Tag Archives: Tulane

When Murder is just Tough Love: the Culture and Practical Reason of Terrorism after the Quatorze Juliet

A close friend sent me a cute French electronic card for Bastille Day 2016.   And what a Bastille Day it turned out to be, eh?  Think about it!!! A third massive attack on the French people in about a year… But… Cui Bono? What is an attack but an invitation to a counterattack? So if you’re going to start a war, your attack should always be something that weakens the enemy in some regard, right? But NONE of these stupid Muzzies seem to get that, do they? They always attack innocent civilians—everywhere they go, or at the most they attack government bureaucrats….What kind of logic is that? You attack people to prod them into attacking you, but all of your attacks seem carefully designed to arouse ire and anger among the populace while leaving the infrastructure of war that will be used against you completely intact and untouched. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? It’s almost like the people making the attacks ONLY want to make the people MORE willing to counter-attack them back? How is that logical?

Holidays are very important, especially those with fireworks.  I have never lived in France or Quebec, but by the time I was 18 I had lived in London, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Honduras, and whether it’s New Years’ Eve, Guy Fawkes’ Day, the Fourth of July, the 15th of September, or the Queen’s Birthday, fireworks celebrations are really great.  So I try to imagine what would have happened if there had been a bombing during one of those holidays in any of the places I ever habituated…. and what would have been the purpose.  

And what of the Quatorze Julliet?  My grandmother was a Francophone and Francophile native of Louisiana and my Texas-born grandfather’s life took him from Galveston to “the City” on a regular basis, plus I took French in High School and College, and several of my professors were Francophones and Francophiles at Tulane and during those years—including  Archaeologists Harvey Bricker and Cynthia Irwin-Williams who had both studied under Hallam Movius, and from them all, I obtained a love for and habit of celebrating July 14, Bastille Day.

Terrorism, traditionally understood, is a species of poor-man’s war or revolution.  As such, it is inherently secretive and illegal.  War is open and honest: Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia declared war on Austria, Germany was required by treaty to go to war with Russia to defend Austria, Britain was required by treaty, etc., and so the Great War of 1914-1918 began.  BUT EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

When terrorist organizations claim responsibility after the fact for their crimes… they are doing just that, they are claiming criminal responsibility… and when criminals claim responsibility for anything, you have to wonder: why?

And so I think to myself, what do the April 1995 Bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, 9/11/01 in New York City and Washington, 7/7/05 in London, Dylan Storm Roof’s murderous assault in Charleston last June 17, Charlie Hebdo in France, and now this latest atrocity in Nice all have in common?  

Well, they neither advance any coherent revolutionary plan, nor weaken the countries they attack.  They all happen either on days with interesting numbers or anniversaries.   But the truck bombing that took out 84 yesterday, including two American tourists apparently, just “takes the cake” on Bastille Day—which now joins Guy Fawkes Day and 9/11, 7/7 and 6/17/15 anniversary of the collapse of Denmark Vesey’s 1822 slave uprising in Charleston as “false flag” or stage events of terrorism.

Bastille Day was already a slightly fictitious holiday because, as Louis XVI wrote in his diary, on 14 July 1789, “Nothing Important Happened.”  A mob knocked down an old prison with one prisoner, but the embattled King with a short life-expectancy didn’t even notice, under his peculiar circumstances.  As my son likes to say—the 14th of July was really a tragedy for the future of French Tourism—the Bastille, Mediaeval relic fortress that it was, would have been a major attraction had it survived…  But the French know how to make a good party out of a bad deal—and very few American Fourth of July Cookouts EVER equal the average 14 July party in France or among Francophile/Francophones worldwide… the comparison of the food and wine alone…. oh well, never mind.

But I keep trying to think to myself: if I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would attacking innocent people over and over again at random make any sense?  What would I be hoping to accomplish?  What would be my goals?  What good TO ME AND MY CAUSE could possibly inure from committing such crimes?

A sophisticated and coordinated attack in the United States followed by a similar attack in London, and then a decade later two similarly “low tech” attacks in France, and a bunch of random attacks in the meantime… scattered around the world.  Shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Boston Marathon whatever it was, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Chattanooga, TN veteran shooting, connected or not?  Who knows?

What is absolutely certain is that SOMEONE wants to create the image of Islamic terror as a world-wide phenomenon that requires  coordinated security and response.  If I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would this kind of premonitory strategy seem like a good idea to me?   The answer is NO.

Revolutionary terrorism needs to be targeted on ONE government, one regime, one power structure—and it needs to be consistent and persistent enough to destabilize a society or at least an elite.  The pattern of Islamic Terror since the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing is NOT THAT.   The movement around the map, the focus on NON-STRATEGIC, NON-MILITARY, NON-INFRASTRUCTURE targets is very consistent.

