enlightenment.”  In Germany, this culminated with Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God was dead.’  No longer held back by “religious beliefs, sentimental feelings and so on,” the Germans, as with like-minded individuals in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, citizens were busily constructing new moralities based on new scientific facts.  The 1800s was a century of optimism.
However, there was a difference between the attitudes and approaches espoused by those in the first half of the 1800s compared to those espoused in the second half.  In the first five decades or so, Thomas Malthus’s argument that human conflict was the result of overpopulation competing for scarce natural resources led to various ruminations about how to handle that ‘problem.’[2]
Much of this talk was aimed at the poor, and the poor often were of different ethnicity than the people offering their proposals.  One had their prejudice, but there it sat, as mere prejudice.  One could not re-order society around it because one could not present it as anything more than “one man’s opinion.”
Then there was the opposite view of the Church, which held that all people were made in the image of God, with their own intrinsic value.  In England, slavery was abolished by Christians who believed that proposition with their whole being.  In America, the Church was more complicit in the slave trade, but even there the sentiment against it was high and hostile.  There was, after all, a civil war over the matter.   But religion consists exclusively of opinions, and have even less authority than opinions normally do.  Even so, whether it is the idea that humans are made in the image of God or just higher animals, they are just ideas that some people hold.  They are not weighty enough to force your fellowman to fall in line with them.
Then came Charles Darwin in 1859 who, in his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ended the dispute decisively, putting one set of opinions on the firm foundation of scientific fact—the Malthusian outlook—and disproving the religious one.[3]  At least, that was how it was instantly perceived—and is still perceived to this day.
Darwin’s evolutionary theory soon was firmly accepted within the scientific establishment and the implications were instantly grasped and acted on.  Men like Francis Galton began openly discussing the need for ‘eugenics’ programs of various kinds.[4]  In America, these and other proposals took on additional impetus due to the abolition of slavery after the civil war.  Hundreds of thousands of freed slaves began to gravitate to the cities.  Unable to fend for themselves, they were taxing public resources.  They were ignorant, illiterate, feeble-minded idiots that obviously were biologically inferior compared to those of northern European stock.
After Darwin, the prejudice and racism that had previously existed as mere sentiment became something new:  scientific racism.   It was now grounded in reality, as proved by science.  Now it was possible to take actions based on the absolute conviction that one was not merely playing to their own sensitivities, but rather were acting in view of cold, hard, scientific fact.  And if anyone had any doubts, they needed only look to the negroes.  Nothing better illustrated the importance of quick and decisive application of biological principles.
The establishment of Darwinism as the fact among anyone with half a brain brought with it two important ramifications that sprung up at the same time and in the same strength.  On the one hand, the philosophical question about whether or not humans were just another kind of animal was now answered definitively in the affirmative.  On the other hand, humanity could no longer be seen in terms of a collection of individuals, but rather as an organic whole, as reflected by the workings of the State.[5]  These two perspectives had the imprimatur of unassailable science, and citizens in American and Europe began working apace based on those ‘facts.’
In Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, Hoche argues:

 The mentally dead possess an intellectual level, which we first find at the very bottom of the animal chain, and also the emotions that they feel do not rise above the bar of the most elementary processes, which are associated with animal life.

Therefore, a mentally dead person is also not capable of raising an inner subjective claim to life, just as poorly as he would be capable of other mental processes.

This latter point only appears to be unnecessary; in truth, it has its meaning in the sense that the disposal of a mentally dead person does not equate to any other death. From a purely legal point of view, the destruction of a human life already never means the same.

 The distinction between humans and ‘animal life’ is not drawn very brightly, for Dr. Hoche.  Not all deaths are the same.  The ‘disposal’ of a mentally dead person—that is, someone exhibiting an intellect at the level we see among animals—is not the same kind of death as other deaths.
But it is wrong to think only in terms of the individual and his well-being and suffering, according to Hoche.  Society itself must endure the burden of these ‘useless eaters.’  He says:

 Seen from the point of view of a higher civil morality, there is no doubt that exaggerations are being exercised in the striving for the absolute preservation of unworthy life. We have learned, from someone else’s point of view, to consider in this respect the state organism as a whole with its own laws and rights, in the same way as, for instance, it would be for a self-contained human organism, which, as us doctors know, surrenders and rejects individual parts or particles that have become worthless or damaged  in the interest of the well-being of the whole.

 Who is this ‘someone’ and what is the ‘point of view’ that Hoche refers to?  Whoever this person is, their ideas are a deviation from the “collaboration of the Christian set of ideas” which lead to an exaggerated effort to preserve ‘life unworthy of life.’  He probably does not refer to a particular person’s point of view but rather an entirely different framework of understanding, a scientific one, based on Darwinism, that eschews the individual and compels them to look to “the state organism as a whole with its own laws and rights.”  Just as individual humans jettison “parts or particles that have become worthless or damaged in the interest of the well-being of the whole”, the state organism needs to do the same;  nay, it is required to, if it is to remain healthy.  Death isn’t bad.  It is actually good, because it strengthens the ‘body.’
The import and impact of such notions will vary based on the culture in which it appears.  As Binding and Hoche wrote, the first world war had just concluded, with Germany by far the worst for it.   It is in this context that Hoche writes:

 From an economic point of view, these complete retards, just as they meet from very early on all the prerequisites to be classified as fully mentally dead, they would also be at the same time those, whose existence weighs heaviest on society.

 He then goes on to calculate the cost required to “care for the retarded” into the billions.  That, he says, is just a fraction of the total burden on the state that these people represent, as it does not include all of the private institutions and the ‘care personnel’ that are ‘tied up’ by the maintenance “of these empty human shells, some of whom live to be 70 or older.”[6]

 The question of whether the necessary expenditure for these categories of cumbersome existence is justified at any cost, was not a pressing one in the past years of prosperity; now things are different, and we must seriously deal with it.

 In other words, Germany was ripe to see members of its society as ‘ballast’ and ‘dead-weight.’  All of science—in Germany, in England, in the United States—was poised to view humanity in collective, biological, terms, where there was a competition for scarce resources… most of those resources being consumed by inferior elements.  But in Germany, following its humiliation in the war, they saw in these scientifically based constructs a way forward:

 Also, with respect to the scientific and moral burden on the environment, the mental institution, the state, etc, the feeble-minded are never worth the same. [emphasis added]

Hoche said that “the state organism as a whole” had “its own laws and rights.”  This sentiment was universally shared at the time and is common today.  When Hitler and the National Socialists moved to purge Germany of the weak and burdensome just thirteen years later, they believed they were acting scientifically and with good intentions.  They were merely operating at a level of “higher civil morality”, the plane of morality beyond the individual, the plane that manifests only at the level of the State, the state organism, and the species.
Like Binding, Hoche believed that his was the compassionate view:

 This image will also later show itself in this cultural question of ours. There was a time, which we now view as barbaric, in which the disposal of those born with unlivable conditions was considered natural, and then came the still on-going phase, in which the preservation of any whatsoever worthless existence is ultimately considered the highest moral requirement; there will be a new time, which, from the point of view of a higher morality, will stop to constantly translate into action the demand of a wild humanity concept and an over-protection of the values of existence with heavy sacrifices.

 From the foregoing, the rough outlines of how Binding and Hoche’s book was so well-received in Germany should be clear, but it still doesn’t explain how it was that it was a catalyst.
Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche were not Nazis.  They were not National Socialists.  They were academics.  Binding was a well-regarded attorney and Hoche was an experienced doctor.  But this is precisely why their views proved instrumental.  It is because they were well-respected scholars giving their dispassionate, rational, judgment on whether or not it was ethical to ‘dispose’ of the ‘unworthy’ that their arguments had the weight it did.  It was because they weren’t radical ideologues, but sober academics, that their positions were taken as seriously as they were.
Moreover, who took their arguments seriously is critical to observe.  It was the doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers that implemented and designed the T4 program and later administrated the extermination camps.  It is a myth that these operations were manned by SS thugs pulled out of the German beer halls, willy-nilly.   In the words of one survivor of a German concentration camp, the doctors ran it all.[7]
The German ‘war on the weak’ was viewed by the National Socialists as a medical ‘treatment.’  Their whole political party was regarded as ‘applied biology.’
Hoche, who was married to a Jew and would have one of his own relatives caught up in the Nazi medical dragnet, clearly did not anticipate that his very own ideas could be taken in the direction and extent that they ended up going.  This is certainly the case with Binding, who died in 1920.  In this book, both put some considerable emphasis on the ‘consenting’ and ‘voluntary’ nature of the ideas they were proposing.[8]  This philosophical distinction did not prove to be a very high hurdle for the Nazis on their way to exercising “the state organism’s […] own laws and rights.”
In contrasting what the Nazis did with what he proposes, Savulescu says, “But what was especially objectionable about this movement was the coercive imposition of a state vision for a healthy population,” he says.  “Modern eugenics […] is voluntary.”
Savulescu makes the same mistake that Binding and Hoche do, failing to understand that the logic undergirding his own arguments undercut autonomy and ‘voluntariness.’  The ‘state organism’ has its ‘own laws and rights.’  Humans emerged through the survival of the fittest;  by preserving the lives of the unfit, we act in defiance of evolutionary principles, and ‘sicken’ the ‘organic whole.’  He says, “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. […] We can do better than chance.”
Binding and Hoche would have been annoyed with the fact that their book would become linked with the Holocaust.  They were just having ‘a conversation.’  Savulescu, likewise, chafes at the outrage inspired by his ideas or the forum he gives to similar ones.
Two of his friends in academia, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published an article titled “After-birth abortion:  why should the baby live” in Savulescu’s journal.  Their argument is that a born child is not fundamentally different than an unborn child, so if we accept aborting an unborn child, we should not have any objection to aborting born children.  This is offensive… but they are correct.  Based on their notions of what people really are (just another kind of animal) and in what sense people have value (only insofar as society or the state assigns it), they are correct.  So, if you accept those premises yourself but find yourself repulsed by their viewpoint, you have a problem.  You are not being consistent.  They are.  But I digress… though only slightly.
Giubilini and Minerva say:

 Nonetheless, to bring up such children[9] might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.

 Here, in a publication from 2012, is a concise restatement of Binding and Hoche’s own arguments and approach.  It is but a very small step from this to a state acting according to its own interests based on ‘laws and rights’ that manifest at the level of the state—setting aside the interests of the parents completely.  The only difference with the Nazis is that they made that step.
Giubilini and Minerva don’t take that step, but ‘bioethicist’ Jacob Appel inches very close to the edge, arguing that only doctors and state officials have the objectivity required to do the ‘compassionate’ thing and end a ‘life unworthy of life.’[10]  Appel says that such ‘neonatal euthanasia’ is the “inevitable consequence of our progress toward liberal humanism.”[11]
Echoing similar strains, Julian Savulescu came to Giubilini and Minerva’s defense saying,

 As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion. […]

The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject. […]

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.  [emphasis added]

 You see, says Savulescu, these ideas are not new.  Singer, Tooley, Harris… and Binding and Hoche… have all made them as well.  They are not being advocated, rather, they are merely providing sober conclusions from the facts.  The ideas merely “proceed from premises which many people accept.”  The scholars are not radical ideologues.  They are well-respected academics merely participating in “the very values of a liberal society.”  What could possibly go wrong?
Savulescu, Giubilini, Minerva, and Appel do not imagine that their arguments and positions could possibly lead to any kind of atrocity a decade hence.  For them, ideas are toys.  They are playthings for intellectuals.  They are not men and women of action.   But men and women of action are everywhere.  Like the aforementioned scholars, these men and women of action believe they are good people.  In fact, we will assume they are.  Our men and women of action do not see themselves as ‘bioethicists.’  Most consider these issues ‘above their pay grade.’  They are relying on people like Savulescu, etc, to find answers to these difficult questions for them, and are thankful for their efforts.  Likewise, the scientists and medical professionals in Germany throughout the 1920s were thankful that Binding and Hoche did the heavy lifting for them.  And why not?   That’s why we have experts.
That is the final ingredient that converted the academic musings of Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life into one of history’s worst nightmares.
Let us see if we can sum up some of the right lessons to draw from the horrors of the 20th century.[12]
1.  Deference to ‘experts,’ including deference by ‘experts’ to other ‘experts,’ is dangerous.  Any such deference must be thoughtful and deliberative and not automatic.  The power and authority of ‘experts’ must be subject to checks and balances like any other power and authority.
2.  Allowing ethical considerations regarding life and death to be linked to the interests of the ‘social organism’ is dangerous.
3.  Believing that there is one set of moral principles for the ‘individual’ and another set for the ‘social organism’ is dangerous.
4.  Asserting that certain ethical considerations, behaviors, and attitudes flow directly from scientific data is dangerous.
5.  Behaving as though ideas—even grotesque, inhuman, ideas—can be carefully considered for their relative merits as though they have no consequences or implications is dangerous.
Now, in calling these things ‘dangerous,’ the purpose is not to dismiss them out of hand.  Remember, we are leaving open the possibility that one really could have a conversation about, say, for example, killing born children just because they have a disability, without anyone actually trying to implement it in the real world—ever.  What happened with Binding and Hoche’s work is that their ideas found an audience in a particular culture that was uniquely primed to embrace and implement them.  Can we be so certain that ten years from now there will not be another similar society?
Does it matter that our own culture has embraced these attitudes but our governments lack the ‘free hand’ that the National Socialists had in implementing them?  That is, if these ideas are pervasive even now, does the fact that some modern democracies presently serve as a check against abuses provide any comfort, especially as various governments move to insulate themselves against those checks and balances?[13]
These questions are left for your consideration.  The worst thing you could do is ignore them, for failing to learn the lessons of history, while not necessarily destining you to repeat them, certainly opens up the very real possibility that you could make them again, without even knowing you are doing it.

