larvatus: (MZ)
Das Ziel des Rechts ist der Friede, das Mittel dazu der Kampf. So lange das Recht sich auf den Angriff von Seiten des Unrechts gefasst halten muss–und dies wird dauern, so lange die Welt steht–wird ihm der Kampf nicht erspart bleiben. Das Leben des Rechts ist Kampf, ein Kampf der Völker–der Staatsgewalt–der Stände–der Individuen.
    Alles Recht in der Welt ist erstritten worden, jeder wichtige Rechtssatz hat erst denen, die sich ihm widersetzten, abgerungen werden müssen, und jedes Recht, sowohl das Recht eines Volkes wie das eines Einzelnen, setzt die stetige Bereitschaft zu seiner Behauptung voraus. Das Recht ist nicht blosser Gedanke, sondern lebendige Kraft. Darum führt die Gerechtigkeit, die in der einen Hand die Wagschale hält, mit der sie das Recht abwägt, in der andern das Schwert, mit dem sie es behauptet. Das Schwert ohne die Wage ist die nackte Gewalt, die Wage ohne das Schwert die Ohnmacht des Rechts. Beide gehören zusammen, und ein vollkommener Rechtszustand herrscht nur da, wo die Kraft, mit der die Gerechtigkeit das Schwert führt, der Geschicklichkeit gleichkommt, mit der sie die Wage handhabt.
    Recht ist unausgesetzte Arbeit und zwar nicht etwa bloss der Staatsgewalt, sondern des ganzen Volkes. Das gesammte Leben des Rechts, mit einem Blicke überschaut, vergegenwärtigt uns dasselbe Schauspiel rastlosen Ringens und Arbeitens einer ganzen Nation, das ihre Thätigkeit auf dem Gebiete der ökonomischen und geistigen Produktion gewährt. Jeder Einzelne, der in die Lage kommt, sein Recht behaupten zu müssen, übernimmt an dieser nationalen Arbeit seinen Antheil, trägt sein Scherflein bei zur Verwirklichung der Rechtsidee auf Erden.
    Freilich nicht an Alle tritt diese Anforderung gleichmässig heran. Unangefochten und ohne Anstoss verläuft das Leben von Tausenden von Individuen in den geregelten Bahnen des Rechts, und würden wir ihnen sagen: Das Recht ist Kampf – sie würden uns nicht verstehen, denn sie kennen dasselbe nur als Zustand des Friedens und der Ordnung. Und vom Standpunkt ihrer eigenen Erfahrung haben sie vollkommen Recht, ganz so wie der reiche Erbe, dem mühelos die Frucht fremder Arbeit in den Schoos gefallen ist, wenn er den Satz: Eigenthum ist Arbeit, in Abrede stellt. Die Täuschung Beider hat ihren Grund darin, dass die zwei Seiten, welche sowohl das Eigenthum wie das Recht in sich schliessen, subjectiv in der Weise auseinanderfallen können, dass dem Einen der Genuss und der Friede, dem Andern die Arbeit und der Kampf zu Theil wird.
    Das Eigenthum wie das Recht ist eben ein Januskopf mit einem Doppelantlitz; Einigen kehrt er bloss die eine Seite, Andern bloss die andere Seite zu, daher die völlige Verschiedenheit des Bildes, das beide von ihm empfangen. In Bezug auf das Recht gilt dies wie von einzelnen Individuen, so auch von ganzen Zeitaltern. Das Leben des einen ist Krieg, das Leben des andern Friede, und die Völker sind durch diese Verschiedenheit der subjectiven Vertheilung beider ganz derselben Täuschung ausgesetzt, wie die Individuen. Eine lange Periode des Friedens – und der Glaube an den ewigen Frieden steht in üppigster Blüthe, bis der erste Kanonenschuss den schönen Traum verscheucht, und an die Stelle eines Geschlechts, das mühelos den Frieden genossen hat, ein anderes tritt, welches sich ihn durch die harte Arbeit des Krieges erst wieder verdienen muss. So vertheilt sich beim Eigenthum wie beim Recht Arbeit und Genuss, aber für den Einen, der geniesst und im Frieden dahinlebt, hat ein Anderer arbeiten und kämpfen müssen. Der Frieden ohne Kampf, der Genuss ohne Arbeit gehören der Zeit des Paradieses an, die Geschichte kennt beide nur als Resultate unablässiger, mühseliger Anstrengung.
    Diesen Gedanken, dass der Kampf die Arbeit des Rechts ist und in Bezug auf seine praktische Nothwendigkeit sowohl wie seine ethische Würdigung auf dieselbe Linie mit der Arbeit beim Eigenthum zu stellen ist, gedenke ich im Folgenden weiter auszuführen. Ich glaube damit kein überflüssiges Werk zu thun, im Gegentheil eine Unterlassungssünde gut zu machen, die sich unsere Theorie (ich meine nicht bloss die Rechtsphilosophie, sondern auch die positive Jurisprudenz) hat zu Schulden kommen lassen. Man merkt es unserer Theorie nur zu deutlich an, dass sie sich mehr mit der Wage als mit dem Schwert der Gerechtigkeit zu beschäftigen hat; die Einseitigkeit des rein wissenschaftlichen Standpunktes, von dem aus sie das Recht betrachtet, und der sich kurz dahin zusammenfassen lässt, dass er ihr das Recht weniger von seiner realistischen Seite als Machtbegriff, als vielmehr von seiner logischen Seite als System abstracter Rechtssätze vor Augen führt, hat meines Erachtens ihre ganze Auffassung vom Recht in einer Weise beeinflusst, wie sie zu der rauhen Wirklichkeit des Rechts gar wenig stimmt – ein Vorwurf, für den der Verlauf meiner Darstellung es an Belegen nicht fehlen lassen wird.
    –Rudolph von Jhering, Der Kampf um's Recht, 1884
The end of the law is peace. The means to that end is war. So long as the law is compelled to hold itself in readiness to resist the attacks of wrong—and this it will be compelled to do until the end of time—it cannot dispense with war. The life of the law is a struggle,—a struggle of nations, of the state power, of classes, of individuals.
    All the law in the world has been obtained by strife. Every principle of law which obtains had first to be wrung by force from those who denied it; and every legal right—the legal rights of a whole nation as well as those of individuals—supposes a continual readiness to assert it and defend it. The law is not mere theory, but living force. And hence it is that Justice which, in one hand, holds the scales, in which she weighs the right, carries in the other the sword with which she executes it. The sword without the scales is brute force, the scales without the sword is the impotence of law. The scales and the sword belong together, and the state of the law is perfect only where the power with which Justice carries the sword is equalled by the skill with which she holds the scales.
    Law is an uninterrupted labor, and not of the state power only, but of the entire people. The entire life of the law, embraced in one glance, presents us with the same spectacle of restless striving and working of a whole nation, afforded by its activity in the domain of economic and intellectual production. Every individual placed in a position in which he is compelled to defend his legal rights, takes part in this work of the nation, and contributes his mite towards the realization of the idea of law on earth.
    Doubtless, this duty is not incumbent on all to the same extent. Undisturbed by strife and without offense, the life of thousands of individuals passes away, within the limits imposed by the law to human action; and if we were to tell them: The law is a warfare, they would not understand us, for they know it only as a condition of peace and of order. And from the point of view of their own experience they are entirely right, just as is the rich heir into whose lap the fruit of the labor of others has fallen, without any toil to him, when he questions the principle: property is labor. The cause of the illusion of both is that the two sides of the ideas of property and of law may be subjectively separated from each other in such a manner that enjoyment and peace become the part of one, and labor and strife of the other. If we were to address ourselves to the latter, he would give us an entirely opposite answer.
    And, indeed, property, like the law, is a Janus-head with a double face. To some it turns only one side, to others only the other; and hence the difference of the picture of it obtained by the two. This, in relation to the law, applies to whole generations as well as to single individuals. The life of one generation is war, of another peace; and nations, in consequence of this difference of subjective division, are subject to the same illusion precisely as individuals. A long period of peace, and, as a consequence thereof, faith in eternal peace, is richly enjoyed, until the first gun dispels the pleasant dream, and another generation takes the place of the one which had enjoyed peace without having had to toil for it, another generation which is forced to earn it again by the hard work of war. Thus in property and law do we find labor and enjoyment distributed. But the fact that they belong together does not suffer any prejudice in consequence. One person has been obliged to battle and to labor for another who enjoys and lives in peace. Peace without strife, and enjoyment without work, belong to the days of Paradise. History knows both only as the result of painful, uninterrupted effort.
    That, to struggle, is, in the domain of law, what to labor, is, in that of economy, and, that, in what concerns its practical necessity as well as its moral value, that struggle is to be placed on an equal footing with labor in the case of property, is the idea which I propose to develop further below. I think that in so doing I shall be performing no work of supererogation, but, on the contrary, that I shall be making amends for a sin of omission which may rightly be laid at the door of our theory of law; and not simply at the door of our philosophy of law, but of our positive jurisprudence also. Our theory of law, it is only too easy to perceive, is busied much more with the scales than with the sword of Justice. The one-sidedness of the purely scientific standpoint from which it considers the law, looking at it not so much as it really is, as an idea of force, but as it is logically, a system of abstract legal principles, has, in my opinion, impressed on its whole way of viewing the law, a character not in harmony with the bitter reality. This I intend to prove.
    –Rudolph von Jhering, The Struggle for Law, translated by John J. Lalor, 1915
larvatus: (MZ)
“Was nicht verboten ist, ist erlaubt”, announced Schiller’s First Hunter. What isn’t forbidden, is allowed. But you can do better—observe social rules only as far as necessary to trespass them with lawful impunity. “Questa è l’unica speranza—l’uomo nel disordine.”

