What I am about to say may offend our civic misleaders, including the militarists on the Editorial Board of The Kansas City Star who are now pressing voters to approve public funding of a museum at the Kansas City Liberty Memorial for the International Cultivation of the Glorification of World War. Further, my politically incorrect language might anger those members of the public who believe that it insults the heroic dead and the living veterans of the victorious allies of the Great War, or any other war for that matter. But sometimes polite language does not suffice to convey the impact wanted. Perhaps my words will be construed as fighting words, yet I do not have to fear for my life - if I did I would use even stronger words as my buckler against the war-mongering liars - for given the censorious nature of the media that prostitutes itself to the thuggee organization in power, no more than a hundred or so people will read this outrageous expression of my dismay over the fact that the unified Editorial Board, hiding their personal names behind the masthead, found only one major reason in the entire community for objecting to the greasing of the enormous phallic symbol on the hill by the train station: MONEY; to wit, that "it has already received enough tax dollars" (March 21, 2004 editorial); and again, "The main criticism of the bond proposal is that it would siphon funds from maintenance of existing crumbling assets in the city" (March 23, 2004 report).
In fact there was a more fundamental objection in the body of the article that I sent to several of the Star editors and reporters quite recently. Of course they as well as the civic misleaders - whom I apprised by "carbon copy" of my opposition - might have followed former Denver Mayor Webb's advice to them, that they "ignore naysayers" to their public projects; that is a foolish course that I would not recommend, for it would surely enhance their ignorance and lead to their downfall.
I alluded to the phallic aspect of the Liberty Memorial in my protest. I certainly do not object to the phallus when privately employed for peaceful pursuits; that is, for the sake of lust or love. But when it is employed as a symbol of war, and when "In the name of peace, liberty, democracy, and god" is chanted around it, I protest against what the name really invokes: war, slavery, fascism, satanism.
Yet again, my protest against spending public funds on the dramatic rejuvenation of the primitive monument was not mentioned by the established media. And primitive it is, as primitive as the heads and phallic symbols planted in fields by headhunters in order to symbolically fertilize those fields. If the lingam were inserted lovingly in a yoni in the Hindu way, I might have no cause for offense, but here Mother Earth is abused in the thuggee manner: the Thugs behaved nicely - some were civic leaders; they befriended travelers; suddenly strangled them to death; drained their blood into holes dug for the purpose of rejuvenating the Earth - as an offering to Kali; threw the bodies in after the blood; covered the holes with dirt; and took the loot home to hide in their treasuries - their bank-caves.
But again, my protest, no matter how eloquently made, no matter how pointed my arguments, will be heard by very few people if the likes of the Editorial Board of The Kansas City Star have anything to do with it. That is, as long as my protest is virtual, meaning peaceful, it will be ignored, kept at armslength, several blocks away. If I translated my frustration into a bomb and hurled it into their stultifying office box, no doubt I would have my moment of fame; yet my original protest would still be suppressed; or at least I would be accused of contradicting my pacific manifesto and called a hypocrite and worse by the war-mongering masters of hypocrisy. They would report that I am a terrorist or a traitor, and say that the death penalty is quite necessary to prevent such violent deeds - that is what their peaceful police state is all about. To point out to them that their founding fathers were all traitors would be of no avail to my lawyers.
The organized media own the liberty of the press. The editors print only what they want the public to hear. It is not so much the advocacy of the glorification of war at public expense that I protest in the case of the editors of The Kansas City Star, for they are entitled to their free speech and press; but it is a fact that they deliberately suppress what they deem to be politically incorrect views that happen to oppose their official propaganda and expose them as agents of the war power. I have good historical cause to believe that several are them are closely associated with agencies such as the CIA and Homeland Security, and that they are deliberately cooperating in the current war effort by various illiberal means. In any event, notwithstanding the the "liberal" or the "conservative" slant of the media, its owners and editors cooperate with the government in manipulating the public mind.
No, ma'am, no sir, this is no crackpot conspiracy theory, that the press conspires with and works for the war-mongering governments of the United States. Since our phallic memorial is to the Great War, I shall refer to the Columbia War Papers, Series 1, No. 4, New York, 1917, entitled 'Our Headline Policy,' which expressed the policy of the pro-war administration of Columbia University. Columbia and other nongovernmental institutions emulated the U.S. Committee on Public Information, created by President Wilson to foster war by means of propaganda and suppression of all views opposed to the admistrations war plans. The nation's press took the recommendations to heart and voluntarily practiced censorship. While considering 'Our Headline Policy,' we might keep in mind the reasons why President Bush proudly refers to himself as a "war president," and refers not to a "police action" against criminal terrorists but to "the World War against Terrorism" and the "War in Iraq."
"Teamwork and only teamwork will win the war," states Columbia University in its paper to editors. "Our greatest national power... is our public press; and upon you, who direct that press, rests a supreme responsibility...." First of all, "The first requisite is unity." Of course the American people are independent, sayeth the "liberal" university's administration, but baseball and football has taught them the value of sacrificing the individual to teams. "It is upon this knowledge that the American people must now act. It is the editors of the public press who have it in their power to lead them to this action, by keeping the necessity of it - the ideal of it - constantly before the people; by making them realize that victory can be won only through unity. How is this to be done? Editorials. But to one reader who is influenced once by a given editorial, many hundreds are influenced, day by day, by the headlines of the paper and by the wording and the form of the news...." Therefore editors should not refer to individual performances but to teamwork, not to grandstand plays but to team play, to assists, to sacrifices of individuals, and be sure to always say "we", and "our" (battles).
In fine, "It is the press of the country that we must look to keep this necessity of unity, this clear vision of our single aim, constantly before us; and it is in the headlines of the papers, in the placing of the news, and in the words that are used in making the news public that this must be done."
Think on this. What better thing could the Editorial Board of The Kansas City Star recommend than the public financing of the further glorification of global warfare at the Liberty War Memorial? And this by multiple-media means: projecting battle scenes on the 180-foot skirt of the phallic object; planting the seeds of future wars - guns, life-sized objects of trench-war horrors including craters, plasma screens with war images - in the uterine cavity within the pubic mound. Perhaps toy machine guns and rifles could be sold at the gift shop to further educate future generations to the manly virtues of violently making peace. Football games, the next best thing to war, might also be projected on the huge screen in order to directly associate teamwork with its best-suited, uniform enterprise.
Unity, indeed. We recall the recent exclamations of the members of Congress, overjoyed by the prospect of war against some enemy besides each other. "Unity at last!" Yes, many of them did remark on the newfound unity of the American people as they wrapped themselves in the flag, and the media, with flags waving all the while, prompted by the lies of the president, conducted the chorus. But did not one member of congress disagree? I should remember the dissent. Who voted against the male hysteria? A lone woman? Or man? If a woman, it certainly was not the female reporter who returned from the pre-emptive assault on Iraq to say that in war Americans are at their finest.
Now let us refer to the Untimely Papers edited by James Oppenheim (New York, 1919), and recall what was written on the subject of Unity by one Randolph Bourne during the Great War, keeping in mind that his papers were published after his death. Bourne claimed that unity in war is the basest and most uncivilized unity of all, the unity of the herd. He said that the State is a mystical or irrational conception. Now the fundamental motive of mysticism, as we know so well, strives for unity with some indefinite whole, whether it be the one-god, the universe, Nature, Nothing and the like. The individual wants to be submerged like Narcissus in a corporate pool where he shall not be individually responsible; or he would lose himself in oceanic bliss; or recover the infantile feeling of omnipotence, and so on according to an unconscious drive Freud once called the Death Instinct because he noticed people do not always adhere to the Pleasure Principle. Bourne referred to the difference between state and government, saying that the government of a state is not identical with or eponymous with the state. Yet, as we know, a government, and its prostituted press, who would stampede cattle to war, make just such an identification, and insist that all who oppose their unified will to war are traitors to the state and nation.
"War is the health" of such a state, wrote Bourne. Society feels rejuvenated by war as the soil is watered with the blood of its young and strongest. War reveals the fanatic ideal of the State; in war is the urge for obedient unification greatest. Each individual has a fragment of the mystical unity, hence he feels worthy indeed, significant, important for a change; thus does war bring individualism to its apotheosis, making of each individual a god. Wherefore war mongers hate novelty, nonconformity. People are punished for their mere opinions if those opinions are contrary to the war movement. The super-patriot identifies with the state, thus the distinction between state and government are lost as far as he is concerned. However, Bourne notes (before Hitler came on the scene to renew the war to end all wars) that people do not all act as a homogeneous herd; actually, the vulgar herd-instinct is stronger in the "better" class, for whom war is a game, the best of all sports.
Now who remembers the hackneyed phrases of President Wilson when he called Congress to war? "The right is more precious than speech.... make the world safe for democracy.... American is privileged to spend her blood and might for the principles that gave her birth." European soil was dutifully fertilized with American blood in the war that did not end all wars as expected but rather set the stage for even worse wars and police actions. Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin objected to entering the war, pointing out that the allies "in defense of democracy" included autocrats just as bad as Germany; that both England and Russia "preyed on shipping"; that if the question were submitted to referendum, there would be no war - conscientious objectors were later jailed under the sedition act for advocating such referendums.
And who remembers what the first United States congresswoman said as she violated the 140-year-old precedent of saying nothing when she voted against entering the war? "I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no." The vote was 374 in favor, 50 opposed, 9 abstained.
Jeanette Rankin was the only member to vote against the war on Japan. She held to the traditional view that the coasts of the United States and its protectorates should be defended; otherwise no war should be waged. As for Pearl Harbor, retaliation would only waste more lives. She was one of many who believed Roosevelt actually provoked the Japanese attack so that the white man's interests in Asia could be protected.
"Americans are peace loving on the whole and can only be led into war by deceitful leaders. The attack cold have been foreseen, for everyone knew American military action would be required to prevent the destruction of the white power in the Far East...." said Congresswoman Rankin in the remarks entered in the Congressional Record, December 8, 1942. She said that Roosevelt provoked the attack. Of course hardly anyone believes that Roosevelt, a Navy man, knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked; if he did, he certainly would have made certain that the attackers were defeated. Still, we know very well that Roosevelt &Co. were itching to enter the war. We know about the meetings. We know that Winston Churchill admiringly called Roosevelt a "traitor" for his conduct. Still, Roosevelt refused to make a pre-emptive strike. Why? Because, he said, "We are a democracy." No more, not in that sense.
As for Jeanette Rankin's vote against America's entry in the Great War, journalists and ministers subjected her to the worst sort of calumny, but the congressmen who voted against the war were not thus contemned. She was called a "dagger in the hands of German propagandists", "a dupe of the Kaiser", "a member of the Hun army", "a crying schoolgirl." (see Helena Independent) Independent press? Hardly. But let the record show that there were independent publishers, journalists and thinkers in those days.
For instance, Oswald Garrison Villard, publisher of the New York Evening Post pointed out in 1916 that preparedness is militarism, and said that there will always be someone to protest against state-organized mass murder:
"Against the god of might; against the god of force; against the policy of murder of millions and millions, there will be American citizens to protest as long as there are stars in their courses. Against every preparation for war men henceforth will rise to say NO, event with their backs to the wall and rifles in front of them. For there is no slavery in the world like this to arms, none that today so checks the growth of liberty, of democracy, of the coming of the kingdom of heaven on earth. They will bear readily and willingly the imputations of fanciful, unpractical idealism, of lack of patriotism; only it must never be said of them that they were afraid to die for their ideals, or that they were traitors to the Prince of Peace in thought or deed." For more, see Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1916.
Yes, American citizens still protest to this very day. And this particular citizen protests against the public funding of the Kansas City Liberty Memorial for the International Cultivation of War in the Names of Peace and Freedom urged by the war-mongering members of the Editorial Board of The Kansas City Star.
I also takes this occasion to object to the insertion of 'One Nation Under God, Indivisible' in the Pledge of Allegiance, not because I would be ungodly, but because the clause was inserted and the ritual pledge was imposed in the schools for the express purpose of brainwashing students into wrapping themselves in the flag and into waging hot and cold religious wars, in the mere name of an abstract one-god, against "ungodly" communists, against the so-called Evil Empire; whose despised "humanists" and "socialists", including "leftist" priests and "activist" nuns were murdered and raped pursuant to the rationale of the fundamentalist Crusade against Islam (as Reagan-Bush looked on); that any one who does not believe in the barbarian version of the one-god must burn in hell, therefore they should be murdered forthwith lest they infect others.
Thus are many crimes of humanity perpetrated by the organized thugs, the lords of darkness and corporate warfare who would dominate the world in the name of their one-god or any other name convenient to the purpose. The blinded believers murder each other in the name of the same one-god. If the truth were known, they would realize that their one-god is the god of war; a lying and false god; a slanderer, a satan; and they would know that those who advocate war in the name of the Prince of Peace are perjurers and blasphemers.
But who will hear this my protest? Not many, not if the owners and editors of The Kansas City Star and other civic misleaders have any say in the matter; and the Star does have its say since it is the only substantial newspaper in town - the alternative may get wise some day - and its views shape and dominate public opinion accordingly. Still, since you may have heard me out instead of skipping over my words, please think on these things the next time you see or think about the Kansas City Liberty Memorial.
Downtown Kansas City Journal
March 25, 2004