 3.

 The previous section began by implicating ‘science’ in the mass murder of millions of people.  Certainly, the accusation is justified when we take into account that the people doing the murdering believed they were acting on scientific principles, regardless of our modern dismissal of their views as ‘pseudo-scientific.’  However, the accusation is not entirely fair (just as assigning blame to ‘religion’ is not fair).  Since understanding how it is not fair can help us to not repeat the mistakes of the good intentioned 20th century men and women more than casually labeling their work as ‘pseudo-scientific’ would, it is worth touching on the topic.
Simply stated:  You cannot get an ought from an is.
You cannot get from “This projectile is moving 500 feet per second” to “I am justified in directing that projectile into your body.”  You cannot get from the invention of the atom bomb to the morality of deploying it from the physical facts concerning the atom bomb alone.  Things and physical processes are morally and ethically neutral.
The idea that evolutionary theory entailed certain conclusions and implications self-evidently was central to the calamities that followed.
Real science is grounded in the empirically observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.  Anything that is truly scientific in nature could never be parleyed into a justification for any behavior of any kind.  For that, you need moral argumentation.   No tyrant has ever begun with the observation that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit and from that proceeded to justify executing someone.
Eugenics conflated its understanding of evolutionary theory as rock solid scientific fact with intrinsic moral implications.  Even granting that their understanding of evolutionary theory is accurate and comports with reality, moral implications do not necessarily follow.
There is a problem with this analysis, though.  Evolutionary theory is supposed to account for every aspect of the human being.  Through natural selection, our brains and bodies and so on and so forth have changed over time resulting finally in the human species.  If one jettisons God from this analysis—and most evolutionists believe one should—then even our moral behavior is the result of unguided (by definition!) selective processes over time.   ‘Morality’ is an artifact, the result of physical processes as much as our ear lobes are.
It is not the purpose of this essay to delve into this important issue, but it is worth pointing out that if someone studiously avoided drawing an ought from an is, they would never fall into the trap of thinking there could be anything such thing as ‘applied biology.’  The ethical dimensions would be understood to be something separate and distinct, and so evaluated separately.  If our actions, attitudes, and mental activity is reduced to biological ‘stuff’ that distinction would be hard to make, but it is theoretically possible to make it.
Whether or not an evolutionary worldview can justify making such a distinction is a topic for another day and is one more thing submitted for your consideration.[14]

4.

 Battle lines have developed around the horrors of the 20th century.  Weinberg, you will recall, said it takes religion to make good people do evil things.  There is a great effort to pin the Hitler and the Holocaust on Christians, and in the spirit of ‘ideas have consequences’, secular humanists have tried to argue that really, really, really bad things will happen if religious people are able to express their religious views within the public sphere—the Holocaust a case in point.
Note the conflation of Christianity with religion, as though there were no other religions in existence.  Certainly, there are ways in which the Nazis can be shown to have embraced things we might properly call ‘religious’ in nature. These things, in the main, were pagan, not Christian.  They were chosen because they were consistent with the Nazi’s ‘scientific racism.’
This matter cannot be settled here, but as you will soon see, Christianity was seen as an obstacle in the way of the really compassionate program of ending ‘lives unworthy of life.’
Indeed, the lawyer Binding specifically says “that religious reasons hold no evidential value in the eyes of the Law.”  He adds, “the Law is secular through and through.”  Here, then, you see in 1920’s Germany a very firm endorsement of a notion that has wide currency today in the United States, the notion that in secular affairs there must be a strict ‘separation of church and state.’[15]
Moreover, both Binding and Hoche exhibit contempt for Christianity’s historic defense of ‘lives unworthy of life’ and see their views as diametrically opposed.    Binding regards the Church’s opposition to a ‘right to suicide’ as unchristian.  He is pleased to report that this right has been “fully re-won […]  apart from very few less evolved countries.” [emphasis added.]  Hoche regards the time “in which the preservation of any whatsoever worthless existence is ultimately considered the highest moral requirement” as barbaric.
Binding says, and repeats:  “I can find absolutely no reason, from a legal, social, moral, religious point of view, not to allow those that want it, to kill those beyond salvation, who desperately desire it.”
Both Binding and Hoche believe that their even-handed approach to the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs.  What Christians in the past had regarded as barbaric, Binding and Hoche endorse.  What Binding and Hoche regard as barbaric, the Church embraced.
What the National Socialists proceeded to do with Binding and Hoche’s rationales in mind they did dispassionately, without being encumbered by old, outdated, discarded doctrines about the sanctity of life.
Whether or not religious elements, and even ones with Christian aspects, surfaced in other areas of the Third Reich, their killing programs were seen by them as part of their secular efforts.

 Anthony Horvath, PhD

---

[1] Savulescu says that the refusal to engage in rational selection “is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.”

[2] Not that Malthus was the first to put the notion out there.  Jonathan Swift’s 1729 A Modest Proposal, which (satirically) suggested that poor Irish people solve their economic problems by selling their children off as food, was a response to other kinds of proposals then common, which he felt were just as evil and absurd.

[3] Darwin actually credits Malthus as being an important influence on his thinking.  What Darwin added to the Malthusian outlook was the idea that in the competition for scarce resources, some parts of the population would die, leaving only the stronger parts.  In this way, death was actually a vehicle by which a population was improved.  ‘Natural Selection’ was a creative power; indeed, it was the explanation for how all life came to be.

[4] It was Galton, Darwin’s cousin, who coined the word ‘eugenics’ in 1883.  He thought that Eugenics “must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly.”  From an address to the Sociological Society in 1904 titled Eugenics:  Its Definition, Scope, and Aims.

[5] This is not an assessment about what Darwinism logically entails, but rather a simple recounting of the actual developments according to the record of history.

[6] Margaret Sanger makes a similar argument in her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization.  She rails against ‘charity’ and all of the money being wasted on the ‘unfit.’

[7] According to the words of one concentration camp prisoner-doctor, as recorded in Robert Jay Clifton’s The Nazi Doctors, “[Doctors] managed the situation… at the infirmary… selections,… at the station… the crematoria… They were everywhere.” pg 202.

[8] Binding more explicitly than Hoche, but realize that Hoche felt that the mentally retarded were on the level of the animals, for whom no ‘consent’ was possible, and therefore not really relevant.

[9] Disabled children, such as children with Down Syndrome.

[10] My characterization;  Appel of course doesn’t use the phrase, but the meaning is more or less the same.

[11] Jacob Appel, Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent? Bioethical Inquiry (2009).

[12] I hope by now it is realized that the Holocaust is not by any means the only atrocity referred to and Nazism the only place where the ideas under examination were, and are, held.

[13] For example, in Britain, with the Liverpool Care Pathway, or in the United States with the coming implementation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will have the power to decide who gets what care, based on the standards that it alone is able to set and consider.

[14] Francis Collins is an avowed evolutionist who disdains Intelligent Design and Creationism who nonetheless does not believe evolutionary theory properly accounts for morality.  As a former head of the Human Genome Project, his credentials as an evolutionist are impeccable.  However, he has persuaded few of his fellow evolutionists to his view.  While he has become a Christian, most of his peers remain atheists.

[15] Hitler takes a very similar view, saying, “I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not that we have deserted Christianity; it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics, which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine of the Confessions or with their religious freedom, nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.”

S.C.U.M. Manifesto

1. S.C.U.M. Manifesto

(Society for Cutting Up Men)

by Valerie Solanas

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

1.    The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't.

Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.
Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.
Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is pyschically passive. He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the make as active, then sets out to prove that he is (`prove that he is a Man'). His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece). Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must `prove' it again and again. Screwing, then, is a desperate compulsive, attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman; but he is passive and does want to be a woman.

1.  

Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through an fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto women all male traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc. It should be said, though, that the male has one glaring area of superiority over the female -- public relations. (He has done a brilliant job of convincing millions of women that men are women and women are men). The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality reflects what males think they'd find fulfilling if they were female.
Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females thing men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from `being a woman'. Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female. He is responsible for:

• War: The male's normal compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he's a `Man'. Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless amount of mutilation and suffering and an endless number of lives, including his own -- his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than to plod grimly on for fifty more years.

• Niceness, Politeness, and `Dignity': Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit. Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a `social' code that ensures perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace or feeling or upsetting opinion. He uses terms like `copulate', `sexual congress', `have relations with' (to men sexual relations is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.

• Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

1. 1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.

1. 2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

1. 3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.

1. 4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.

1. 5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!

1. 6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

• Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect'), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an `enlightened' father, to `give guidance'. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually -- he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him. Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength. Never getting one's way leads to lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn't preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them -- if they're `good', that is, if they're nice, `respectful', obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system -- in other words, if they're passive vegetables. If they're not `good', he doesn't get angry -- not if he's a modern, `civilized' father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised) -- but rather express disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with the feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession wit being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.

For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept of `familiarity breeds contempt', which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible. By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and thereby, to inspire fear (`respect').
Disapproval of emotional `scenes' leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one's own anger and hatred. Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one's own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.

The affect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them `Men', that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a `Man'. The boy, scared shitless of and `respecting' his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of `Man'-hood, the all-American ideal -- the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.

The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is

It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and more widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s. The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the `privileged' middle class girls, getting `educated'.

• The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood), and Functionalism: The male is just a bunch of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to he earliest conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences. His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her. It never becomes completely clear to the make that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.
His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror -- themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent `out in the world' grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities -- eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama. Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the `respect' if any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the tiny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits


The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society -- the `privileged, educated' middle-class, the backwash of humanity -- where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labour pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits. It's not for the kids sake, though, that the `experts' tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy's; the tits for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).

Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male. He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you're in relation to. Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.

The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions -- doctor, president, scientist -- therefore providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego if the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female. In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks.

• In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover, invent, solve problems crack jokes, make music -- all with love. In other words, create a magic world.

Prevention of Privacy: Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused -- he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a `society' based upon the family -- a male-female could and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupuluously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.

• Isolation, Suburbs, and Prevention of Community: Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units. Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is, so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids. Isolation enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual nu becoming a `rugged individualist', a loner, equating non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality.

There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island. Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people. So like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy's little asshole with him to the wilderness, suburbs, or, in the case of the hippy -- he's way out, Man! -- all the way out to the cow pasture where he can fuck and breed undisturbed and mess around with his beads and flute.

The `hippy', whose desire to be a `Man', a `rugged individualist', isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman. In the name of sharing and cooperation, he forms a commune or tribe, which, for all its togetherness and partly because of it, (the commune, being an extended family, is an extended violation of the female's rights, privacy and sanity) is no more a community than normal `society'.

A true community consists of individuals -- not mere species members, not couples -- respecting each others individuality and privacy, at the same time interacting with each other mentally and emotionally -- free spirits in free relation to each other -- and co-operating with each other to achieve common ends. Traditionalists say the basic unit of `society' is the family; `hippies' say the tribe; no one says the individual.

The `hippy' babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man. He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities -- farming, fucking, bead stringing. The most important activity of the commune, the one upon which it is based, is gang-banging. The `hippy' is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect for free pussy -- the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking, but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness for the pussies themselves.
Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure; each `hippy' will, in panic, grad the first simpleton who digs him and whisks her off to the suburbs as fast as he can. The male cannot progress socially, but merely swings back and forth from isolation to gang-banging.

• Conformity: Although he wants to be an individual, the male is scared of anything in himself that is the slightest bit different from other men, it causes him to suspect that he's not really a `Man', that he's passive and totally sexual, a highly upsetting suspicion. If other men are "A" and he's not, he must not be a man; he must be a fag. So he tries to affirm his `Manhood' by being like all the other men. Differentness in other men, as well as himself, threatens him; it means they're fags whom he must at all costs avoid, so he tries to make sure that all other men conform.

The male dares to be different to the degree that he accepts his passivity and his desire to be female, his fagginess. The farthest out male is the drag queen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all the other drag queens like the functionalist, he has an identity -- he is female. He tries to define all his troubles away -- but still no individuality. Not completely convinced that he's a woman, highly insecure about being sufficiently female, he conforms compulsively to the man-made stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.

To be sure he's a `Man', the male must see to it that the female be clearly a `Woman', the opposite of a `Man', that is, the female must act like a faggot. And Daddy's Girl, all of whose female instincts were wrenched out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.

• Authority and Government: Having no sense of right and wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from having an ability to empathize with others... having no faith in his non-existent self, being unnecessarily competitive, and by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities -- priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc -- and government. Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a MAN), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.

There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.

• Philosophy, Religion, and Morality Based on Sex: The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven.

For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, `wrong' is sexual `license' and engaging in `deviant' (`unmanly') sexual practices, that is, not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy `civilization', since `civilization' is based entirely upon the male need to defend himself against these characteristics. For a woman (according to men), `wrong' is any behavior that would entice men into sexual `license' -- that is, not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.
Religion not only provides the male with a goal (Heaven) and helps keep women tied to men, but offers rituals through which he can try to expiate the guilt and shame he feels at not defending himself enough against his sexual impulses; in essence, that guilt and shame he feels at being male.

Most men men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that make lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, post their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their `Identity Problem', and proceed to prattle on pompously about the `Crisis of the Individual', the `Essence of Being', `Existence preceding Essence', `Existential Modes of Being', etc. etc.

A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love.

• Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc): The male needs scapegoats onto whom he can project his failings and inadequacies and upon whom he can vent his frustration at not being female. And the vicarious discriminations have the practical advantage of substantially increasing the pussy pool available to the men on top.

• Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes: Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the make constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, `high' social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.

The purpose of `higher' education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.

The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally: he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they're just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others. On the contrary, the male has a vested interest in ignorance; it gives the few knowledgeable men a decided edge on the unknowledgeable ones, and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him. The healthy, conceited female wants the company of equals whom she can respect and groove on; the male and the sick, insecure, unself-confident male female crave the company of worms.

No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male `rebel' is a farce; this is the male's `society', made by him to satisfy his needs. He's never satisfied, because he's not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male `rebel' is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when `society' reaches the stage where he must change or die. We're at that stage now; if women don't get their asses in gear fast, we may very well all die.

• Prevention of Conversation: Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's `conversation', when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value. Male `intellectual conversation' is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.

Daddy's Girl, passive, adaptable, respectful of and in awe of the male, allows him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her. This is not too difficult for her, as the tension and anxiety, the lack of cool, the insecurity and self-doubt, the unsureness of her own feelings and sensations that Daddy instilled in her make her perceptions superficial and render her unable to see that the male's babble is babble; like the aesthete `appreciating' the blob that's labeled `Great Art', she believes she's grooving on what bores the shit out of her. Not only does she permit his babble to dominate, she adapts her own `conversation' accordingly.
Trained from an early childhood in niceness, politeness and `dignity', in pandering to the male need to disguise his animalism, she obligingly reduces her own `conversation' to small talk, a bland, insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial -- or is `educated', to `intellectual' discussion, that is, impersonal discoursing on irrelevant distractions -- the Gross National Product, the Common Market, the influence of Rimbaud on symbolist painting. So adept is she at pandering that it eventually becomes second nature and she continues to pander to men even when in the company of other females only.

Apart from pandering, her `conversation' is further limited by her insecurity about expressing deviant, original opinions and the self-absorption based on insecurity and that prevents her conversation from being charming. Niceness, politeness, `dignity', insecurity and self-absorption are hardly conducive to intensity and wit, qualities a conversation must have to be worthy of the name. Such conversation is hardly rampant, as only completely self-confident, arrogant, outgoing, proud, tough-minded females are capable of intense, bitchy, witty conversation.

• Prevention of Friendship (Love): Men have contempt for themselves, for all other men whom they contemplate more than casually and whom they do not think are females, (for example `sympathetic' analysts and `Great Artists') or agents of God and for all women who respect and pander to them: the insecure, approval-seeking, pandering male-females have contempt for themselves and for all women like them: the self-confident, swinging, thrill-seeking female females have contempt for me and for the pandering male females. In short, contempt is the order of the day.

Love is not dependency or sex, but friendship, and therefore, love can't exist between two males, between a male and a female, or between two females, one or both of whom is a mindless, insecure, pandering male; like conversation, live can exist only between two secure, free-wheeling, independent groovy female females, since friendship is based upon respect, not contempt.

Even amongst groovy females deep friendships seldom occur in adulthood, as almost all of them are either tied up with men in order to survive economically, or bogged down in hacking their way through the jungle and in trying to keep their heads about the amorphous mass. Love can't flourish in a society based upon money and meaningless work: it requires complete economic as well as personal freedom, leisure time and the opportunity to engage in intensely absorbing, emotionally satisfying activities which, when shared with those you respect, lead to deep friendship. Our `society' provides practically no opportunity to engage in such activities.

Having stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love, the male offers us these paltry substitutes:

• `Great Art' and `Culture': The male `artist' attempts to solve his dilemma of not being able to live, of not being female, by constructing a highly artificial world in which the male is heroized, that is, displays female traits, and the female is reduced to highly limited, insipid subordinate roles, that is, to being male.

The male `artistic' aim being, not to communicate (having nothing inside him he has nothing to say), but to disguise his animalism, he resorts to symbolism and obscurity (`deep' stuff). The vast majority of people, particularly the `educated' ones, lacking faith in their own judgment, humble, respectful of authority (`Daddy knows best'), are easily conned into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, ambiguity and boredom are marks of depth and brilliance.

`Great Art' proves that men are superior to women, that men are women, being labeled `Great Art', almost all of which, as the anti-feminists are fond of reminding us, was created by men. We know that `Great Art' is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can't claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciated the slop they appreciated.

Appreciating is the sole diversion of the `cultivated'; passive and incompetent, lacking imagination and wit, they must try to make do with that; unable to create their own diversions, to create a little world of their own, to affect in the smallest way their environments, they must accept what's given; unable to create or relate, they spectate. Absorbing `culture' is a desperate, frantic attempt to groove in an ungroovy world, to escape the horror of a sterile, mindless, existence. `Culture' provides a sop to the egos of the incompetent, a means of rationalizing passive spectating; they can pride themselves on their ability to appreciate the `finer' things, to see a jewel where this is only a turd (they want to be admired for admiring). Lacking faith in their ability to change anything, resigned to the status quo, they have to see beauty in turds because, so far as they can see, turds are all they'll ever have.

The veneration of `Art' and `Culture' -- besides leading many women into boring, passive activity that distracts from more important and rewarding activities, from cultivating active abilities, and leads to the constant intrusion on our sensibilities of pompous dissertations on the deep beauty of this and that turn. This allows the `artist' to be setup as one possessing superior feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments, thereby undermining the faith of insecure women in the value and validity of their own feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments.

The male, having a very limited range of feelings, and consequently, very limited perceptions, insights and judgments, needs the `artist' to guide him, to tell him what life is all about. But the male `artist' being totally sexual, unable to relate to anything beyond his own physical sensations, having nothing to express beyond the insight that for the male life is meaningless and absurd, cannot be an artist. How can he who is not capable of life tell us what life is all about? A `male artist' is a contradiction in terms. A degenerate can only produce degenerate `art'. The true artist is every self-confident, healthy female, and in a female society the only Art, the only Culture, will be conceited, kooky, funky, females grooving on each other and on everything else in the universe.
Sexuality: Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time. The female can easily -- far more easily than she may think -- condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks out constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape. The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to -- when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.

Sex is the refuge of the mindless. And the more mindless the woman, the more deeply embedded in the male `culture', in short, the nicer she is, the more sexual she is. The nicest women in our `society' are raving sex maniacs. But, being just awfully, awfully nice, they don't, of course descend to fucking -- that's uncouth -- rather they make love, commune by means of their bodies and establish sensual rapport; the literary ones are attuned to the throb of Eros and attain a clutch upon the Universe; the religious have spiritual communion with the Divine Sensualism; the mystics merge with the Erotic Principle and blend with the Cosmos, and the acid heads contact their erotic cells.

On the other hand, those females least embedded in the male `Culture', the least nice, those crass and simple souls who reduce fucking to fucking, who are too childish for the grown-up world of suburbs, mortgages, mops and baby shit, too selfish to raise kids and husbands, too uncivilized to give a shit for anyones opinion of them, too arrogant to respect Daddy, the `Greats' or the deep wisdom of the Ancients, who trust only their own animal, gutter instincts, who equate Culture with chicks, whose sole diversion is prowling for emotional thrills and excitement, who are given to disgusting, nasty upsetting `scenes', hateful, violent bitches given to slamming those who unduly irritate them in the teeth, who'd sink a shiv into a man's chest or ram an icepick up his asshole as soon as look at him, if they knew they could get away with it, in short, those who, by the standards of our `culture' are SCUM... these females are cool and relatively cerebral and skirting asexuality.

Unhampered by propriety, niceness, discretion, public opinion, `morals', the respect of assholes, always funky, dirty, low-down SCUM gets around... and around and around... they've seen the whole show -- every bit of it -- the fucking scene, the dyke scene -- they've covered the whole waterfront, been under every dock and pier -- the peter pier, the pussy pier... you've got to go through a lot of sex to get to anti-sex, and SCUM's been through it all, and they're now ready for a new show; they want to crawl out from other the dock, move, take off, sink out. But SCUM doesn't yet prevail; SCUM's still in the gutter of our `society', which, if it's not deflected from its present course and if the Bomb doesn't drop on it, will hump itself to death.

Boredom: Life in a society made by and for creatures who, when they are not grim and depressing are utter bores, van only be, when not grim and depressing, an utter bore.

1. Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposes: Every male's deep-seated, secret, most hideous fear is of being discovered to be not a female, but a male, a subhuman animal. Although niceness, politeness and `dignity' suffice to prevent his exposure on a personal level, in order to prevent the general exposure of the male sex as a whole and to maintain his unnatural dominant position position in `society', the male must resort to:

1. Censorship. Responding reflexively to isolated works and phrases rather than cereberally to overall meanings, the male attempts to prevent the arousal and discovery of his animalism by censoring not only `pornography', but any work containing `dirty' words, no matter in what context they are used.

2. Suppression of all ideas and knowledge that might expose him or threaten his dominant position in `society'. Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male's gross inferiority to the female. Also, the problem of mental illness will never be solved while the male maintains control, because first, men have a vested interest in it -- only females who have very few of their marbles will allow males the slightest bit of control over anything, and second, the male cannot admit to the role that fatherhood plays in causing mental illness.

3. Exposes. The male's chief delight in life -- insofar as the tense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything -- is in exposing others. It doesn't' much matter what they're exposed as, so long as they're exposed; it distracts attention from himself. Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world. The bugs up his ass aren't in him, they're in Russia.

• Distrust: Unable to empathize or feel affection or loyalty, being exclusively out for himself, the male has no sense of fair play; cowardly, needing constantly to pander to the female to win her approval, that he is helpless without, always on the edge lest his animalism, his maleness be discovered, always needing to cover up, he must lie constantly; being empty he has not honor or integrity -- he doesn't know what those words mean. The male, in short, is treacherous, and the only appropriate attitude in a male `society' is cynicism and distrust.

• Ugliness: Being totally sexual, incapable of cerebral or aesthetic responses, totally materialistic and greedy, the male, besides inflicting on the world `Great Art', has decorated his unlandscaped cities with ugly buildings (both inside and out), ugly decors, billboards, highways, cars, garbage trucks, and, most notably, his own putrid self.

• Hatred and Violence: The male is eaten up with tension, with frustration at not being female, at not being capable of ever achieving satisfaction or pleasure of any kind; eaten up with hate -- not rational hate that is directed at those who abuse or insult you -- but irrational, indiscriminate hate... hatred, at bottom, of his own worthless self.

• Gratuitous violence, besides `proving' he's a `Man', serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition -- the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self -- provides him with a little sexual thrill..

• Disease and Death: All diseases are curable, and the aging process and death are due to disease; it is possible, therefore, never to age and to live forever. In fact the problems of aging and death could be solved within a few years, if an all-out, massive scientific assault were made upon the problem. This, however, will not occur with the male establishment because:

1. The many male scientists who shy away from biological research, terrified of the discovery that males are females, and show marked preference for virile, `manly' war and death programs.

2. The discouragement of many potential scientists from scientific careers by the rigidity, boringness, expensiveness, time-consumingness, and unfair exclusivity of our `higher' educational system.

3. Propaganda disseminated by insecure male professionals, who jealously guard their positions, so that only a highly select few can comprehend abstract scientific concepts.

4. Widespread lack of self-confidence brought about by the father system that discourages many talented girls from becoming scientists.

5. Lack of automation. There now exists a wealth of data which, if sorted out and correlated, would reveal the cure for cancer and several other diseases and possibly the key to life itself. But the data is so massive it requires high speed computers to correlate it all. The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.

6. The money systems' insatiable need for new products. Most of the few scientists around who aren't working on death programs are tied up doing research for corporations.

7. The males like death -- it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die.

8. The bias of the money system for the least creative scientists. Most scientists come from at least relatively affluent families where Daddy reigns supreme.
Incapable of a positive state of happiness, which is the only thing that can justify one's existence, the male is, at best, relaxed, comfortable, neutral, and this condition is extremely short-lived, as boredom, a negative state, soon sets in; he is, therefore, doomed to an existence of suffering relieved only by occasional, fleeting stretches of restfulness, which state he can only achieve at the expense of some female. The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one as the right to life at someone else's expense.

• Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.

However, this moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that the male is gradually eliminating himself. In addition to engaging in the time-honored and classical wars and race riots, men are more and more either becoming fags or are obliterating themselves through drugs. The female, whether she likes it or not, will eventually take complete charge, if for no other reason than that she will have to -- the male, for practical purposes, won't exist.
Accelerating this trend is the fact that more and more males are acquiring enlightened self-interest; they're realizing more and more that the female interest is in their interest, that they can live only through the female and that the more the female is encouraged to live, to fulfill herself, to be a female and not a male, the more nearly he lives; he's coming to see that it's easier and more satisfactory to live through her than to try to become her and usurp her qualities, claim them as his own, push the female down and claim that she's a male. The fag, who accepts his maleness, that is, his passivity and total sexuality, his femininity, is also best served by women being truly female, as it would then be easier for him to be male, feminine. If men were wise they would seek to become really female, would do intensive biological research that would lead to me, by means of operations on the brain and nervous system, being able t to be transformed in psyche, as well as body, into women.

Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents? How many women will deliberately get or (if an accident) remain pregnant? No, Virginia, women don't just adore being brood mares, despite what the mass of robot, brainwashed women will say. When society consists of only the fully conscious the answer will be none. Should a certain percentage of men be set aside by force to serve as brood mares for the species? Obviously this will not do. The answer is laboratory reproduction of babies.

As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist. When genetic control is possible -- and soon it will be -- it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.
Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we're dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us.

Eventually the natural course of events, of social evolution, will lead to total female control of the world and, subsequently, to the cessation of the production of males and, ultimately, to the cessation of the production of females.
But SCUM is impatient; SCUM is not consoled by the thought that future generations will thrive; SCUM wants to grab some thrilling living for itself. And, if a large majority of women were SCUM, they could acquire complete control of this country within a few weeks simply by withdrawing from the labor force, thereby paralyzing the entire nation. Additional measures, any one of which would be sufficient to completely disrupt the economy and everything else, would be for women to declare themselves off the money system, stop buying, just loot and simply refuse to obey all laws they don't care to obey. The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn't squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it's made up of people they are utterly helpless without.

If all women simply left men, refused to have anything to do with any of them -- ever, all men, the government, and the national economy would collapse completely. Even without leaving men, women who are aware of the extent of their superiority to and power over men, could acquire complete control over everything within a few weeks, could effect a total submission of males to females. In a sane society the male would trot along obediently after the female. The male is docile and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female who cares to dominate him. The male, in fact, wants desperately to be led by females, wants Mama in charge, wants to abandon himself to her care. But this is not a sane society, and most women are not even dimly aware of where they're at in relation to men.

The conflict, therefore, is not between females and males, but between SCUM -- dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females, who consider themselves fit to rule the universe, who have free-wheeled to the limits of this `society' and are ready to wheel on to something far beyond what it has to offer -- and nice, passive, accepting `cultivated', polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy's Girls, who can't cope with the unknown, who want to hang back with the apes, who feel secure only with Big Daddy standing by, with a big strong man to lean on and with a fat, hairy face in the White House, who are too cowardly to face up to the hideous reality of what a man is, what Daddy is, who have cast their lot with the swine, who have adapted themselves to animalism, feel superficially comfortable with it and know no other way of `life', who have reduced their minds, thoughts and sights to the male level, who, lacking sense, imagination and wit can have value only in a male `society', who can have a place in the sun, or, rather, in the slime, only as soothers, ego boosters, relaxers and breeders, who are dismissed as inconsequents by other females, who project their deficiencies, their maleness, onto all females and see the female as worm.

• But SCUM is too impatient to wait for the de-brainwashing of millions of assholes. Why should the swinging females continue to plod dismally along with the dull male ones? Why should the fates of the groovy and the creepy be intertwined? Why should the active and imaginative consult the passive and dull on social policy? Why should the independent be confined to the sewer along with the dependent who need Daddy to cling to? A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year by systematically fucking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder:

• SCUM will become members of the unwork force, the fuck-up force; they will get jobs of various kinds an unwork. For example, SCUM salesgirls will not charge for merchandise; SCUM telephone operators will not charge for calls; SCUM office and factory workers, in addition to fucking up their work, will secretly destroy equipment. SCUM will unwork at a job until fired, then get a new job to unwork at.

• SCUM will forcibly relieve bus drivers, cab drivers and subway token sellers of their jobs and run buses and cabs and dispense free tokens to the public.

• SCUM will destroy all useless and harmful objects -- cars, store windows, `Great Art', etc.

• Eventually SCUM will take over the airwaves -- radio and TV networks -- by forcibly relieving of their jobs all radio and TV employees who would impede SCUM's entry into the broadcasting studios

.

• SCUM will couple-bust -- barge into mixed (male-female) couples, wherever they are, and bust them up.

• SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM.

1.  

 A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away -- money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd', then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.

Being in the Men's Auxiliary is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for making SCUM's escape list; it's not enough to do good; to save their worthless asses men must also avoid evil. A few examples of the most obnoxious or harmful types are: rapists, politicians and all who are in their service (campaigners, members of political parties, etc); lousy singers and musicians; Chairmen of Boards; Breadwinners; landlords; owners of greasy spoons and restaraunts that play Muzak; `Great Artists'; cheap pikers and welchers; cops; tycoons; scientists working on death and destruction programs or for private industry (practically all scientists); liars and phonies; disc jockies; men who intrude themselves in the slightest way on any strange female; real estate men; stock brokers; men who speak when they have nothing to say; men who sit idly on the street and mar the landscape with their presence; double dealers; flim-flam artists; litterbugs; plagiarisers; men who in the slightest way harm any female; all men in the advertising industry; psychiatrists and clinical psychologists; dishonest writers, journalists, editors, publishers, etc.; censors on both the public and private levels; all members of the armed forces, including draftees (LBJ and McNamara give orders, but servicemen carry them out) and particularly pilots (if the bomb drops, LBJ won't drop it; a pilot will). In the case of a man whose behavior falls into both the good and bad categories, an overall subjective evaluation of him will be made to determine if his behavior is, in the balance, good or bad.

It is most tempting to pick off the female `Great Artists', liars and phonies etc along with the men, but that would be inexpedient, as it would not be clear to most of the public that the female killed was a male. All women have a fink streak in them, to a greater or lesser degree, but it stems from a lifetime of living among men. Eliminate men and women will shape up. Women are improvable; men are no, although their behavior is. When SCUM gets hot on their asses it'll shape up fast.

Simultaneously with the fucking-up, looting, couple-busting, destroying and killing, SCUM will recruit. SCUM, then, will consist of recruiters; the elite corps -- the hard core activists (the fuck-ups, looters and destroyers) and the elite of the elite -- the killers.

Dropping out is not the answer; fucking-up is. Most women are already dropped out; they were never in. Dropping out gives control to those few who don't drop out; dropping out is exactly what the establishment leaders want; it plays into the hands of the enemy; it strengthens the system instead of undermining it, since it is based entirely on the non-participating, passivity, apathy and non-involvement of the mass of women. Dropping out, however, is an excellent policy for men, and SCUM will enthusiastically encourage it.

Looking inside yourself for salvation, contemplating your navel, is not, as the Drop Out people would have you believe, the answer. Happiness likes outside yourself, is achieved through interacting with others. Self-forgetfulness should be one's goal, not self-absorption. The male, capable of only the latter, makes a virtue of irremediable fault and sets up self-absorption, not only as a good but as a Philosophical Good, and thus gets credit for being deep.

1. SCUM will not picket, demonstrate, march or strike to attempt to achieve its ends. Such tactics are for nice, genteel ladies who scrupulously take only such action as is guaranteed to be ineffective. In addition, only decent, clean-living male women, highly trained in submerging themselves in the species, act on a mob basis. SCUM consists of individuals; SCUM is not a mob, a blob. Only as many SCUM will do a job as are needed for the job. Also SCUM, being cool and selfish, will not subject to getting itself rapped on the head with billy clubs; that's for the nice, `privileged, educated', middle-class ladies with a high regard for the touching faith in the essential goodness of Daddy and policemen. If SCUM ever marches, it will be over the President's stupid, sickening face; if SCUM ever strikes, it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.

1. SCUM will always operate on a criminal as opposed to a civil disobedience basis, that is, as opposed to openly violating the law and going to jail in order to draw attention to an injustice. Such tactics acknowledge the rightness overall system and are used only to modify it slightly, change specific laws. SCUM is against the entire system, the very idea of law and government. SCUM is out to destroy the system, not attain certain rights within it. Also, SCUM -- always selfish, always cool -- will always aim to avoid detection and punishment. SCUM will always be furtive, sneaky, underhanded (although SCUM murders will always be known to be such).

• Both destruction and killing will be selective and discriminate. SCUM is against half-crazed, indiscriminate riots, with no clear objective in mind, and in which many of your own kind are picked off. SCUM will never instigate, encourage or participate in riots of any kind or other form of indiscriminate destruction. SCUM will coolly, furtively, stalk its prey and quietly move in for the kill. Destruction will never me such as to block off routes needed for the transportation of food or other essential supplies, contaminate or cut off the water supply, block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through or impede the functioning of hospitals.

• SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goals, that is, until enough women either unwork or quit work, start looting, leave men and refuse to obey all laws inappropriate to a truly civilized society. Many women will fall into line, but many others, who surrendered long ago to the enemy, who are so adapted to animalism, to maleness, that they like restrictions and restraints, don't know what to do with freedom, will continue to be toadies and doormats, just as peasants in rice paddies remain peasants in rice paddies as one regime topples another. A few of the more volatile will whimper and sulk and throw their toys and dishrags on the floor, but SCUM will continue to steamroller over them.

1. A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it. The blueprints for it are already in existence, and it's construction will take only a few weeks with millions of people working on it. Even though off the money system, everyone will be most happy to pitch in and get the automated society built; it will mark the beginning of a fantastic new era, and there will be a celebration atmosphere accompanying the construction.

The elimination of money and the complete institution of automation are basic to all other SCUM reforms; without these two the others can't take place; with them the others will take place very rapidly. The government will automatically collapse. With complete automation it will be possible for every woman to vote directly on every issue by means of an electronic voting machine in her house. Since the government is occupied almost entirely with regulating economic affairs and legislating against purely private matters, the elimination of money wand with it the elimination of males who wish to legislate `morality' will mean there will be practically no issues to vote on.

• After the elimination of money there will be no further need to kill men; they will be stripped of the only power they have over psychologically independent females. They will be able to impose themselves only on the doormats, who like to be imposed on. The rest of the women will be busy solving the few remaining unsolved problems before planning their agenda for eternity and Utopia -- completely revamping educational programs so that millions of women can be trained within a few months for high level intellectual work that now requires years of training (this can be done very easily once out educational goal is to educate and not perpetuate an academic and intellectual elite); solving the problems of disease and old age and death and completely redesigning our cities and living quarters. Many women will for a while continue to think they dig men, but as they become accustomed to female society and as they become absorbed in their projects, they will eventually come to see the utter uselessnes and banality of the male.

• The few remaining men can exist out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling themselves as spectators, vicarious livers*[FOOTNOTE: It will be electronically possible for him to tune into any specific female he wants to and follow in detail her every movement. The females will kindly, obligingly consent to this, as it won't hurt them in the slightest and it is a marvelously kind and humane way to treat their unfortunate, handicapped fellow beings.] or breeding in the cow pasture with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.

Prior to the institution of automation, to the replacement of males by machines, the male should be of use to the female, wait on her, cater to her slightest whim, obey her every command, be totally subservient to her, exist in perfect obedience to her will, as opposed to the completely warped, degenerate situation we have now of men, not only not only not existing at all, cluttering up the world with their ignominious presence, but being pandered to and groveled before by the mass of females, millions of women piously worshiping the Golden Calf, the dog leading the master on a leash, when in fact the male, short of being a drag queen, is least miserable when his dogginess is recognized -- no unrealistic emotional demands are made of him and the completely together female is calling the shots. Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.

• The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barrelling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants. Men who are rational, however, won't kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.