larvatus: (rock)
C’est ainsi que le tyran asservit les sujets les uns par les autres. Il est gardé par ceux desquels il devrait se garder, s’ils n’étaient avilis : mais, comme on l’a fort bien dit pour fendre le bois, il se fait des coins de bois même. Tels sont ses archers, ses gardes, ses hallebardiers. Non que ceux-ci ne souffrent souvent eux-mêmes de son oppression ; mais ces misérables, maudits de Dieu et des hommes, se contentent d’endurer le mal, pour en faire, non à celui qui le leur fait, mais bien à ceux qui, comme eux, l’endurent et n’y peuvent rien. Et toutefois, quand je pense à ces gens-là, qui flattent bassement le tyran pour exploiter en même temps et sa tyrannie et la servitude du peuple, je suis presque aussi surpris de leur stupidité que de leur méchanceté. Car, à vrai dire, s’approcher du tyran, est-ce autre chose que s’éloigner de la liberté et, pour ainsi dire, embrasser et serrer à deux mains la servitude ? Qu’ils mettent un moment à part leur ambition, qu’ils se dégagent un peu de leur sordide avarice, et puis, qu’ils se regardent, qu’ils se considèrent en eux-mêmes : ils verront clairement que ces villageois, ces paysans qu’ils foulent aux pieds et qu’ils traitent comme des forçats ou des esclaves , ils verront, dis-je, que ceux-là, ainsi malmenés, sont plus heureux et en quelque sorte plus libres qu’eux. Le laboureur et l’artisan, pour tant asservis qu’ils soient, en sont quittes en obéissant ; mais le tyran voit ceux qui l’entourent, coquinant et mendiant sa faveur. Il ne faut pas seulement qu’ils fassent ce qu’il ordonne, mais aussi qu’ils pensent ce qu’il veut, et souvent même, pour le satisfaire, qu’ils préviennent aussi ses propres désirs. Ce n’est pas tout de lui obéir, il faut lui complaire, il faut qu’ils se rompent, se tourmentent, se tuent à traiter ses affaires et puisqu’ils ne se plaisent que de son plaisir, qu’ils sacrifient leur goût au sien, forcent leur tempérament et le dépouillement de leur naturel. Il faut qu’ils soient continuellement attentifs à ses paroles, à sa voix, à ses regards, à ses moindres gestes : que leurs yeux, leurs pieds, leurs mains soient continuellement occupés à suivre ou imiter tous ses mouvements, épier et deviner ses volontés et découvrir ses plus secrètes pensées. Est-ce là vivre heureusement ? Est-ce même vivre ? Est-il rien au monde de plus insupportable que cet état, je ne dis pas pour tout homme bien né, mais encore pour celui qui n’a que le gros bon sens, ou même figure d’homme ? Quelle condition est plus misérable que celle de vivre ainsi n’ayant rien à soi et tenant d’un autre son aise, sa liberté, son corps et sa vie !!


Jean-Léon Gérôme, Slave Auction, 1866, The Hermitage, St. Petersburg

Thus the tyrant enslaves his subjects, ones by means of others. He is protected by those from whom he would have to guard himself, were they not abased: but, as it is well said, to split wood one needs wedges of the selfsame wood. Such are his archers, his guards, his halberdiers. Not that they themselves do not often suffer at his hands, but these wretches, accursed alike by God and man, are content to endure evil in order to commit it, not against him who wrongs them, but against those who, like themselves, suffer him and cannot help it. And yet, when I think of those men who basely flatter the tyrant to profit at once from his tyranny and from the servitude of the people, I am almost as astonished by their folly as by their wickedness; for to get to the point, how can they approach a tyrant, but by withdrawing further from their liberty, and, so to speak, embracing and seizing their servitude with both hands? Let such men briefly lay aside their ambition, or slightly loosen the grip of their sordid avarice, and look at themselves as they really are; then they will realize clearly that the townspeople, the peasants whom they trample under foot and treat like convicts or slaves, they will realize, I say, that these people, mistreated though they be, are happier and in a certain sense freer than themselves. The laborer and the artisan, no matter how enslaved, discharge their obligation through obedience; but the tyrant sees men about him grovel and beg for his favor. They must not only do as he says; they must also think as he wills; and often to satisfy him they must anticipate his wishes. Their work is far from done in merely obeying him; they must also please him; they must wear themselves out, torment themselves, kill themselves with work on his behalf, and since they cannot enjoy themselves but through his pleasure, replace their preferences with his, distorting their character and corrupting their nature. They must continually pay heed to his words, to his intonation, to his glances, and to his smallest gestures: let their eyes, their feet, their hands be continually poised to follow or imitate his every motion, to espy or divine his wishes, or to seek out his innermost thoughts. Is that a happy life? Is that a life properly so called? Is there anything in the world more intolerable than that situation, not just for any man of nobility, but even for any man possessed of a crude common sense, or merely of a human face? What condition is more wretched than to live thus, with nothing to call one’s own, receiving from someone else one’s sustenance, one’s own accord, one’s body, and one’s life!!