The murder of innocent people was an integral part of Timothy McVeigh’s and Dylan Storm Roof’s approach in distinctly non-Islamic terrorist events in the United States—and their two attacks had no more coordinated relationship to any ideological goals than the long line of supposed Islamic terrorist events.  Even my dearly departed, mild mannered, deeply religious late mother said, way back in April 1995, “if they call themselves Patriots and wanted to make a meaningful statement, they really should have bombed the IRS.”  And if Dylan Storm Roof were really a racist White Supremacist, the LAST associations he would have wanted to make were the killing of elderly black people during a prayer meeting at a conservative African Methodist Episcopal Church on the 193rd anniversary of the Suppression of one of the most famous Slave Rebellions in U.S. History: this sort of symbolism all plays for the OTHER side—and so does bombing the French Riviera during Bastille Day celebrations.  

IF you want to make sure to build your enemies’  anger and take every step possible to ensure that NOBODY has any sympathy for your cause, (a) make sure nobody knows what your cause is and (b) do things in random places but on important days to make sure people remember the randomness.

In short, to my mind, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Nice attack on Bastille Day was organized by anyone sincerely to advance the Islamist cause.   You want to bomb a target on a holiday?  If you’re a real revolutionary, you seek a target like an electrical power plant or water pumping station or even a sewerage processing plant where you can disable your opponents entire city and infrastructure in some really inconvenient and expensive way.  Osama bin Laden was a structural engineer and IF he had been in charge of 9-11, as a plot against the United States, I’ve always said his targets of choice would have been the undefended dams along the Colorado River, in order to cutoff the water supply to evil sinful cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and the California “Inland Empire.”

So none of these attacks, my friends, are about an Islamic agenda for World Domination or even in revenge for the (indisputable) wrongs suffered by the Arab and Islamic people generally at British, French, and most recently American Imperialist hands….

WHO WANTS TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER THROUGH TERROR?  The Radical Islamic World?  Or Powers, Princes and Potentates MUCH Closer to Home!

All these attacks, in my opinion, reflect a “tough love” strategy of the United States, French, and British Governments to “soften up” the people and by long-term repetitive pseudo-Pavlovian conditioning make them (i.e. US, the free and responsible people of America and Europe) willing to accept an all-encompassing, eternal “Thousand Year” Police State—exactly what Strom Thurmond predicted was the goal in his “Dixiecrat” Platform of 1948.  They want to impose the police state for our own good and our own protection, don’t you understand?  That’s why modern government false-flag murder is just TOUGH LOVE.  And if you don’t like it, well, tough s__t, you know, my fellow Americans: “We have to break a few eggs here and there to prepare for you our New World Order of Omelette—-they’re all for you, you know!  But we know you’re too stupid to want this wonderful highly organized Police State where we can organize and regulate all of your lives, so we have to scare you into it.”  

In other words: Tales of Terrorism function for the modern media  motivated masses exactly the way Perrault’s or Grimm’s Fairy tales did in days of yore…. scary stories are INSTRUCTIONAL!  You need to scare the children by telling them about the BIG BAD WOLF and what he did to Little Red Riding Hood, or about what the Witch did to Hansel & Gretel with her candy house, so that they will live in constant fear of strangers and of attempting to strike out on their own.  FEAR!  FEAR!  FEAR!  “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, it’s got to be taught from year-to-year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

DALLAS WAS JUST PERFECT!

The Dallas Police Murders last week, which suspiciously took place on the now recurring date of 7/7, were not Islamic either, but they served the fear purpose and the “Divide and Conquer” purpose to a degree unmatched in any other attack.  Black people killing black cops—a recipe made by Machiavelli in Hell….

Peaceful black protesters complaining about police brutality were forced to hide behind the police lines when one or more black gunmen murdered 5 and injured 7 more.  DID THIS ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF “BLACK LIVES MATTER”?  No, but it was a boon for American Renaissance (and I write this as a regular reader  of and a subscriber to AmRen).

To feed the ignorant white suburban paranoia of blacks attacking whites was a simple stroke of Genius on the part of the Obama administration—all of a sudden, we have forced a portion of the black population into making a choice: either they act out the worst fears of the white middle class suburbanites or they support the Police.  Obama, as usual, was totally two-faced, but two-faced is how the supporters of the police state need to be: they need to FOMENT inter-racial violence on the one hand and then condemn murder on the other, because THIS STRATEGY SUPPORTS INCREASING THE POWER AND THE EFFICACY OF THE STATE.

The way to satisfy the Black Lives Matter movement is to suppress white-conservative expression and culture and desires to be left alone in an essentially segregated society.  To satisfy the White AND Black Middle and Upper Classes, the government must enlarge (a better word might be to engorge) the police state and enhance the power of the police to protect them from the rising black tide.

Now I read AmRen and similar publications and websites because I support what I perceive as their key long-term goals, namely segregation of the races to maintain cultural continuity.  Strangely enough, many black civil rights advocates share these goals, and I wholeheartedly support those who do.  BUT I HATE INJUSTICE, UNFAIRNESS, and  OPPRESSION and the way the POLICE STATE MAXIMIZES all three.  And the only thing that all the terrorist murders of the past 21 years since Oklahoma really have in common is: they justify oppressive measures and unfair oppression.

I totally disagree, then, with the advocacy of increased police power and authority which the reaction to Dallas has engendered both among the White and Black Middle Class.   Whites may believe that the police are on their side, but my experience in life is quite the opposite.  The calibre and IQ of men (and women) who opt for a career in law enforcement are not the highest, and police ONLY support the “side” that pays them directly (namely the State and City power structures, and the banks and other large institutions who support those) AGAINST ALL THE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF RACE CREED, OR COLOR.

One feature of modern society that deeply distresses me is the increasingly lack of respect among people.  The police do not respect anyone’s rights, as can be seen from countless examples in various fields of law enforcement, from domestic relations to enforcement of judicial foreclosures.  But ordinary people, too, do not respect each other’s rights, space or property, and depend for all protection on the police or state power generally as arbiters of everything.  Individuals need to take responsibility for all things, including their own protection and that of their loved ones and property.

Concern over lack of respect is, I think, a unifying theme in both the radical White and radical Black Lives Matter movements.  

Quatorze Juillet  (Edith Piaf)

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Des musiques de la rue.
Chaque estrade a son orchestre.
Chaque bal a sa cohue.
Ces gens-là m’ont pris ma fête.
Je ne la reconnais plus.

Dans ma chambre, je me chante
L’air que nous avons valsé.
Je regarde la toquarde
Où tes doigts se sont posés.

Tu m’as dit : “Tu es si belle.”
Et tu as, l’instant d’après,
Ajouté : “La vie est bête.”.
J’ai compris que tu partais.
Si tu ne reviens jamais,
Il n’y aura plus de quatorze juillet.

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Un murmure qui s’éteint,
Les chansons d’une jeunesse
Attardée dans le matin.
N’allez pas troubler mon rêve.
Allez rire un peu plus loin.

Que m’apporte, que m’apporte
Cette joie de quelques heures ?
Je suis morte, je suis morte
Et je t’ai déjà rejoint
Et mon corps est près du tien
Mais personne n’en sait rien…

The 14th of July

He comes to my window
The music in the street
Each stage has its orchestra
Each dance has its crowd
These people took my celebration
I don’t recognize it anymore

In my room, I sing to myself
The air that we waltzed in
I watch the infatuation
Where your fingers encountered mine

You tell me “you are so beautiful”
And you after a moment
Added “life is stupid”
I understood that you left
If you never come back
There will not be another 14th of July

He came to my window
A murmur that has extinguished
The songs of youth
Lingering in the morning
Don’t go troubling my dream
Laughing one step further away

That brings me, that brings me
The joy of a few hours
I’m dead, I’m dead
And I already reached you
And my body is close to yours
But nobody knows anything…

Was the Castration of Pierre Abelard Just? Was his love for Heloise an Evil thing? More on Megan Stammers & Jeremy Forrest: Good Teachers and Good Students Tend to Fall in Love—making it criminal and prosecuting it is insane

Hopeless love, forbidden love, these themes frame some of the greatest love stories of all time.  Laws against incest, adultery, “underage” sex, “statutory rape”—all of mankind’s most primitive laws concern prohibitions on various kinds of sexual relationships.  These were the earliest human laws, as I first learned in my introduction to Cultural Anthropology from Victoria Reifler Bricker, teaching the work of Sir Henry Maine, L.H. Morgan and other pioneering anthropologists (mostly jurists) at Tulane, some 38 years ago this Fall.   Societies which have no other laws at all have “rules” regulating (or attempting to regulate) sexual behavior and, for the most part, failing.  I have long ago concluded that the laws against sex come first in human evolution because nothing takes precedence over sex in the human mind and psyche.

Most of Richard Wagner’s operas   concern forbidden love and the triumph of love over normative law and normal life itself.  But the leitmotif of forbidden love started long before Wagner.  Growing up, the story of Abelard & Heloise was somehow more tangible to me precisely because it concerned a teacher and his most devoted student.  I failed to see as a youngster, and now I still fail to see as an (almost, approaching) “oldster” why teacher-student love should ever be forbidden.  One of my favorite professors in College, Robert Wauchope, my first professor of Maya and Mesoamerican Archaeology, told the story of meeting and falling in love with his wife as a student, and in that (obviously not so ancient) era, it was apparently considered quite normal.  Robert Wauchope was a particularly good old Southern story teller, but I know that many others among my college professors met their spouses as students.  I had crushes on several of my female teachers throughout the years and (though nothing ever came of any of them, starting with a certain Miss Pomainville when I was 9 or something), it seemed about as natural as anything could be.  These “scandals” come up over and over again and they will obviously never end.  In the modern world, I would think that when the two people involved are culturally, ethnically, and socially similar, we just need to leave the alone.  Statutory Rape laws need to be modified to the point that intelligent consent is a defense.  “Intelligent Consent” needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where the actual interactions of the parties and (in particular) the behavior of the younger (underage) party and his/her understanding of the nature of relationships is tested.  A line drawn at puberty would be much more rational, given the state of sex in TV, movies, and other media.  Pre-pubescent sex is  biologically unnatural and biologically pointless and so can be called perverted.  But the media sexualize even the youngest girls, in particular, in the modern world—and norms are formed through the media.  Wagner’s operas never deal with “underage” sex as a taboo—it simply wasn’t much thought about, I would guess, in the 19th century.  But his greatest forbidden (adulterous) lovers were probably Tristan und Isolde, and he frames their story with the most sublime music that has ever been written: http://news.yahoo.com/stemme-shines-isolde-wagners-love-story-145656373.html

But Back here in the modern world, we still just have to pray for the redemption of Jeremy Forrest and Megan Stammers, that they might enjoy their love again, before death…..(“Liebestod”)…..ok, after all this crap it will probably never happen.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-forrest-trial-married-teacher-1949177

Jeremy Forrest trial: Married teacher ‘told schoolgirl, 14, he loved her days before they kissed in classroom’

13 Jun 2013 07:58

Forrest allegedly pursued the teenager for sex and researched the maximum prison term he would get if he was caught

Married maths teacher Jeremy Forrest told a 14-year-old schoolgirl ‘I love you’ just days before they secretly kissed in his classroom, a jury heard today.

Forrest, 30, allegedly pursued the teenager for sex and researched the maximum prison term he would get if he was caught.

After showing the girl his marital home and telling her his marriage was a “hollow sham” the pair began to have sex at the house and at a hotel, Lewes crown court heard.

But the schoolgirl later feared Forrest was not telling the truth about his relationship when she saw “nice” messages his wife Emily had sent him.

The first secret kiss came after Forrest sent the girl a message via social network Twitter saying: “I have something to tell you tomorrow.”

The following day the schoolgirl, who cannot be named, met Forrest before lessons started at Bishop Bell CoE school, Eastbourne, East Sussex.

Speaking in a police interview recorded last October which was played in court today she said: “He said he thought he was in love with me and I said I had the same feeling.

“That’s when thing things became serious. The time we kissed must have been early May.”

The schoolgirl, now aged 16, said she visited his classroom each day but there was always someone around.

She said: “We had spoken about kissing each other. It ended up being in his classroom. I do remember being in his room.

“It was just me and him. He said ‘I really want to kiss you’ and I said ‘I really want to’.”

Jeremy Forrest arriving at Lewes Crown Court today June 12 2013
Case: Jeremy Forrest arriving at Lewes Crown Court today
Adam Gerrard

The court heard how the secret kiss came weeks after the girl and Forrest had been tweeting each other privately and sending increasingly flirtatious text messages.

She told the court sex first became mentioned in text messages in May.

They exchanged intimate photographs, with the girl sending Forrest a topless picture of herself and one of her posed in a hoodie top and her underwear, the jury heard.

Forrest started meeting the girl out of school hours, driving her around in his black Ford Fiesta and taking her to his marital home at Ringmer, near Lewes, East Sussex, in June.

He showed her his 31-year-old wife Emily’s bedroom and watched TV before cooking her dinner.

The court heard Forrest told the girl, who was by then 15, that his year-long-marriage was a “hollow sham” and they talked about having sex.

She told the court he had removed his wedding ring and even said he wanted his parents to meet her.

She said: “He told me he didn’t want to take advantage of me, and I just didn’t have a problem with it anyway.

“It was what I wanted to do because of how much I liked him. Obviously I was worried and I spoke to my friends about it.

“He knew he would go to prison, lose his job and not work with children again, he was aware.

“There was no naivety and it was what I wanted, and I probably encouraged it.

“We would bring it up and I would say ‘Yeah, I really want to’.”

The schoolgirl said they planned to have sex in the first week of the summer holidays in July.

Jeremy Forrest Court Sketch
In court: Jeremy Forrest court sketch
Julia Quenzler/Caters

And the teenager described how they had sex twice in the spare room of Forrest’s home in the day while Emily was with her parents in Eastbourne.

She said: “The whole thing was pretty quick anyway, when it came to it.

“I think it was twice but I can’t remember. We just went back to what we were doing before – watching TV.

“It was just normal. I don’t think we spoke that much about it. I remember after, not feeling guilty or that I had done anything wrong.”

The jury heard how the couple also had sex in his car, but often in local hotels booked by Forrest including the Premier Inn at Polegate, near Lewes.

She added: “After having sex for the first time, it was like a pressure off. After a few times we got used to each other.”

The couple’s secret was discovered on September 19 when police and child protection officers interviewed the schoolgirl at home.

The girl said she panicked after her phone was seized.

She packed a bag, told her mum she was sleeping at a friend’s and was picked up by Forrest who drove them to Dover to catch a ferry to France on Thursday, September 20, last year.

She said: “He looked very anxious, very worried and frustrated in a way, because we knew we were going to be caught for something we didn’t think was wrong.”

The court heard Forrest abandoned his car in Paris and they caught a train to Bordeaux in south-west France.

She said they stayed in a hotel the first night, where they had sex, before moving to another.

Forrest was oblivious to the manhunt until he saw a news website.

She said: “He was saying ‘I’m going to go to prison. We are going to be caught’. I had to reassure him.”

Days later they were stopped by French police.

She said: “Before we were taken away I kind of mouthed the words ‘I love you’ and he did it back to me.”

Later she was asked whether she and Forrest had considered the consequences.

She said: “He did look up how many years he would be in prison, not for taking me to France, but for what had previously happened.”

The girl admitted to police it was a “relief” their relationship was in the open.

She said: “I’ve never felt what me and Jeremy have done, or being in a relationship, is wrong, because it feels right.

“I can understand why it is wrong because of the law, but it just didn’t feel wrong. I know my own mind. I know what I want.”

Later the court, attended by Forrest’s parents Jim and Julie, heard the schoolgirl soon suspected Forrest had lied to her about separating from his wife.

In a police interview on November 27 last year, she said: “I was quite suspicious in a way.

“To have a relationship with a teacher, that’s not something I would do usually.

“Because he had a wife it made it 10 times worse. He told me he was separated from December.

“I trusted him but then I started to see Emily tweeting things.”

She said Emily would write “nice things” and refer to him as “my lovely husband”, despite Forrest saying she was “violent and abusive”.

The girl said: “When I was with him she used to ring him constantly.

She also said a friend’s boyfriend saw Forrest in Brighton holding hands with his wife in August last year.

Forrest, of Bromley, Kent, denies a charge of child abduction.

The trial continues.

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-forrest-trial-married-teacher-1949177#ixzz2WDoQyCGV
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

‘O Kosmo Gyrisi Pano Kato: Holiday Hell in Holy Week, or Florida Fantasy’s Fatal Dance of the Damned

Do you ever have the feeling that you are overly optimistic, unrealistically positive about the direction our country, and especially its young people, are going in… Well, I have a suggestion about how to rid yourself of that feeling for once and for all: go see this amazing new totally realistic, totally surreal, sociologically real, factual credible, symbolist movie about the collapse of America called “Spring Breakers.”   Oliver Stone’s movie “Savages” last year was a happy walk in the park by comparison….

When a movie ends with the two young bottle-dyed-blonde “heroines” running upside down in florescent string bikinis and pink head-and-face masks with unicorns away from the scene of their mass murder of a greater number of gangsters than died in the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929 in Lincoln Park, Chicago—well, you know that the message of the movie is pretty clearly that the World has turned Upside Down (‘O Kosmo Gyrisi Pano Kato).  

That was only the most graphically explicit scene to tell you the movie’s message, much more horrifying was the danse macabre of three fake-blondes wearing those same identical psychedelic swimsuits and the same pink head-and-face masks with unicorns on the forehead dancing to a Britney Spears tune outside under the Florida sky with gigantic (possibly unreal, merely symbolic) automatic assault guns of unclear brand name or identity (bigger and thicker than Uzis, AK-47s or Kalashnikofs, maybe a surreally souped up Special Operations Modification M-4?) held hand to hand in a triangular (with their guns, hexagonal?) round while the Devil plays the piano (rather well…).  

Nothing in the inquisitorial imagination spawned by the Malleus Maleficarum, the 15th-17th century’s nightmarish visions of the Witches’ Sabbath or Walpurgisnacht comes anywhere close to this dance of the three girls and their guns, accompanied by James Franco and Britney Spears’…..

About 8-9 years ago I had a series of dreams wherein my tiny (also fake-blonde) Greek-born ex-wife either became or revealed herself actually to be a murderous Islamic terrorist name Aisha-Fatima—and in my dreams she looked just like these tiny little fake-blonde girls in Spring Breakers….similar masks and swim suits and all….

I highly recommend “Spring Breakers” as an art movie well-worth seeing—but only if you are spiritually prepared to explore Hell and the sins of the damned in much more detail than Dante ever managed in his journey to the Inferno in the company of Virgil.  

But honestly, I can think of no more powerful nor meaningful movie to see during Holy Week 2013 than “Spring Breakers”.  Salvation is pointless unless the world is doomed.  16 years minus just a couple of weeks since Rupert Giles pronounced, at the end of Season I of Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer, that “the world is doomed,” Harmony Korine has proved it is.  I highly recommend my alma mater’s student newspaper’s review, even if its author does not go far enough: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/27/spring-breakers-review/.   I fundamentally disagree with the Crimson review in only one regard, this movie clearly IS a masterpiece of Surreal and Symbolist drama.   

Spring Breakers juxtaposes  the horror of modern, degenerate, White Middle Class American Culture with its own ideals of beauty in a manner not seen since “American Beauty” in 1999.  Unfortunately, it’s coming out way too early to be predetermined as candidate for next year’s Oscars, but it is worthy—oh yes, it is worthy.  Another reason, aside from the timing of its release, that this movie probably has no chance is that Spring Breakers is just too real, too true, and too totally damning, with too many sophisticated inversions of racial and sexual stereotypes.

Yes, White Middle Class America is portrayed in this film as deeply degenerate and in desperate need of salvation, but headed exactly the opposite direction.   The story even highlights the utter failure of conventional “pop” Christian religious teaching and culture to make any difference or have any influence, precisely because of its blandness and blindness and politically correct sensitivity to everyone’s desire to be evil.

Yes, indeed.  I have been thinking for a long time that we needed the spiritual reawakening in America that could only be induced by severe shock therapy.  I think Spring Breakers needs to be seen in every Church, every PTA, everywhere.   There is not a single one of the Ten Commandments that isn’t broken repeatedly—no, not a single one, and all by extremely cute little American White College girls.   I do not know whether the inversion of racial and sexual stereotypes in this movie reflects any actual or accurate trends in America today—I only know that I have now seen the movie three times—because the first time I saw it (on Good Friday, no less—it was perfect—on the first night Jesus spent in Hell—I visited there myself—it was GREAT for the soul…..) I was absolutely petrified with shock and horror.  Tonight (April Fool’s Day) the Uptown College Crowd was back from their (simultaneous) Spring Break which coincides, at Tulane and Loyola at least with Holy Week in the Western Churches, including my own (the Episcopal, aka “Anglican” or “C of E”).  

James Franco plays “the Devil” brilliantly—in his very first appearance, as a rapper entertaining the Spring Break Crowd—he’s wearing a cap with the simple inscription “HOPE”—which cynically reminds us of at least two Presidents in the past 21 years or so….and he speaks of achieving aspirations, of “finding yourself”, and, repeatedly, to live the American Dream—just like any good politician from the Dark Side would do…..

I have lived in both Pinellas County (I lived in Tarpon Springs at the north edge of Pinellas—the movie was filmed in St. Petersburg and Clearwater) and Cook County—near all the scenes in this movie and just about 12 blocks from the corner of Dickson & Clark where the St. Valentine’s Massacre took place—I know the Florida landmarks and cultural icons including the suspension bridge over Tampa Bay South to Sarasota that is one of the repeated backdrops of this movie…  

My sincere recommendation is: imagine all you can of evil and sin, and think hard about the battle between good and evil, and then tell me if you are still not shocked and “grossed out” by what you see in this movie—all brilliantly presented so as to highlight the collapse of American Culture and Morality—if there ever really were such things—  This movie is going to occupy my mind and imagination for a very long time, and the moral contrast between the entirely real world (surreally portrayed) of Spring Breakers and the morally imaginary world of metaphor portrayed so realistically in Buffy the Vampire Slayer just sixteen years ago—is something that should preoccupy all Americans who have any dream that we could ever again be a moral and righteous nation…..  

In closing, the Harvard Crimson review (cited above) mentions the marvelous portrayal of the world as seen through drug-addled eyes.  The song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, especially “the girl with kaleidoscope eyes” came to my mind here.  I grew up too close to people who took LSD ever to have wanted to try the stuff myself, but I can tell you that the imagery is much like peyote experiences one can have among the Native Americans of the Southwestern USA, and it just isn’t a pretty sight at all.  

Spring Breakers demands a national dialogue on the meaning of the American Dream, and the wide detour we have taken, and allowed especially several generations of young people now to take, including my own, on the way to finding that dram.

IN OUR LAWLESS SOCIETY: ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM/FREEDOM OF SPECH—and so STAND WITH LANDEN GAMBILL—is reporting a rape on campus to be deemed “disruptive or intimidating behavior?” To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned this young lady’s honesty, but a dishonest accusation should be the ONLY possible grounds for any accusation of “a violation of the Honor Code”

To the Administrators of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the litigants among the “Survivors of Sexual Violence” Civil Rights Action:
         I am a Tulane Alumnus, class of 1980—and I discovered this group cause in the U.C. Lobby on a recent visit to “the old school” campus in New Orleans of which I am so fond.  
        Since I left Tulane I earned both a Ph.D. and a J.D. from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, clerked for two Federal Judges, and made many more enemies of Judges through Civil Rights Activism, ultimately leading to my disbarment but not to my retirement from civil rights crusades.    
       I would like to lend my support to SAPHE and Landen Gambill.  Mainly I do not understand what is going on very well, but from what I have read it sounds as though a severe injustice has been done.  
          The University of North Carolina is, of course, a branch of the State of North Carolina and so it is bound by the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment to respect the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
         I am horrified that a student could, in this day and age, be accused of “disruptive or intimidating behavior” for reporting a crime.  I asked the students at the SAPHE desk in the University Center Lobby whether anyone had ever challenged Landen Gambill’s honesty or accuracy and was told “no.”
   Only a CONFIRMED, CLEAR and CONVINCING ACCUSATION OF DISHONESTY (which appears not to have been made by the alleged rapist or anyone else)  could possibly justify a charge of an “honor code violation”, whether at a private or public institution, if the word “honor” can have any meaning.* (but see note on “False Rape Culture” below—which I find less than a “clear and convincing” denial of anything—but more of a political rant about the possibility of false accusations, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Right to Petition.)
             Obviously, by threatening any sort of disciplinary action against a student for filing what she believes (and no one has challenged or questioned) to be a legitimate complaint of criminal conduct, the State Officials at the University of North Carolina are attempting to infringe upon Landen Gambill’s rights to freedom of speech and more importantly to PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, broadly defined, under the First Amendment.  
             No exercise of First Amendment Freedom should ever be grounds for any sort of punishment, so Gambill’s right to substantive DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is also being violated here.
               I would further submit that the right of to speak out in any way regarding the injuries one has suffered is a fundamental right and power reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment.
      Throughout my lifetime, the tortured question of relationship between the sexes has been evolving and changing.  Nothing is more essential (literally) to the preservation of our species on earth than a stable and successful relationship between men and women, but the competing philosophies and moralities of the “bad old world” and “brave new world” have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doubt in everyone’s mind about everyone’s status, standing, and situation.
           As I was commenting to one of the students at the SAPHE desk at the Tulane UC on Friday, there was a time when a woman’s deadly response to male rape or sexual assault was deemed praiseworthy and beyond reproach, much less prosecution, in the State of Texas and elsewhere throughout the South.  
          How have we come from that state of mind to this, where complaining of rape could be called “disruptive or intimidating behavior?”  
          I remain profoundly confused by the description of events.  If there is no charge of dishonesty, then Landen Gambill’s charges must be heard, and Landen Gambill is entitled to the full protection of the law afforded by the State of North Carolina.
            Obviously Landen Gambill’s fundamental federal rights are at stake here.  No rights are more important than the rights to control over one’s own body and “personal space”.  No situations in our radically disintegrating (i.e. diverse and non-uniform) society present more opportunities for abuse of each individual’s body and personal space than sexual relationships and dating situation.
              Because the old Victorian and pre-Victorian normative systems have collapsed and/or failed, all that remains for us today is the “social contract” which must be negotiated between individuals at all times and in all places.  
            Everyone bears the responsibility in society for maintaing the respect to be afforded each individual for his or her fundamental rights to personal integrity, but none bear this responsibility more than the administrators of the Universities and Colleges into which today’s youth go in major part for the purpose of adjusting to the normatively disintegrated society in which we live and discovering their own place—and the dimensions and boundaries of their place—in the remnants of society that now remain.
         To the Administrators of UNC-Chappel Hill I would say: The Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution must inform all dialogue concerning individual rights and responsibilities, and above all the role of our institutions of higher learning in assuring the rights of each individual to speak and petition regarding the most intimate and difficult phases of human life, which for young people today, as much as in the time of Abelard and Heloise, is most endangered and “risky” in the College and University Setting.  I would also say: if you harbor any doubts about this woman’s veracity or honesty, you must be open and honest about your doubts and you must submit to a trial on the merits of the question—you might even want to initiate such a trial (with real rules and standards of proof, possibly even as a declaratory judgment in court) rather than standing spinelessly idle.

             To those who are plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Suit I would say this: your cause and claims for constitutional vindication just, but focus on the basic constitutional rights and not on the ephemeral modern civil rights statutes which pit one group against another.  The strength of your claim lies in reliance on the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Realize that by defining and describing your experiences in the uncertain and undefined world of modern moral uncertainty, ideally you are working towards the formulation of a new set of norms, of a new moral code where once again predictability and certainty will replace randomness and confusion.

I have found that standing up for the right to complain, to criticize, and to attack the system for offering remedies which do more harm than heal can be hazardous to one’s professional health and career.  It was only after filing a series of seven civil rights suits in Texas against an abusive police department in Travis County that certain judges found it more advantageous to attack me and slander me than to listen to me, but that quite simply has not stopped me.

So to Landen Gambill and all her supporters, I hope that you will find the strength similarly to persevere I your quest for justice and to demand redress of grievances concerning the system that purports to protect you when in fact it does not.

*(Note: Since writing the above, I found at least one male interest group which DOES not only strongly question but attack Landen Gambill’s honesty and reputation for truthfulness, regarding which doubts, whether clear and convincing or not, see:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/unc-landen-gambill-and-false-rape-culture/

            I have repeatedly written that we live in a lawless society—a society in which our values have become so “relative” and so “circumstantially dependent, that there is no longer any such thing as “right” or “wrong”.  And yet, Nietzsche notwithstanding, our world is not “Beyond Good and Evil.”   All that is constructive is good and all that is destructive is evil, and yet truth is ALWAYS good and lies are ALWAYS evil, even though truth can be used to destroy lives and societies while lies can be used to build careers, cultural monuments to the liars, deceitful empires, and unnecessary wars….
            The debate over the right to charge “rape” on a crowded campus may be one of the areas of lawlessness in America where abuse is not only possible but tolerated.  
           Nevertheless, we have to choose which type of error to make: the error where we repress legitimate complaints or the error where we allow false complaints (related to but not entirely co-extensive with the more serious philosophical and statistical problems sometimes referred to as errors of false affirmation or false negation).
       In the Arena of Freedom of Speech, it is my position that NO COMPLAINT should ever be suppressed; NO DIALOGUE should ever be silenced, and so I support Landen Gambill until and unless she is herself charged and proved criminally guilty of or held civilly liable for (a) defamation, (b) malicious prosecution, (c) conspiracy to commit either offense.
              About a decade ago, I lost custody of my only son, Charlie IV, because I continued (a) to listen to HIS complaints about his mother and her treatment of him and (b) accordingly continued to question his mother’s fitness and her psychological (and physical) treatment of him.  Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County actually rendered an injunction against my ability ever to speak to my son regarding his own happiness, even during my own periods of custodial “possession”.   I investigated, and it turned out this was a standard order of his: he had a custom, practice, and policy of suppressing parents’ freedom to discuss the welfare of their children or to discuss family “issues” of any kind with their children.
              Since I absolutely refused to allow any judge to limit my speech, I was deprived of the right to see my son.  Eventually, my son sought me out and I took him to summer school at Harvard.  Then my son started college at St. John’s College in Annapolis after spending three summers with me. And then after one seemingly happy year, he turned on me, at his mother’s urging and indeed her insistence.
                My son refused to go for a summer abroad in Rome after I had paid his tuition and then abruptly dropped out of College and has come (now as an adult) under his mother’s complete and unfettered control, totally refusing any contact with me at all (and since he is an adult, I have nothing to say about his choice).  
             But I will say this, “In the best interests of the child” (as if that really were the purpose of Family Courts): I should have been allowed to maintain my complaints, especially since they were always based either on what I saw with my own eyes or what my son reported to me directly and graphically).  
          To suppress freedom of speech and the right to petition, either by injunction or to punish the exercise of these rights without appropriately clear and convincing findings of abuse, is to destroy every individual’s humanity.  To invoke the power of the state to limit by censorship or sanction by any means any one person’s ability to complain of perceived wrongs, especially by such a socially unusual and stigmatic sanction as expulsion from school, embodies the antithesis of the American ways of life and justice (but do see the “False Rape Culture” article above regarding a contrary opinion).  
                Perhaps I was a reprehensible Father for listening to my son’s complaints about his mother which wee not only consistent with what I had seen his mother do but also consistent with what I had seen his mother and HER mother do to another male member of the family (my son’s Uncle George, who died in Cancun, Mexico, several years ago at the ripe old age of 51, basically abused and abandoned but totally controlled by his mother and sister—who coincidentally were my son’s grandmother and mother).  
 
               And perhaps Landen Gambill is a compulsive liar who continued to date a man who raped her on every date (as the “False Rape Culture”) article above suggests.   But even so, she must be allowed to speak.  My very guilty wife (my son’s mother) always remained silent, and never even so much as took the witness stand or wrote an affidavit to specifically deny the charges against her (which at one point included felony injury to a child).   Landen Gambill’s accused has likewise remained silent—and it is greatly to his discredit to do so.  
             In criminal courts and procedings we preserve the right to remain silent as sacrosanct and do not allow comment upon the maintenance of silence—but in all civil contexts, silence is confession.   The manufacturer falsely accused of making dangerous products who remains silent will lose.  The boyfriend falsely accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend deserves precisely the same fate in a civil context.   

         Despite the possibility, whether it is a strong one or a weak one, that Landen Gambill has made false accusations of rape, I categorically refuse to withdraw anything that I wrote above about the way SAPHE at Tulane has presented Landen Gambill’s case, or my endorsement of her claim that the Administration must either listen to her or prove her wrong and lying by a preponderance of the evidence.  

            Where insufficient evidence exists for a criminal prosecution, but this much noise has been made, someone needs to file suit for declaratory judgment and a civil adjudication of the matter.

           A false accusation of rape is such an outrage, represents such “hubris” that for the male party involved not to respond by public action in his own vindication, with other values, such as that male’s honor and dignity, at stake, landen gambill must be accorded a presumption of truth.

         The First Amendment right to speak out (complain) and to petition for redress of grievances IS paramount.  If there is any insinuation of a “false rape culture”, it is because of the collapse of traditional morality, as I mentioned above: the death of the Victorian and Pre-Victorian standards and norms of sexual behavior and their replacement with, in essence, NOTHING except the power to negotiate and speak and discuss and define.  

              But if men are falsely accused, then they have to say so–and “act like men”—even if that itself is a victorian or even viking standard of honor.

           The  contrary article above on the “False Rape Culture” raises some disturbing but altogether unsubstantiated claims about why we should ignore Landen Gambill.  But the fact that a men’s activist group attacks her credibility does not automatically mean that Landen Gambill should be sanctioned for her complaints and freedom of speech, does it?  especially when her “silently” charged (presumably by now completely ex-) boyfriend has not stood up publicly to defend himself.   Our society and culture have indeed lost absolutely all integrity if even the falsely but very publicly accused center of a controversy remains silence.

         Supposedly, now, this “false rape culture” article says that she continued to date the man (boy?) whom she accuses of raping her—if true, that would indeed tarnish her credibility substantially.  But why then has the young man (boy?) in question not stood up for himself and cried “false”, “defamation”, “Malicious and perfidious lies”????   He has the same right to freedom of speech that Landen Gambill possesses.  I still find this entire story confusing in the extreme.  

           If a man can be publicly accused of rape and say nothing, i believe that  his silence constitutes a confession—either of guilt or of soulless, spineless indifference to the concept or Code of Honor.  “manhood should be made of sterner stuff”.   And for violations of this code of honor, there must be the sanction of enduring continuing complaints and accusations.


Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht, 
denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia