The Homosexual War against Christianity
Chapter 5
Why do bad things happen to good people?
The headline in a story published in the Christian Post for July 6, 2015
pretty much tells the story:
Oregon Declares War on the Christian Faith
and on Aaron and Melissa Klein.
The leede paragraph explains matters succinctly:
"In one of the most egregious anti-Christian acts committed by a state
official
in recent memory Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian not only
upheld the ridiculous $135,000 fine levied against Aaron and Melissa Klein
for declining to bake a cake for a lesbian commitment ceremony, but he
ordered the Kleins to "cease and desist" from making any public comments
about their religious convictions relative to this case."
This is brought to your attention for two reasons, the fist being that
similar cases
have been decided by other state courts involving , in one case, a
Christian
photographer who refused to provide services for homosexual so-called
weddings. We are witnessing a judicial assault on religious freedom as well
as upon science, specifically the science of sociobiology, everything done
in the name of enlightened reason. Indeed, the rulings go further and
identify
Christian faith with social evil.
The second reason for commenting on this story is that I became involved
in it, briefly, offering to help the Kleins to defend themselves against
the
homosexuals. After exchanging-mails with Melissa Klein I followed up
her suggestion to contact her attorney. Obviously Melissa was very
interested
in what I said; her lawyer was not. Because the Kleins would only proceed
with legal assistance my offer was quietly turned down despite the merits.
Which was why I was taken seriously to begin with.
Inasmuch as there was no reply from the attorney I can only guess as his
reasons for rejecting my offer but my conclusion is that he was intent upon
pursuing the case on narrow grounds, trying to win on technicalities of the
law.
Why make this a test case of fundamental principles when you can lose
so easily the usual way and set your clients up for appeals, also based
on technical considerations, in the process soaking them for thousands
of dollars in legal fees? And how could the Kleins object if they wanted
continued legal representation?
And lose the lawyer did, in the process accomplishing nothing at all,
also in the process bankrupting the Kleins.
To be sure, Commissioner Brad Avakian was kicked out of office by the
voters
in 2016, the only Democratic Party casualty in elections that year in this
majority blue state, and one reason was his abusive treatment of the
Kleins,
but the damage had been done, Sweetcakes Bakery, a healthy and welcome
business in the town of Gresham, was shuttered for good.
Ironically, if that it the right word, the refusal of the Kleins to bake a
wedding cake
for homosexuals was anything but illegal given the fact that what was
illegal
at the time of the lawsuit was homosexual marriage. The case was decided
on civil rights grounds, however, which was exactly what my defense sought
to destroy as untenable and based on false premises.
To be sure, the Kleins appealed to fellow Christians to help them out and
the fine they were assessed was mostly paid from donations to the couple,
something heralded in the Christian press as a "victory" -which it
manifestly
was not. After all, over a hundred thousand dollars was subtracted from
the
bank accounts of Christians which could have been used for local charities
or for other useful purposes, and the female homosexuals became
richer by $135,000 which they could use to further homosexual interests.
And, in any event, the Kleins lost their business.
The Christian Post article ended with a rousing call to fellow believers
to stand up and fight against such travesties of justice. After an appeal
to
common sense and human decency addressed to Commissioner Avakian
the essay said:
"I'm sure the Kleins would like nothing more than to forgive you to your
face
and give you a great big hug. Not only are Christians moral people,
they are forgiving people."
"But please do not associate forgiveness with weakness. We are quite
committed to stand for what is right."
"As Aaron stated clearly, "For years, we've heard same-sex marriage
will not affect anybody. I'm here firsthand to tell everyone in America
that it has already impacted people. Christians, get ready to take a stand.
Get ready for civil disobedience."
What it this but a formula for ineffectiveness? What we have here isn't
Christians
bringing a knife to a gunfight, they are bringing a suicide note. As if, to
refer to
the episode in the Gospels where Jesus threw the money changers out of the
temple with physical force, instead he walked up to them and pleaded:
"Pretty please Mr. Money-changer, I mean well and want to hug you.
Be so mice as the cease your money changing. If you don't I'll get really
serious.
Thank you very much."
This is utter nonsense, as if the whole New Testament does not exist except
for
the Sermon on the Mount. But we have the whole New Testament, not just the
sermon or the Beatitudes for a reason, because all of that material
matters,
it counts, it is important.
What contemporary Evangelical faith sometimes reduces to is pure pietism,
a serious misunderstanding of the character of faith for Christians. It was
well advised for the first Christians to define as heresy any doctrine or
practice that excluded any of the canonical scriptures as they knew them.
Not because the Sermon on the Mount is false but because by itself
it is incomplete. It is a vital part of the Christian story but it only is
a part. Absolutizing the Sermon on the Mount is a mistake.
And among other things it also is a mistake to bestow forgiveness without
the trespasser first showing sincere repentance. This point is repeated
throughout the New Testament (Matthew 21: 32, Luke 17: 3,
Acts 3: 18-19, Romans 2: 4-5, 2 Corinthians 7: 9, etc.) When there
is no repentance what you get vis-a-vis dealings with an adversary
is a joke: "Did I ever thrash that evil man, I hit him repeatedly
on his fists with my jaw."
What you also get is an adversary who thinks you are a wimp. He would
think of you are naive and stupid, a contemptible weakling.
The ending of the article, with its insistence that Christians should take
a stand
and are about to engage in civil disobedience is also a joke. Get real,
that
isn't happening, Christians aren't interested in any such thing. They can't
be
bothered. Some prefer the Benedict Option of withdrawal to gated
communities of fellow Christians, away from the world and its evils.
Most simply prefer to abandon their faith piecemeal, bit by bit,
in denial every step of the way that this is exactly what they are
doing, as if their excuses are something other than evasions:
"I pick my fights carefully and when I do with God's help I prevail."
Except that the last fight was 10 years ago and was half hearted and
guaranteed
to achieve little or nothing. You can't win a fight if you pull every punch
and then
say that you carried the battle to the enemy as your "I did my bit, I'm
excused"
card, get out of Hell free.
About which much more might be added but this should be sufficient
to describe the phenomenon under consideration. Except to note that
some Christians are afraid of their shadows and the idea of fighting
for what is right is alien to them. For such people the very concept
of a "fight" is evil, to be avoided at any cost.
The classic hymn, "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" is,
for them, incomprehensible, lyrics from a different religion. "A mighty
fortress is our God" is also incomprehensible, a song from another
planet.
Which is to say that when Christian faith is reduced to pietism
it ceases to have much of anything to do with Christianity.
It becomes religion-centered escapism.
None of which is to say that Christians should rush out and organize
themselves
into militias; that isn't the objective. But organizing themselves into
social action
groups, into foundations to support necessary causes, into media
organizations
that are competent to reach the multitudes, would be a really good start.
So far, however, with precious few exceptions, Christians aren't even
willing to as much as start, let alone take the challenge of homosexuality
seriously like we take any war seriously and mobilize to defeat
our foes completely and thoroughly.
There is one other example to point out, something that took place in 2005
in Eugene, Oregon, when the City Council held an open meeting to debate
whether or not the city should permit civil unions for homosexuals. I was
one of the presenters against the proposal and circulated a research paper
on the issue as well as speaking my mind before the crowd
of about 400 people.
Afterward, I met the pastor of a Baptist church, one of the few "witnesses
for the defense" that evening who seemed to be deadly serious, with
leadership
qualities, and willing to organize to stop the madness that the Council
obviously
was set upon carrying out.
We talked and the pastor was willing to hear me out and work together
for the common good. I did not pretend to be what I was not, he knew
from the outset that my modus operandi was based primarily on findings
from behavioral science, not religion, even though I certainly agreed with
the substance of the views of believing Christians.
A few days later the pastor was sent several articles and other
information which I had prepared. The work was professional quality.
He never replied and never took part in any actions that might have
made a difference in stopping the progress of the homosexuals
in the city of Eugene.
Ever since 1977, whenever there has been a chance, I have done what
was open to me at various times, intended to oppose homosexuals and
the achievement of their twisted agenda. This included a number of meetings
with pastors in different locations. I also took part in some activities
sponsored by the Oregon Citizens Alliance in the early 2000s.
In 1984 I wrote and distributed a manuscript book entitled Speaking the
Unspeakable. In 2000 I wrote a 150 page book entitled The Liberal Case
Against Homosexuality, which was snail-mailed to as many people as
I could afford.
As well, in 2008 I gave a two hour lecture at the University of Oregon on
the issue. There were mass mailings in Arizona during the 1990s. There
have been numerous e-mails sent to the blogosphere since I first had
access to a computer in 2004.
Sometimes I won't shut up on the subject.
All this effort has led to almost no results. The best to report is that
the
2000 book was received favorably by Victor Boc of CBS Radio here
in Oregon. That led to a 3 hour on-air interview which became one of
the most listened-to shows for Mr. Boc that year, 26th out of 300.
Michael Medved also sent a private letter to me in which he favorably
reviewed the book. There was one contact from a Canadian publisher.
And then everything died.
None of this means that I will cease and desist; that is out of the
question.
However, it has led me to question the sincerity of many Christians.
Or to question their judgment. Or to question their utter lack
of comprehension about what is at stake.
One conclusion is inescapable: On the issue of homosexuality,
when it concerns Christians, the effort is nearly useless.
Christians prefer to lose.
This is hyperbole, needless to say, but this is the feeling that one gets
again and again. How can so many well-intentioned people be so wrong
in their priorities? Especially when there are believers willing to put
everything on the line for their faith even when they lack the background
to defend themselves adequately. Meanwhile Christians who could help
are content to sit on the sidelines, or sit on their hands.
About the photographer mentioned several paragraphs previously, this is
in reference to a case highlighted in the Christian Post on April 7, 2014,
the story originally covered by World Religion News. As the headline
for the Alison Lesley article put it: US Supreme Court declines case
on freedom of religion and same sex marriage.
In 2006 two female homosexuals asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin,
who ran a photography studio, to take pictures for a homosexual so-called
'wedding.' However, the Huguenins are Christians and would not do so.
Just as, also on grounds of conscience, they "have previously refused
requests
to take photographs of scenes that depict violence or maternity photographs
that include nudity."
As the article continued: "Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court,
but on Monday, April 7th the case was dismissed, upholding the original
decision by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission." Either accommodate
the homosexuals or face a debilitating fine or be forced to terminate the
business. And so, what happened to the Kleins in Oregon, to another
bakery in Colorado, and to a florist in Washington, etc., happened again.
And once more the High Court, acting with complete irresponsibility,
decided that Christians have no right to religious freedom. The Supreme
Court would not even hear the case brought by the Huguenins, which
let stand a lower court's ruling on behalf of sexual deviants.
The question is, in all such cases, where is the outcry from Christians?
There isn't any. Or what there is, is weak, unorganized, and anemic.
Of course, there could well be reluctance due to knowledge of what happens
to those who do take a stand, like Ben Carson, now the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development. During the time he was a candidate
for the Republican nomination for president Carson spoke out on the
issue of homosexuality. Alas, like all-too-many Christian believers,
he did not know what he was talking about.
According to Dr. Ben, in a statement he made just prior to announcing
his candidacy for the Republican nomination, said that homosexuality
was a matter of choice; he denied that it was genetic or otherwise innate.
Which, of course, was correct. However, nearly everything he said
after that was a mess.
Especially the way he bent over backward to retreat from his original
comments when he met with criticism from the press. Hence those remarks
do not "reflect fully my heart on gay issues," Carson wrote on Facebook.
"I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive.
For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended." This was
reported in the Christian Post on March 6, 2015.
After that, speaking on Fox News, Carson said that he would no longer
discuss
homosexuality in public although there were a few comments in the following
weeks which alluded to the subject, always by means of talking about his
Christian faith , viz, "we are always born male and female. And I know
that we are all made in God's image..." About the only matter of substance
he brought up, with profuse apologies to homosexuals for his "hurtful"
remarks in March, was to note that he supported civil unions for
homosexuals.
This pathetic performance was inevitable given the fact that Carson was
a complete ignoramus on the issue. He has never done any research at all,
he made no effort whatsoever to make himself informed, and
it showed as soon as he tried to discuss the matter.
Worse, if that was possible, Carson showed no knowledge of the testimony
of the Bible on sodomy, except in general and imprecise terms. As if to
say,
"what good is research, who needs it, why bother?"
It is no wonder that yet another uninformed Christian backtracked on the
issue of homosexuality. It is no wonder that he was harshly criticized
by the news media and by organized homosexuals. He should have
known better, far better. He is a skilled neurosurgeon. He certainly
understands how research is carried out, it is well within his skill set.
Yet he didn't do any research at all. What did he really expect?
However, even very well informed Christians are faced with extreme and
undeserved criticisms as soon as they talk about the issue.
Consider Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, a first rate
researcher
of questions about homosexuality. Here is an incomplete list of Cameron's
papers,
a few written with his son Kirk Cameron; all that I have read are
informative and,
with some qualification in places, entirely convincing:
* How do the kids of homosexual parents turn out? The best evidence.
* Gays in the military -the sordid facts
* Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties
* Homosexual child molestations by foster parents: Illinois, 1997 - 2002.
* Are homosexuality and violence linked?
* Domestic violence among homosexual partners
* Did the American Psychological Association misrepresent scientific
material to the US Supreme Court?
* Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease
* APA fraud [Evelyn] Hooker study did not prove homosexuals are normal
* Do homosexual teachers pose a risk?
* The psychology of homosexuality
For his trouble Cameron is regularly vilified by the political Left and by
pundits
who wish to discredit him so that their pro-homosexual views are not
subject
to objective scrutiny. He has been condemned by the psychology department
of UC Davis, by the SPLC, Political Research Associates, Right Wing Watch,
Martha Nussbaum, Andrew Sullivan, et. al.
Perhaps the most extreme of Dr. Cameron's critics has been Mark Pietrzyk
of the so-called Log Cabin Republicans, a group of homosexual
conservatives.
Pietrzyk is (or was) associated with George Washington University's
political
science department. His favorite tactic has been to deny the accuracy
of Cameron's statistics -casting doubt on the findings would, he thinks,
discredit the research. Except that, while I cannot say this for all of
Cameron's studies since I have not read them all, apparently every
fact and figure in Cameron's work is verified, either through carefully
structured surveys or by mean of FBI data or still other scientific
sampling procedures.
Andrew Sullivan has made much of the parting of the ways between Cameron
and the American Psychiatric Association, claiming that Cameron was
booted out of the organization, as if that was a blemish on his record.
Actually it seems that Cameron resigned. The exact details do not interest
me,
however. But even if it was true that he was pressured out it would be to
Cameron's credit, not something else, inasmuch as the APA deserves to be
unmasked as a front for homosexuals; it lost all scientific credibility
decades ago.
-----
All of which is to say that it is not difficult to appreciate the fact
that
Christians may fear reprisals if they speak out. If, when all is said,
they are
as poorly informed as Ben Carson, they would be well advised not to
speak out and advised to actually educate themselves to the issue.
But what about people who do know what they are talking about?
--------
I wonder what the problem really is considering my efforts to awaken
people to the existential threat that homosexuals pose to America.
I have repeatedly sent offers to help others over the course
of many years since the 1990s. Always with no reply
or no reply that gets anywhere.
Most recently I made this comment to an anticipated response
from an e-mail bulletin distributed to people over the internet:
"Best reaction for anyone to take? I'm being sarcastic but let me
suggest that you wring your hands, dismiss it all as a fluke,
and pretend that there is nothing really wrong. Besides,
"I don't know about religion stuff and all I need to know
about religion is what I pray about on Sunday at church."
This is despite the fact that now at least one form of Christian faith
is being openly attacked from the floor of the US Senate.
Does this matter to Christians? Apparently not.
Or they may be very concerned but I have no way to know that they are
because of a dearth of response. Why is this so?
What I do know is that the quality of my work is world class. Those rare
times
when 'experts' have actually communicated with me make this quite clear.
At that, some people do exchange e-mails with me on a regular basis,
people whom I respect. They are unconnected to the world of publishing,
there isn't much they can do, but speaking of other professionals.
The problem in some cases may simply be zero sum thinking:
"I've got mine, and I have no time to help anyone else because
the minute I give recognition to another person this subtracts
from my success. Better to hog all the kudos. Others can
sink or swim."
There is plenty of that kind of thing in the world, needless to say,
99.99999 % of which does not involve me in any way. Still, this is not
how I play the game; my objectives are very different.
The goal should be creation of a movement, changing the world for the
better.
Sure, you want your fair share, and all due recognition. But if you hog the
spotlight other people who you very much need as part of your movement
feel slighted, became less co-operative, and may jump ship entirely
because of how badly they have been treated.
More positively, a team flourishes when everyone in it is rewarded
for their contributions to success. The best formula for a team that
rises to the top is the well-being of everyone on the team, not just
the superstars. That is, you should want to spread "the good" around.
Make everyone happy, not just you and your confidants. Give everyone
on the team a stake in the achievements of the team.
This is how I look at things, anyway. This is the exact opposite of
the values of Michael Douglas' character in the classic movie, Wall Street.
Another way to think about this is by way of a comment once made by the
manager of the Boston Red Sox during the 1940s, who led the team
during the career of Ted Williams, one of the best to ever play the game:
"Its a damn poor manager who can't get along with a .400 hitter."
The only thing to add is that the same manager should also want
to get along with a golden glove infielder, with a 20-game-winning
pitcher, with a player who hits 25 home runs... And with everyone
who does his best to see the team succeed.
For this kind of wisdom to "take," however, requires a manager
(or anyone) to be willing to acknowledge that someone else actually
has superior talents. It requires self-confidence to acknowledge
that someone is better than you at something, maybe at several skills.
And why not? Hell, I freely admit that there are better chess players
than myself, better mathematicians, better musicians, better salesmen,
better negotiators, better architects, better screen writers, and so forth.
In some areas of life I cannot compete.
There would be no point in pretending otherwise.
One explanation, at any rate, is that far too few people are like
the manager of the Red Sox. Far too many are like Gordon Gekko.
And far too many are political hacks, careerists, apparatchiks,
or herd animals generally. There is, however, an altogether
different kind of explanation.
After all, paranoids sometimes are justified in their paranoia.
Sometimes there are cabals against you, people who
would like to harm you or destroy your life.
Maybe what is happening is that falsehoods are being told about me.
There is no way to be sure but conceivably it is something like this:
Billy R. created a series of erotic art drawings that are very
compromising
to a number of people. This art is incriminating. The horror, the horror.
Could be. It is a possibility.
One thing that could be said on my behalf if this explanation is
more-or-less
close to the facts, speaking hypothetically, is that there was
understandable
purpose for the drawings, namely, their intended use to break a news
story
involving censorship of information that would, if known to the public,
discredit the homosexual movement. The vested interests that
want homosexuals to succeed are also determined to throttle
any debate on the issue that actually has substance.
But how do you "fight city hall"? In this case, how do you fight the news
media?
Freedom of the press only applies to those who own a press. A scandal
can break through the wall of silence but how does one man bring something
like that about? My theory was that art itself might accomplish this
objective.
For that to happen the art would need to be highly controversial,
This is the short form explanation.
The problem is that someone else might use art in a very different way,
in effect, to bring about the equivalent of a gag order that discourages
anyone who might otherwise speak out from doing so. One way to
make this happen could be to manufacture forgeries that appear
to be my work but that are not, new compositions that compromise
just about everything I actually believe in and value, which, of course,
multitudes also stand for and cherish.
That is, if there are such forgeries, how can anyone identify them if a
talented forger has replicated my style of drawing? There are excellent
art forgers, and art forgery has a long history and has fooled many
people.
I do not know that this is the case, but as a possibility, how can this
sort
of thing be exposed for what it is?
Maybe there are better ways to proceed but I have hit upon one method
that is as foolproof as I have been able to devise. Here are lists that
eliminate
subject matter that does not appear in any of my artistic creations. In
other
words, if you have before you an example of art that supposedly is my work
yet it features any of the following themes then it is not my work at all
and is a forgery :
Subjects:
* There are no homosexuals shown in any of my drawings,
there are no examples of people taking part in homosexual acts.
* There are no grade school children, or younger children.
* There are no "queer boys." These specimens basically disgust me.
How anyone can regard prepubescent boys as 'sex objects' defies
comprehension; at least it does as far as normal men are concerned.
Of course, it is easy enough to understand homosexual 'logic.' Young boys
have high-pitched voices. They have less strength than grown men. They
may well cry when there are problems. They have a full head of hair.
In other words, for homosexuals these boys are substitutes for women.
As Claude Crepault has said, homosexuality can be defined as clinical
heterophobia, irrational fear of the opposite gender. Yet normal impulses
still exist as bestowed by nature -except that they are distorted such
that
boys become the women that homosexual males are morbidly fearful of.
They are "safe," they cannot defend themselves physically. Its all quite
sick but, then, homosexuals are sick, and homosexuality is a mental
illness.
* There are no depictions of pregnant women.
* There are no elderly people.
* With one exception that I disavowed long ago, showing the Pope,
there are no men shown in any sexual acts or anything else
with the exception of some self-portraiture for effect. That is,
there are no men illustrated. Why should there be? I have
no interest in the male form, none at all.
* There are no circus freaks, no examples of subjects who are missing
a limb, no cases of people with "punk" hairstyles, nor is anyone shown
who has tattoos or wears body-piercing jewelry. There is one seeming
exception, Amy Grant in a non-erotic pose, but eve then the goal was to
suggest visually that she, indeed, has arms. The art technique in the case
was unsuccessful; the drawing never should have been circulated.
* There are no cases where a subject is diseased.
* There are no vampires or other fictional beings of similar nature.
* None of the art valorizes known criminals.
* There are no transexuals.
* None of the women shown have flabby breasts.
* No women shown have bald pates, indeed, none have short hair.
Women's hair is always long or at least is "longish."
* All women shown are attractive, nearly all are in the 18 to 38 year old
age category, all are "well proportioned," none are ugly, none are fat,
and
none are skin and bones. Indeed, I regard the ultra skinny models who
work for fashion designers as unhealthy freaks. They weigh only 95 pounds
or so because of the priorities of homosexuals in the business who want
their female models to resemble pre-pubescent boys as much as possible.
Activities:
* There are no examples of violence.
* There are no examples of 'self stimulation' with one regrettable
exception
showing Betty Friedan. Even this was based on private comments made to me
by Ms Friedan, in Connecticut, in 1975, when she talked to me about the
dissatisfactions of her life and her way of compensating for lost love.
* None of my art shows sadistic anything. I regard sadism
or sado-masochism as a mental illness, as immoral, and criminal.
* There is nothing scatological, with one exception that has long ago
been disavowed and which never should have been created.
* There is no fetishism of any kind.
* There are no examples of incest
* There are no examples of bestiality.
* There are no examples of anyone using a broom handle or etc.
* No-one is shown urinating.
* There is no buggery,
* There are no examples of anyone using sex toys of any description.
* There are no examples of debauchery of a Goddess, or debauchery
of the Virgin Mary, Jesus, Mary Magdalene or any other religious figure
of stature. And while my art sometimes borrows motifs from the realm
of Arab or Persian art, there are no references to anything Islamic per se
since I detest Islam and regard it as unfit for human consumption.
* There is no desecration of the American flag.
Vocabulary:
Graphic art uses words, sometimes displayed in a variety of fonts,
aka, typefaces. However:
* There are no examples of racial slurs
* There are no expressions of anti-Semitism
* There are no expressions of sympathy for Anarchists, Nazis or Communists
* There are no examples of anti-American views
* There are no misogynist sentiments anywhere.
Anything purporting to be my work that falls outside of these parameters
would be forgeries.
There is a possibility that something has been left out, another category
of art that is "not my work," but this ought to be sufficient to allow you
to generalize. Did I nonetheless cross the line in some of these
compositions?
Probably. But basically I tried to make my point through use of images
of naked women, dosojin-inspired art, symbolism, ornate and sometimes
elaborate "picture frame' borders, and artistic fonts. Themes were also
borrowed from the erotic arts of various cultures; much of the art is
post-modern in this sense.
Apologies for this lengthy explanation but it seemed necessary in order
to protect myself from the possibility of forgeries done in my name.
Some forgeries, if my style was imitated sufficiently well, could otherwise
cause people to regard my overall message as indefensible.
As a final note, the purpose in all of this activity was to cause some
woman,
and most who were portrayed were famous, to object in public against
her outrage, with the stated goal of bringing retribution against me.
I expected to "pay a price." It would have been worth it to break
a news story. But there were no public denunciations, no legal case
was ever made against me, and there were no for-the-record objections.
These comments also apply, so I have been led to believe, to diaries
written
in my name. However, I have never kept a diary in my entire life. The one
exception is that at the time of my 12th birthday I created two
mini-newspapers
all about me, which recounted events in my life at that time. But that was
it;
there were only two 'editions' of this tiny newspaper. There are no
diaries.
Any purported diaries necessarily are forgeries. They may be good
as forgeries, though.
A friend once showed me what he could do with his computer. He processed
a few pages of my actual longhand writing, which was how I did all of
my writing at one time. From these letters he developed a font set
which he could use to compose new letters in my exact handwriting.
I could tell the difference, of course, there are little idiosyncrasies in
how certain combinations of letters may be joined, in how a "T" is crossed,
that sort of thing, but it could easily fool someone else. In any case,
keep it simple. There are no diaries.
If there are any forgeries ask yourself some questions:
Who gave this to you? And: Qui bono? Who benefits
from passing along a forgery?
Who would have paid for forgeries ?
Why does the media keep silent ? What justifies de facto censorship?
Of course, if it was my art, any examples would be 25 years in the past,
actually more like 30 years. My career in erotic art pretty much ended
in 1987; that year I reached the point where it seemed unlikely that
art projects, no matter how good the quality of the art was, no matter
how creative, no matter how shocking, was going to achieve my objectives.
There were a few continuing efforts in 1988 when new ideas occurred to me
but the last two or three were distributed no later than 1989; there were
no more. There has been nothing since, no new erotic art. And there
never was any "porn" at any stage of things.
This is 2017.
Everything said here is theoretical. It is an example of a method of
reasoning
that was called "abduction" by American philosopher Charles Saunders Peirce
in the late 19th century. You can see examples on TV shows like CSI
and Law & Order. It makes use of scenarios to make sense of situations
where evidence is sketchy yet, clearly, there is a real world problem to
solve.
Yet if there is a better explanation for the problem I do not know
what that might be.
One thing is for sure, is that if the problem was called to their attention
my friends would have told me what is going on, what questions they have,
what doubts, and what can I say on my own behalf ? A friend deserves
at least minimum benefit of doubt, doesn't he? And no-one is so stupid
as to believe anything an official of government might say, if that is
where
this has gotten, prima facie, would they? I mean, when I hear an official
pronouncement of almost any variety I say to myself: What load of crap
do they want me to believe this time? Doesn't everyone use this calculus?
Actual friends would know, with no reason for doubt, that sick art is
alien to me. Generally speaking my actual art is indebted to medieval
miniatures, Renaissance stylists, Asian artists of various stripes, Art
Nouveau,
Art Deco,
Surrealism, and psychedelic art. Some of it is puckish, intended to be
humorous in a good natured way.
There was one friend who did ask me about some artwork that came to
his attention, as a matter of fact. It was something he wasn't sure
about.
In that case it was my art, I said so, and the matter was dropped. It was
a little over the top I must admit, but not really off the charts. That
was
at some point in the 1990s, that particular drawing was already about
10 years in the past by that time.
Not that I am a Victorian prude.. If an attractive woman or two was to
enter my life in the here-and-now I just might create special art for her,
or they, but this is also theoretical. At the moment it really doesn't ma
tter.
As things are in the 21st century my art is unobjectionable by any
reasonable
standards. And as much as possible it is beautiful, maybe inspirational,
and nothing I do as an artist in any way contravenes my clearly
stated ethical stands or values or cultural interests. Some from the
1980s is very naughty, to be sure, but I was younger, then...
Of course, other things might be said about me, but what these things
might be I simply do not know. My strategy takes this possibility
into account. It is this: To do such superior work, to produce
well-researched papers that can stand comparison with the writing
of nationally known authors, to always be original, such that the
value of my work cannot be denied by anyone.
The manager of the Boston Red Sox knew the value of Ted Williams
to the team. With Williams just about anything was possible, like
a championship that could benefit everyone concerned.
In other words, if you can't get along with a .400 hitter you would
only have yourself to blame.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