—Étienne de La Boétie (1 November 1530 – 18 August 1563), Discours de la servitude volontaire, 1549
larvatus: (Default)
Once there was a great clover meadow divided into two equal parts by a clear river which ran between. One field was the home of the grey rabbits, the other of the white rabbits. Each one had enough; none had too much, and all were happy.
    One day four white goats came to the field of the white rabbits and four black goats to the field of the grey rabbits, and the goats said to the rabbits: “This field is ours. Do not touch a stalk of clover.” “Who gave you the land?” asked the rabbits. “Our God and yours. The Man who lives on the Hill,” answered the goats. “Oh!” said the rabbits.
    Presently some of the older rabbits got together and, with noses twitching, nervously asked the goats: “Where shall we go and how shall we live?” “You cannot go anywhere,” said the goats, “and if you will cut clover for us we will give you enough to keep yon alive, unless you are greedy. The greedy must die.” “Oh!” said the rabbits.
    So the four white goats divided one field into quarters, each taking one as its own, and the four black goats divided the other field in the same way, and for a long time the rabbits brought the goats the hay which the goats sold to the pigs who lived on an island in the river. The goats became very fat and prosperous, but the rabbits had hardly enough to eat. The rabbits continued to have large families and grew more and more numerous, so that the clover allowed by the goats was not enough and the rabbits were starving. Some of the rabbits then said: “Brethren, four goats cannot harvest this clover. We do all the work. Let us stand together and refuse to labor unless we get more clover and shorter hours.”
    So the rabbits formed a hundred and thirty-seven unions, so that each rabbit could find a union tor its kind. There was a union for rabbits with a spot on the right fore-foot, and a union for rabbits with a spot on the left fore-foot, and so on, for all manner of rabbits, including lop-eared rabbits and blind rabbits. Sometimes the rabbits with a spot on the 
left fore-foot would walk out and sit by the edge of the field and look at the clover and refuse to work unless given more clover and shorter hours. This action was called “a squat.” Sometimes the rabbits with a spot on the right fore-foot would walk out on a squat. Sometimes it would be the lop-eared rabbits, or the three-toed rabbits, or the blind rabbits, or whichever was hungriest, and the others would do the work for the goats till those out on a squat would get so hungry looking at the clover they would, one by one, slip back into the field and go to work, and sometimes, if the crop was very big and the pigs were squealing for clover, and business was good, the goats would give the squatting rabbits a little more to eat and shorter hours.
    But when the rabbits had bred to such a multitude that there were more rabbits than were needed for the work, poor, hungry, mangy or scabby rabbits would offer to work for less clover, and then the whole thing would be in a dreadful uproar; the union rabbits would squeal “Scab!” at the poor mangy rabbits, and the goats would bleat: “Let them alone. We have a God-given right to have them work for us for less clover.” And all the other union rabbits, left-foots, right-foots, fore-foots, hind-foots, lop-ears and so on — all except the ones who were squatting — would go on harvesting the goats’ clover for them, but crying continually: “Scab! Scab! Scab!”
    Things went on this way for a long time, the white rabbits and the grey rabbits getting poorer and poorer, and the white goats and black goats getting fatter and fatter. But presently the black goats and the white goats quarreled over which should furnish clover to the pigs. The black goats declared war on the white goats, and each shouted to their own rabbits: “Quit working for us now for a while and come fight for us”; so the white rabbits rushed at the grey rabbits and the grey rabbits rushed at the white rabbits and they killed each other, squealing strange squeals: “Patriotism!” “Fatherland!” “Our Country!” “Our Flag!” “The Goats forever!” “God bless our Goats!”

    The goats wept and gave a little clover to the orphan rabbits, and hung small yellow bells on the two-legged and three-legged rabbits who had lost legs in the war, so these rabbits sat all day tinkling their bells and were fed by the other rabbits and were greatly venerated for their intelligence.
    
During the war the white goats sent for white foxes to fight for them, and the black goats sent for black foxes to fight for them, and the rabbits were glad and said: “We will feed the foxes who fight for us.” After a long and bitter war, and the killing of many rabbits, peace was declared between the black goats and the white goats and they divided the Pigs’ Island between them by a solemn treaty, and were fatter than ever.

    So the rabbits, white and grey, went back to their fields to work, only each had to labor harder because there were so many crippled rabbits and so many foxes to support. The rabbits were thus harder worked and poorer than ever, but every time they grumbled or one of their unions squatted the goats set the foxes on them and drove them back to work.

    Things became so unbearable that an old grey rabbit called all the rabbits together, white and grey, and said to them: “Are we not all rabbits? Are we not all brothers? Are we not all enslaved? Our mistake was in admitting the right of the goats to own the land, because that has enslaved us. We must live from the land. Without it we die. Our remedy is to undo this error and to assert that not even our God, the Man on the Hill, can give away the ownership of the fields. They must be as before, open and free to whomsoever will use them. If the goats want clover, let them get what they can use, and no more. The same with the pigs, and the same with rabbits; and as for rabbits killing each other, it is worse than wicked — it is foolish.” “But,” said a large white rabbit, “what will become of the foxes?” “Let them die,” said the grey rabbit. “But they won’t die. They will eat us,” said the white rabbit. “No,” said the grey rabbit, “there are many more of us, and we can kick powerfully if we want to. Moreover, unless we work for the goats, how can they buy the chickens they feed to the foxes? Foxes cannot eat clover.” “But how are we to do this? The goats are larger than we are,” said the white rabbit “Easily,” replied the grey rabbit; “let us unite in one great brotherhood. Not lop-eared or blind rabbits, but just rabbits, all rabbits, in one common band. Then let us say to the goats; ‘We will harvest no more clover for you. Work yourselves, or starve. We deny your ownership of the fields. We will help ourselves.’ Oh, my brothers,” he added, “see this mutilated ear which was chewed by a white rabbit while each of us was fighting for the goats, he for the white goats, I for the black. Let it be so no more. Let us all get together as one band of brothers. Let us break this ownership of our fields by the goats, and then no more shall our little ones starve in meadows of abundance.” “Very fine words,” said the white rabbit, “but only words. Do not listen to him. He is a visionary. A dreamer. Labor is not vision. Labor is life. Life is labor. Let us all go back to our jobs. That is life. We can from time to time squat and kick as before, separately and independently, for more clover and shorter hours. That also is life. Anything beyond a little more clover or shorter hours is vision, and sensible rabbits will not bother with it.”
    
So the rabbits all returned to labor for the goats, while the foxes watched them from the shade.
larvatus: (MZ)
Subrah Iyar lives on a gated estate at 15292 Kennedy Rd, Los Gatos, CA 95032.

On June 29 I paid him a visit:




I brought along some visiting cards.

Subrah’s bodyguards called for reinforcements:




Overseen by the unblinking eye of Bragmardo, I assumed my Pedobear watch:




Meanwhile, Subrah’s neighbors sped by:




It was my pleasure and privilege to keep them safe from Subrah’s child raping pals:



larvatus: (MZ)
The place:


The tools:


The performance:
larvatus: (Default)
As a naturalized American citizen since 1986, I never voted for a winner in the Presidential elections. From this perspective, I share Walt Harrington’s bafflement at the urge of grown people to convince themselves that those with whom they disagree are stupid or malevolent. Credit smart and benevolent Barack H. Obama for George W. Bush looking better with every passing day.
larvatus: (Default)
Resumption of Public Protests at Rosewood Sand Hill Compound

From: Michael Zeleny <zeleny@post.harvard.edu> Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:53 PM
To: Ajay Vashee <avashee@nea.com>, Ali Behbahani <abehbahani@nea.com>, Amita Shukla <ashukla@nea.com>, Arno Penzias <apenzias@nea.com>, Brooke Seawell <bseawell@nea.com>, Ching-Ho Fung <cfung@nea.com>, Chip Linehan <clinehan@nea.com>, Chuck Newhall <cnewhall@nea.com>, David Mott <dmott@nea.com>, Dick Kramlich <dkramlich@nea.com>, Ed Mathers <emathers@nea.com>, Forest Baskett <fbaskett@nea.com>, Frank Torti <ftorti@nea.com>, George Stamas <gstamas@nea.com>, Harry Weller <hweller@nea.com>, Hugh Panero <hpanero@nea.com>, Jake Nunn <jnunn@nea.com>, James Barrett <jbarrett@nea.com>, Jay Graf <jgraf@nea.com>, Jimmy Treybig <jtreybig@nea.com>, John Nehra <jnehra@nea.com>, Jon Sakoda <jsakoda@nea.com>, Josh Makower <jmakower@nea.com>, Justin Klein <jklein@nea.com>, Krishna 'Kittu' Kolluri <kkolluri@nea.com>, Louis Citron <lcitron@nea.com>, Mark Perry <mperry@nea.com>, Megan Alderete <malderete@nea.com>, Mike O'Dell <modell@nea.com>, Mike Ramsay <mramsay@nea.com>, Mohamad Makhzoumi <mmakhzoumi@nea.com>, Nitin Sharma <nsharma@nea.com>, Patrick Chung <pchung@nea.com>, Patrick Kerins <pkerins@nea.com>, Paul Hsiao <phsiao@nea.com>, Paul Walker <pwalker@nea.com>, Peter Barris <pbarris@nea.com>, Peter Behrendt <pbehrendt@nea.com>, Peter Morris <pmorris@nea.com>, Peter Sonsini <psonsini@nea.com>, PM Pai <ppai@nea.com>, Ravi Viswanathan <rviswanathan@nea.com>, Richard Whitney <rwhitney@nea.com>, Rick Yang <ryang@nea.com>, Robert Croce <rcroce@nea.com>, Robert Garland <rgarland@nea.com>, Rohini Chakravarthy <rchakravarthy@nea.com>, Ryan Drant <rdrant@nea.com>, Sara Nayeem <snayeem@nea.com>, Scott Gottlieb <sgottlieb@nea.com>, Scott Sandell <ssandell@nea.com>, Sigrid Van Bladel <svanbladel@nea.com>, Sujay Jaswa <sjaswa@nea.com>, Suzanne King <sking@nea.com>, Tim Schaller <tschaller@nea.com>, Tom Grossi <tgrossi@nea.com>, Tony Florence <tflorence@nea.com>
Cc: Subrah Iyar <Subrah.Iyar@webex.com>, john.chambers@cisco.com, "David W. Affeld" <dwa@agzlaw.com>, sandhill@rosewoodhotels.com, policechief@menlopark.org, wadixon@menlopark.org, grojas@menlopark.org, sakaufman@menlopark.org, wlm@jsmf.com, danielprimack@gmail.com
Dear NEA,

I share your relief at settling our dispute regarding my access to your private property. As you know, I will no longer appear in front of your office. I am equally relieved that your single claim challenged only my “conduct in repeatedly trespassing on private property, leaving [me] free to express [myself] as [I desire], at any lawful place and time, with the sole exception that [I] cannot make unauthorized entry onto the NEA office complex.” You objected to the location of my protest but did not dispute its content.

Starting on 31 October 2011 and continuing indefinitely, I shall resume my protest against your abhorrent investment practices. I shall do so on the public easement near the entrance to your complex. I shall also protest against anyone who would do business with you, based on their implicit endorsement of your immoral practices. I shall take photos and record videos of everyone entering your complex, post the images online and distribute them on bills posted throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and offer rewards for the first correct identification of names and addresses of everyone who does business with your child rape sponsoring enterprise. I shall display signs and banners illustrating the purpose of my protests. As before, I shall be armed with legal counterparts of U.S. military rifles and pistols, in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. As before, I invite you to comment on my plans, should you have any legitimate objection to the time, place, or manner of my expression of my Constitutionally protected message.

--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett


larvatus: (Default)

Ishibashi’s strong resentment toward the establishment stems from her family’s plight at the end of World War II, a war she blames on Japanese militarists.
    As Japan’s defeat became increasingly evident in 1944, Ishibashi’s father was drafted in Korea.
    He died a year later. Ishibashi said her mother “went through hell” in the course of being repatriated to Japan and in raising her then 1-year-old daughter amid the rubble of a defeated nation.
    After graduating from Waseda, Ishibashi spent some 10 years as a singer and actress, traveling to Russia for the first time in 1976. She was captivated by Moscow’s desolate nature, which dovetailed with her childhood hardships.
    Ishibashi began to collect and sing underground Russian songs, which portrayed the true feelings of the people suppressed by the communist regime, and grew increasingly aware of the reality of Soviet life.
—Yumi Wijers-Hasegawa, “Songs of oppressed now serve to inspire”, The Japan Times, 25 March 2003
larvatus: (Default)


The Fugs, named after Norman Mailer’s euphemism punctuating the pages of The Naked and the Dead, were conceived in a former kosher meat store on East 10th Street in late 1964, when 26 year old Ed Sanders published 42 year old Tuli Kupferberg’s poetry in his highbrow literary journal, Fuck You: A Magazine of the Arts:
We drew inspiration for the Fugs from a long and varied tradition, going all the way back to the dances of Dionysus in the ancient Greek plays and the “Theory of the Spectacle” in Aristotle’s Poetics, and moving forward to the famous premier performance of Alfred Jarry’s Ubu Roi in 1896, to the poèmes simultanés of the Dadaists in Zurich’s Cabaret Voltaire in 1916, to the jazz-poetry of the Beats, to Charlie Parker’s seething sax, to the silence of John Cage, to the calm pushiness of the Happening movement, the songs of the Civil Rights movement, and to our concept that there was oodles of freedom guaranteed by the United States Constitution that was not being used.

Ed Sanders and Tuli Kupferberg photographed by Richard Avedon in 1967
The Fugs consisted of three members: Tuli Kupferberg, native New Yorker and “one of the leading Anarchist theorists of our time,” Ken Weaver, humorist and poet, and Ed Sanders, fellow poet and leader of the group. Their inspiration was irreproachable. Their performance was parodic. There were musicians, there were noisemakers, and then there were The Fugs. “From now on nothing holds us back, cacophony forever”, crowed Ed Sanders during a 1964 recording session. The form suited the subject. Nothing is Kupferberg’s inspired paraphrase of a Yiddish potato folk song into a supreme ode to negativity:
Monday nothing, Tuesday nothing
Wednesday and Thursday nothing
Friday for a change a little more nothing
Saturday once more nothing

Sunday nothing, Monday nothing
Tuesday and Wednesday nothing
Thursday for a change a little more nothing
Friday once more nothing

Montik gar nicht dinstik gar nicht
Mitvokh und donershtik gar nicht
Fraytik in a noveneh a gar nicht kuggele
Shabes vayter garnicht

Lunes nada martes nada
Miércoles jueves nada
Viernes por cambio poco mas nada
Sábado otra más nada

January nothing, February nothing
March and April nothing
May and June a lot more nothing
Ju-u-ly nothing

29 nothing
32 nothing
39, 45 nothing
1965 a whole lot of nothing
1966 nothing

Reading nothing, writing nothing
Even arithmetic nothing
Geography, philosophy, history nothing
Social Anthropology nothing

Oh, Village Voice nothing, New Yorker nothing
Sing Out and Folkways nothing
Harry Smith and Allen Ginsberg
Nothing nothing nothing

Poetry nothing
Music nothing
Painting and dancing nothing
The world’s great books a great set of nothing
Arty and farty nothing.

Fucking nothing, sucking nothing
Flesh and sex nothing
Church and Times Square all a lot of nothing
Nothing nothing nothing

Stevenson nothing, Humphrey nothing
Averell Harriman nothing
John Stewart Mill nihil nihil
Franklin Delano nothing

Karlos Marx nothing, Engels nothing
Bakunin, Kropotkin nyothing
Leon Trotsky lots of nothing
Stalin less than nothing

Nothing nothing nothing nothing
The whole scene’s a whole lot of nothing
Nothing lots and lots of nothing
Nothing nothing nothing nothing NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING

NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING
Nothing nothing nothing NOTHING nothing
NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING nothing nothing
Lots of it

Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing
Not a Goddam thing.
Here’s wishing Tuli Kupferberg a whole lot of Nothing.

Tuli Kupferberg and Ed Sanders photographed by Bob Gruen in 2003
larvatus: (Default)
     Ἡράκλειτος τὸ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον καὶ ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων καλλίστην ἁρμονίαν καὶ πάντα κατ᾽ ἔριν γίνεσθαι: ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλοι
Heracleitus says, ‘Opposition unites,’ and ‘The fairest harmony springs from difference,’ and ‘'Tis strife that makes the world go on.’
—Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155b1-6, translated by J. Bywater
Thirty-three years ago the author of these screeds walked free after serving a fifteen day sentence for petty hooliganism with twenty-two codefendants, counting among the first Soviet political protesters to get away with a slap on the wrist. The Berlin Wall came down thirteen years later, to the day. Coincidence? You decide.

Meanwhile, the philosophy of freedom is making giant strides in Russia. On 18 April 2009, Vadim Karastelev, head of the local Human Rights Committee, protested the curfew forbidding anyone under 18 years of age from appearing in the streets of Krasnodar region by displaying a sign with the slogan “Freedom is not given, it is taken”, a paraphrase of an analogous quotation about rights taken from a play by Maxim Gorky:
Прав—не дают, права—берут… Человек должен сам себе завоевать права, если не хочет быть раздавленным грудой обязанностей…
Rights aren’t given, rights are taken… Man must fight to win his rights if he doesn’t want to be crushed by a mountain of duties…
Herewith the expert philosophical analysis rendered in connection with his public display: Read more... ) Vadim Karastelev’s slogan echoes the combative demon of Charles Baudelaire:
Celui-là seul est l’égal d’un autre, qui le prouve, et celui-là seul est digne de la liberté, qui sait la conquérir.
Only he is the equal of another, who proves it, and only he is worthy of liberty, who can conquer it.
In his turn, Baudelaire drew upon Goethe’s Faust calling for free humanity jointly creating universal welfare in a free society:
Ja! diesem Sinne bin ich ganz ergeben, 
das ist der Weisheit letzter Schluß: 
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben,
der täglich sie erobern muß.
This is the final product of my strife,
The greatest wisdom mankind ever knew:
He only earns his freedom and his life, 
Who boldly conquers them each day anew.
The Faustian maxim is infinitely malleable, lending itself as the populist motto for the National Socialism of Alfred Rosenberg, the Marxism of Ernst Thälmann, and the dissident humanism of Andrei Sakharov. May it serve as the battle cry for the advent of freedom in Russia.
larvatus: (MZ)
[info]mutter_nacht:
Сообщение для бликсофанаточек. Смотрите, какой лол: у Зеленого еще не прошел баттхерт. Блиа, уже десять лет прошло, пора бы успокоиться уже…

[info]larvatus:
Сообщение для бликсофанаточек. Смотрите, какой лол:
    Уж лучше смотрите сюда.

[info]mutter_nacht:
о, вы еще и мониторите ссылки на свою жежешечку, я в восторге.
    так забавно, что есть люди, которых настолько сильно волнуют отношения Бликсы и Эрин. они прям таки как настоящие звезды, которых знают чуть больше, чем три с половиной человека.
    меня волнует вопрос: почему “blood money from Min” и почему Эрин “chose the career path of a professional victim”? она выдумала всю эту историю? потому что в ином случае я не вижу причин, почему вы осуждаете ее, а не ее семью. не то чтобы я была фанаточкой Эрин, совсем наоборот даже, но ваша ненависть мне тоже как-то не совсем понятна.

[info]larvatus:
Не путайте презрение с ненавистью. Какой вменяемый человек сможет ненавидеть такое ничтожество? Насчёт пожизненного заклада девического влагалища, скажу лишь, что у его владелицы когда-то наблюдались другие профессиональные возможности.

[info]mutter_nacht:
вменяемый человек не уделяет столько внимания презираемому объекту, вам не кажется? вас волнуют упущенные провессиональные возможности владелицы влагалища? какая вам разница? что плохого в том, что она потребовала компенсацию за подобное обращение с собой? насиловать собственных детей - это же как-то ненормально вроде, а из от ваших постов создается впечатление, что вы больше сочувствуете отцу Эрин, чем ей самой.

[info]larvatus:
Представьте себе, что у Вас имеется пенис, малолетнее дитя, и амбиция приобретения астрономического состояния. Представили? А теперь задайте себе вопрос, станете ли Вы при этих условиях совать первое во второе, ставя под угрозу достижение третьего. Я всё это к тому, что где у батюшки непреодолимое влечение, там у доченьки трезвый расчёт.

[info]mutter_nacht:
какие-то взаимоисключающие параграфы
    Представили? А теперь задайте себе вопрос, станете ли Вы при этих условиях совать первое во второе, ставя под угрозу достижение третьего.
    ну. я бы не стала. и любой нормальный человек тоже не стал бы, даже если исключить из задачи третье.
    где у батюшки непреодолимое влечение
    то есть, батюшка все же стал. я не понимаю: насильника должно оправдывать то, что его влечение было непреодолимым и то, что он многим рисковал?
    или все же никто ничего никуда не совал? тогда я не понимаю, к чему здесь фраза про непреодолимое влечение.
    или если Эрин на самом деле не испытывает ужасных душевных мук из-за этого изнасилования, она вообще должна про него забыть и никому не рассказывать?

[info]larvatus:
По закону, трезвый расчёт в составе преступления осуждается строже, чем импульсивное и непреодолимое влечение.

[info]mutter_nacht:
конечно. но мне кажется, что изнасилование собственного ребенка и отсуживание денег у изнасиловавшего отца — это преступления разного порядка, разной тяжести. и изнасилование здесь более тяжкое. я вообще не понимаю, о чем мы здесь спорим, это же изнасилование собственного несовершеннолетнего ребенка. вы его предлагаете оправдывать как “просто папа очень любит тебя”?

[info]larvatus:
Я никого не оправдываю, и «humani nihil a me alienum puto», но трезвый расчёт в долгосрочном злоупотреблении своими доброжелателями мне менее понятен, чем импульсивное и непреодолимое влечение к ебле своей дочки.

[info]alice_yustas_r:


[info]larvatus:
с точностью до наоборот:
Pedicabo ego illos et irrumabo.

[info]alice_yustas_r:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Катулл плачет кровавыми слезами и вертится в гробу(

[info]mutter_nacht:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
ваше поведение очень любопытно. я, конечно, понимаю, что женщина, для которой вы так много сделали, оставила вас ради какого-то сомнительного престарелого транса, который интересуется только ее деньгами, и у которого, к тому же, уже и не стоит (по вашему утверждению). понятно, что это обидно и бесит. но через десять лет продолжать обсуждать эту историю, да еще и заходить в журналы фанаточек Нойбаутен и доказывать, какое Бликса говно… это уже слишком. я не понимаю, чего вы хотите добиться? чтобы весь мир разделял ваше презрение к Жу и Баргельду? ваш эпический пост с письмами все заинтересованные уже давно прочитали и сделали выводы. или не сделали, потому что лично мне все равно, что у Эрин было тяжелое детство и деревянные игрушки, прибитые к полу, и каким именно образом она получила свои деньги. потому что для меня есть конечный результат: музыка Нойбаутен. я знаю, что без Эрин Нойбаутен уже давно не существовали бы. и что она позволяет делать им то, что они хотят, а не то, что хорошо продается. если для этого Бликса должен буквально продавать себя (я ему, конечно, сочувствую), но если он считает это приемлемым для себя, то это его дело.

[info]larvatus:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Вы ничего не понимаете. Меня никто не оставлял ради какого-то сомнительного престарелого транса. Начиная с 1997 года, у меня с нынешней «мадам Деньжат» были сугубо дружеские и деловые отношения. Следующие два года она проживала в моём доме вместе со своим бойфрендом и его зловонными кисками. Более того, в конце 1999 года, она слёзно выпросила у меня и у моей семьи материальную помощь и моральную поддержку для домогательств в адрес Вашего героя и для извлечения компенсации за злоебучесть из её детоёбного батюшки. В то же самое время, она безвозвратно позаимствовала всё, что смогла у наших общих друзей. За все эти заботы они получили хуй на палочке, а я заимел сверхнаглый наезд от её родителей и их многомиллиардной корпорации. Предлагаю переосмыслить Ваши понятия в свете этой информации.
    Что же касается Вашего конечного музыкального результата, все люди вправе делать то, что они хотят, а не то, что хорошо продается. Именно на этих основаниях я совершаю свой собственный сверхнаглый наезд на крупнейшую компанию венчурного капитала и сопряжённых лизоблюдов и психопатов. В этом заключается мой собственный перформанс. Мне очень жаль, что он Вам не по душе, но я представляю его совсем не ради Вас

[info]mutter_nacht:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
мы вот тут втроем прочитали эту вашу историю и не поняли: зачем позволять кому-то пользоваться собой, а потом страдать из-за этого? вы тоже старательно изображаете из себя жертву. в свете представленной выше информации я все равно не понимаю, почему нужно продолжать даже через 10 лет продолжать писать в интернете пространные высеры на эту тему.
     Мне очень жаль, что он Вам не по душе, но я представляю его совсем не ради Вас
    наверное, именно поэтому вы пишете уже пятнадцатый комментарий в моем блоге.

[info]larvatus:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Позволю себе напомнить Вам моё предложение представить себе, что у Вас имеется пенис. Из этой предпосылки проистекут дополнительные возможности межличностных сношений. Иначе говоря, Ваша пассивная позиция бликсофанаточки дополнится хотя бы умозрительно активной ролью заядлого прорывателя. Как сказано выше, pedicabo ego illos et irrumabo.
    А насчёт «ради кого», Вам сюда.
larvatus: (MZ)


Q: Who are you?

A: I am the owner of this tribute to Subrah Iyar and his friends. My name is Michael Zeleny. I was born on 26 February 1958 in Moscow. I was raised in Odessa, attending High School No. 116, appearing on the stage of the Opera Theater, and winning the regional Olympiads in mathematics and physics for three years in a row. My family followed me out of the U.S.S.R. in 1977. Since then I have lived in Rome, Chicago, New York City, Cambridge, and Los Angeles. I attended U.C.L.A. between 1986 and 1990 and graduated from Harvard in 1993 with a degree in formal philosophy and assorted humanities. I co-edited a collection of papers in memory of Alonzo Church and serve as an editor of his Collected Works. I am a lumpen-intellectual Usenetter designated as a Net legend in the category of Lesser Lights. My pedantic humor is collected in a LiveJournal blog. My assault philosophy has caused the allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. of incestuous child rapist Min Zhu, co-founder and former President and CTO of WebEx, and father of my former partner in business and romance, Erin Zhu, who is currently married to Blixa Bargeld, the leader of German pop group Einstürzende Neubauten. You are faced with my performance.

Q: What have you got against Min Zhu, his family and friends, and his company WebEx?

A: A company that I founded and operated with Erin Zhu did business with the rest of the Zhu family and their ventures since before their founding of WebEx Communications, an online conferencing company. In 1999 New Enterprise Associates, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, funded WebEx, which was eventually acquired by Cisco for $3.2 billion. Min Zhu, the founder of WebEx, remains listed on the NEA roster as a "Senior Venture Advisor". His company, Cybernaut Education, collaborates with his wife Susan Xu co-founder of WebEx and enabler of his rape of their daughter, in operating private schools in California and Canada. Min’s yearning for fresh meat continues unabated.
    In 2001, after my partner Erin Zhu stole the stock shares that WebEx owed to my company, I asked its CEO Subrah Iyar to set matters right. In response, I received anonymous death threats made in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx. The language of these threats echoed the terms with which Min Zhu had indimidated his fourteen-year-old daughter Erin into yielding to his sexual advances thirteen years earlier. After I filed my lawsuit, the Zhus’ lawyer, who had previously represented Min Zhu and Susan Xu against their daughter’s claim for childhood sexual abuse, threatened me with the destruction of people’s lives. Three years later, while my lawsuit was pending, my father Isaak, plaintiff in a related lawsuit against Erin Zhu, was killed by an apartment fire. I hired a retired LAFD captain to investigate the cause and origins of this fire. He told me that it appears to have started in several places.
    After my father’s death I went public with my story. On May Day of 2005 I staged a protest at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco. In response, WebEx shut down its conference and announced Min Zhu’s “retirement” and departure for China. Several months later, NEA’s General Partner Scott Sandell funded Min Zhu’s new business in his homeland. Min Zhu continues to work for WebEx under the table. That is what I am protesting with my personal appearances and this website.

Q: Why should we believe that Min Zhu or WebEx threatened your life? Aren’t you making it up to make your “enemy” seem evil?

A: The death threats made against me in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx since 25 December 2001 have been independently witnessed and well documented. Their documentation sufficed for Judge Adajian of Los Angeles Superior Court to acquit me on 11 April 2003 of weapons carry charges on the grounds of necessity, in a bench trial of case No. 2CR11665. In accounting for his acquittal, he said about me: “I think he had a good-faith belief in the threat. He did go to the police. He did do the right thing.” That is the only kind of credibility that I care to project.

Q: So your “assault philosophy” involves publicizing unsavory rumors about the Zhus and their entourage? Why are you doing that?

A: Because everything I say is true and readily verifiable, and because all facts that involve human rights deserve publicity.

Q: Even if the outrageous claims that you make here are true, how can you justify making all these scandals public?

A: If I had no legs and a place to go, I would hope for someone unencumbered by my handicap to help me in reaching my destination. If I had no shame and a cause for remorse, I would hope for someone unencumbered by my handicap to help me in making my contrition. As I hope to get, so I give.

Q: So you are a chumped ex-boyfriend posting this naked picture of Erin Zhu to shame her? Shame on you!

A: Therein lies a tail. For three years prior to the time that picture was taken, Erin and I had been nothing but friends and business partners. Most of the interim she spent sharing my living quarters with her boyfriend Brannon Wright and his stinky kitties, fantasizing about the business we were always about to build together. The picture shows her on the road, engaged in the twin pursuits of “cold cash”, true love of Bargeld and fuck-you money of her parents, funded by loans from my father and our friends. The camera that she holds in her hands belonged to our company, and Erin returned it with the photo inside, just before she welshed on her loans. I concluded that she wanted to share, and I am sharing alike.

Q: So you hate her for cheating you more than you hate her father for threatening your life?

A: Do not mistake contempt for hatred. I hate neither of them. That said, I have more understanding for a crime of passion than I do for cold-blooded fraud. A child rapist acting on impulse retains more humanity than the victim who uses her childhood suffering as a setup for a serial con. But a man who rapes his own child commingles fraud with sexual violence by exploiting his authority as a parent. Notably, around these parts, it is possible for a well-seasoned man to use his position of power and authority in foisting himself upon a thirteen year-old without committing “rape-rape”. In the final analysis, it is not my position to judge Oriental child-rearing techniques. All I am after is just amends for offenses visited upon me by the Zhus and their entourage.

Q: But why do you bring in Blixa Bargeld? We don’t care that his art is funded by Erin’s blood money. We just want to listen to his music, which only she made possible.

A: You are as free to listen to anything you want, as Bargeld is, to produce it to your liking. This is my performance. Unlike Erin and her consort, I am not reaching into anyone else’s pocket to fund it. If they had wanted to keep their funding private, they shouldn’t have involved my family and friends in it. As Immanuel Kant quipped: “All actions relating to the right of other human beings are wrong if their maxim is incompatible with publicity.

Q: Wasn’t your lawsuit was settled to your satisfaction? If so, why do you carry on your vindictive crusade?

A: I never settled any claims against Min Zhu, Susan Xu, or WebEx. Aside from that, American courts are loath to deal in moral satisfaction. The individuals who betrayed my trust and made terrorist threats against me and my family have an outstanding opportunity to perform an act of contrition. Unless and until that contrition takes place, I am determined to shame them by all legitimate means at my disposal.

Q: But why not let it go, relax, and be free?

A: I am free here and now. Standing up to the powers that be is what got me here in the first instance, so the rest of my life must warrant that choice one way or another. As another alumnus of my alma mater put it, “there is some shit I will not eat”. In game-theoretic terms, players with pure strategies can be hawks always fighting to prevail over their opponents, at the risk of suffering injury to themselves, or doves merely displaying their colors but never engaging in real fights. Neither strategy is optimal, because hawks tend to suffer more damage than necessary, whereas doves tend to forgo too much of the available resources to more aggressive competitors. But a mixed strategy can trump hawks and doves alike. One such strategy is that of a bourgeois making like a hawk with respect to any contest in which he is the owner, and making like a dove with respect to any contest in which he is the intruder. A bourgeois population cannot be invaded by hawks or doves because its members avoid more damaging encounters than the pure hawks and win more lucrative encounters than pure doves. As an anarchist, I have little sympathy for bourgeois values. But I have no trouble making like the owner of my life against any intruder who would pose a credible threat to it. That is the kind of shit I will not eat.

Q: Don’t you have anything better to do with your life than fomenting this negativity?

A: I understand my opportunity costs and actual prospects, and plan my actions accordingly. In my thesis, I argued against John Rawls postulating a linear scale of primary human goods. I believe that human preferences cannot be so ordered. This lack can be illustrated by comparing three principal causes of quarrel that Hobbes found in the nature of man: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. As Hobbes observes: “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.” There is no reason to assume, and no ground to conclude, that gain, safety, and reputation can be served simultaneously, to the same extent. On the contrary, wealth and fame go hand in hand with exposure to the assaults and depredations of the envious, whereas a primary concern for safety debars the timid from taking risks required for attaining wealth and fame. In turn, servility of the greedy often parts ways with flattery of the vain, as the currency prized on Wall Street differs from the kudos sought in Hollywood. The existence and nature of these differences can be shown with the greatest clarity by interrogating vital preferences under extreme circumstances. When I told my thesis examiners of my confidence in empirical confirmation, they challenged me by pointing out that effective experiments in vital human preferences under extreme circumstances would be debarred by ethical considerations. So here I am handed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pose an exclusive choice between mutually incompatible goods of greed and vanity to eminently deserving experimental subjects. What’s not to like?

Q: How can you stage your public protests on private property?

My associates and I exercise a right to free expression on private property readily accessible to general public, pursuant to the rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. It is our belief that the strip of private property directly in front of the main entrances to the sites of our protests falls within the purview of Pruneyard in virtue of housing several unrelated businesses and being readily accessible to the general public. My associates and I are pledged to abide by all applicable laws. Our prior events since May of 2005 were unmarked by any disturbances, and we hope that the same will be the case in all future jurisdictions. We intend to enforce our right to free expression to the full extent of the law, against any illegal infringement. We do not interfere in any way with the operation of the businesses located at the sites of our protests, or any of their employees, associates, or visitors, including, but not limited to, their intended subjects. Concerned parties may address their communications to my lawyer David W. Affeld, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: (310) 979-8700, fax: (310) 979-8701. I may be reached at 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046, phone: (323) 363-1860.

Q: But why do you carry a gun while protesting?

A: Because I am protesting death threats against me and my family. And because I can. “You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.

Q: Your armed protests may result in legal repercussions against other gun owners. How can you put your own interest in futile tilting at windmills above the common good?

A: That is not how I see it. I am putting my Constitutional rights ahead of other people’s wishes. This sort of arrangement is implicit in the very nature of rights and wishes. Contrariwise, I would never put my wishes ahead of other people’s rights. Men need no special justification to look out for their interests within the bounds of their rights. I never claimed to speak on anyone else’s behalf or dictate anyone else’s course of action. I will not suffer anyone debarring me from lawful conduct, directing my personal efficiency, or posing as my spokesman for the common good. My public performance has caused a child rapist to get fired from the company that he founded and flee the United States. I claim that this alone makes my country a better place.

Q: Is the exercise of Constitutional rights just about you? Isn’t it about us?

A: This is a catchy Communist slogan. I am also a communist, of the Platonic variety. The day science discovers a formula for calculating the immanent value of labor, is the day I shall endorse the revival of Gosplan, expropriation of the expropriators, and submission of every individual will to the common good. Till then I shall persevere in my naive loyalty to our Constitution and grudging deference to the despotism of marginal utility.

Q: We cannot find any media coverage of your alleged exploits. Why should we believe you?

A: The press sucks up to wealth and power. But the facts speak for themselves. Stephanie Downs, scheduled to speak at the 2005 WebEx User Conference in San Francisco, has reported its cancellation in response to my protest. Look here for WebEx’s SEC filing of Min Zhu’s resignation, dated 16 May 2005. You can connect the dots.

Q: Aren’t you taking your grudge too far?

A: I reserve the right to be the sole judge of how far to take my grudges within the bounds of law.

Q: Even if you have that right, this is not a matter of life or death, is it? Or are you claiming to be in fear of your life?

A: My father was killed by an apartment fire that appears to have started in several places. But that evidence is inconclusive. I wish it were dispositive one way or another. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As for the threats against me and my family made in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx, I cannot think of any moral inhibitions that might hamper the man capable of serially raping his fourteen-year-old daughter. If Min thinks that he can get away with any wrongdoing in the furtherance of his will, nothing will hold him back.

Q: So what do you stand to gain by your protests?

A: A heartfelt apology from each of my offenders, delivered before a judge.

Q: What if they refuse to apologize?

A: Shame is a powerful tool. The law affords me no lack of venues for shaming my adversaries into performing a genuine act of contrition. Expect to hear my name in the dying breath of each of them that fails to do so.

Q: You are a whiny assclown. Why bother with all this verbiage?

A: Even whiny assclowns have their rights. You should be grateful to me for not allowing them to wither away.
larvatus: (MZ)
Open Carry and Personal Agenda


My name is Michael Zeleny. I am standing in the courtyard of New Enterprise Associates, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm. I have a 6" S&W Registered Magnum at my right side and three speedloaders in my left pocket. This is my story.

My company did business with the Zhu family and their ventures since before their founding of WebEx Communications, an online conferencing company. NEA funded WebEx, which was eventually acquired by Cisco. Min Zhu, the founder of WebEx, remains listed on the NEA roster as a "Senior Venture Advisor". In 2001, after WebEx breached its obligations to my company, I asked their CEO Subrah Iyar to set matters right. In response, I received anonymous death threats in in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx. The language of these threats echoed the terms with which Min Zhu had indimidated his fourteen-year-old daughter Erin into yielding to his sexual advances thirteen years earlier. After I filed my lawsuit, the Zhus' lawyer, who had previously represented the parents against their daughter's claim for childhood sexual abuse, threatened me with the destruction of people's lives. Three years later, my father Isaak, plaintiff in a related lawsuit, was killed by an apartment fire. I hired a retired LAFD captain to investigate the cause and origins of this fire. He told me that it appears to have started in several places.

On May Day of 2005 I went public with my story at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco. In response, WebEx shut down its conference and announced Min Zhu's retirement and departure for China. Several months later, NEA's General Partner Scott Sandell funded Min Zhu's new business in his homeland. That is what I am protesting today. You can find the details in my blog.



I have read your responses to my performance. I am amused and delighted by their range and tenor. I am unconcerned about being hit with a dead fish or a slab of bacon. I have been hit with worse. What concerns me is some of you claiming that my actions are causing damage to our cause. I claim a common cause of protecting my Constitutional rights. I also claim a personal interest in protecting myself and my family against unlawful threats. Since when do legitimate defensive actions taken in the furtherance of an individual interest stand at odds with the common Constitutional cause?
__________________
cordially, -- Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu
7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett
larvatus: (Default)
…day 1 of the Master Cleanse, day -10 of the Götzen-Dämmerung.
larvatus: (Default)
Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals. The power of this community is then set up as ‘right’ in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as ‘brute force.’ This replacement of the power of the individual by the power of a community constitutes the decisive step of civilization.
— Sigismund Schlomo Freud, 6 May 1856 - 23 September 1939,  
Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929[0]  
In 1905, at the height of his renown as the creator of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud published a deceptively slight volume on the clandestine nature of jokes. According to Freud, jokes employ the methods of condensation, displacement, and indirect representation through allusion, absurdity, and substitution of trivialities for matters of profound importance, in the service of man’s repressed instinctual nature, epitomized in the instincts of sex and aggression. These instincts serve as the wellspring of all wit. In civilized society, they seldom wield direct influence over human affairs. Only owing to a momentary suspension of salubrious repressions that constrain them in the service of the super-ego, do sexuality and aggression enter into collective consciousness. Thus jokes enable the brief pleasure in discharging the energy of the anticathexis responsible for maintaining these repressions.
    The nature of this discharge is best illuminated by example:[1]
Itzig ist zur Artillerie eingeteilt worden. Er ist offenbar ein intelligenter Bursche, aber ungeschickt und ohne Interesse für den Dienst. Einer seiner Vorgesetzten, der ihm wohlgesinnt ist, nimmt ihn beiseite und sagt ihm: «Itzig, du taugst nicht bei uns. Ich will dir einen Rat geben: Kauf dir eine Kanone und mach dichselbständig.» Itzig has been declared fit for service in the artillery. He was clearly an intelligent lad, but intractable and without any interest in the service. One of his superior officers, who was friendlily disposed to him, took him on one side and said to him: “Itzig, you’re no use to us. I’ll give you a piece of advice: buy yourself a cannon and make yourself independent!”
Freud goes to some trouble to explain the joke. The advice, says he, is obvious nonsense. Cannons are not to be bought and an individual cannot make himself independent as a military unit — set himself up in business, as it were. But in so far as the advice is not mere nonsense, but a joking nonsense, it merits scrutiny of the means whereby the nonsense is turned into a joke. And here Freud infers that “[t]he officer who gives Artilleryman Itzig this nonsensical advice is only making himself out stupid to show Itzig how stupidly he himself is behaving. He is copying Itzig: ‘I’ll give you some advice that’s as stupid as you are.’ He enters into Itzig stupidity and makes it clear to him by taking it as the basis of a suggestion which would fit in with Itzig wishes: if Itzig possessed a cannon of his own and carried out military duties on his own account, how useful his ambition and intelligence would be to him! In what good order he would keep his cannon and how familiar he would make himself with its mechanism so as to meet the competition of the other possessors of cannons!”
    In this hasty reading, Freud seems disingenuous in decrying Itzig’s stupidity. After all, his underachieving artillerist hero, denied the opportunity to make a snappy comeback, shares his name with the quick-witted protagonist of Freud’s favorite joke: “Itzig, wohin reit’st Du?” “Weiss ich, frag das Pferd.” That other Itzig has no idea where he is riding to. All interested parties should ask the horse. In a hallowed equation, his self-deprecation compensates for his complacency. As an admirer of this tranquil rider, the physician who built his worldview on a painstaking investigation of ostensible coincidences is unlikely to have overlooked this instance of homonymy. The implication of Freud planting his tongue in cheek is borne out by the fact that the butts of each joke derive their shared name from an aphaeresis omitting the first letter of the German word Witzig, witty or jocular.[2] Through the silence of its protagonist, the joke evinces an elusive quality that resists interpretative closure, suggesting great deeds to come from this intelligent but intractable Jewish underachiever. Be it real or feigned, Freud’s confidence in the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force already rang hollow upon publication in 1905. The reluctant artillerist had come into his own. His self-employment inaugurated a new stage in democratic pluralism. No longer will this plebe be meekly carried along by the steed of History. Read more... )

Crossposted to [info]larvatus, [info]real_philosophy, and [info]history in commemoration of Sigmund Freud’s sesquicentennial.
larvatus: (MZ)
    Michael wishes that he could be half as funny as this:
    Tabloids Scream:
    “Min at Work
    “SEC probes Min probes daughter
    “Erection Connection
    “Shitzhu a real dog
    ― Yahoo! Message Boards: WEBX, Msg 37761 by gloufam, 08/25/05 08:13 pm
    In the event, he can only dream of being half as funny as the Kipper Kids.
larvatus: (Default)
    The revolutionary fevers of 1848 redefined the identities of European powers for generations to come. Their germs came from France. The first banners of rebellion arose in the cause of universal suffrage. The end of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars in 1814, with its tragic aftermath at Waterloo in 1815, ushered in the reactionary restoration of the Bourbon dynasty in the person of Louis XVIII. This new King of France was a brother of Louis XVI, guillotined during the revolution. The key to his fate was forged by Talleyrand. That shadowy architect of French polity, who in 1796 had consigned it to Napoléon’s Brumaire coup d’état, endured to rescue it in 1814 from humiliation by its victors at the Congress of Vienna.
Read more... )

March 2014

S M T W T F S
       1
23 4 5 6 78
9 1011 12 13 14 15
16 171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 10:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios