Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Why I'm Right That the World Wouldn't Have Ended, by Jack Sampson

               The silent echo of J.C. Meyers says it all. This betrayal is none of her concern, though!
            But have no fear; It Is I, YHWHoever I Am, cum to save the day... with the only things that have ever solved mortal problems: guilt-tripping, shame, and humiliation. And so, en garde; have at you!
            Sure, some will say “we should have seen this coming” - and by “this”, I mean what could only be termed “Meyersgate” - but that is not the Nature of the backrophcy! Remember: Miracle first, prediction afterwards! The Event can only be made sense of after it has come to pass, in Light of the old prophecies which the Event fulfills, and in Light of the symbolism which they reveal.
            So, sure; others will say “we should have seen this coming”, but guess who did not see this coming. Me, Jack Sampson. ...Oh, you don't know Jack? Well, to make a long story short, the world couldn't have ended, because of one simple fact: the world wasn't booked for the 11 o'clock slot. “All the world's a stage”, but a world that isn't booked can't close.
            Therefore, ergo, ipso facto... fuck J.C. Meyers. This pauper of a pastor has led this flock too far, and it's a waka flocka shame.
            Misleading the Order of Celestial Integration, and all its members, into believing that her skills at numerological magickianing surpass those of Emperor Ryan and myself!? I, the author of Time, Money, Moon, Value!: Financial Advice for Shamans, and Ryan, He who loved the number 666 (His only Son) so much that He gave it to us for half-price? Shameful.
            Not only did J.C. Meyers mislead us into believing that God had chosen the wholly manmade construct of Midnight at Eastern Daylight Savings Time, but also that He had chosen Meyers, of all people, to convey this Message! Normally this would be laughable, but alas, here we are.
            Aside from Pastor Meyers's theological and gematriarchal hubris and the, admittedly, relatively minor side-note that the world did not technically end (at least not yet) – neither Meyers nor her God ever gave us a lick of warning or advice about how to deal with the potential panic that this End Times prophecy, true or untrue, was bound to cause.
            Why, just a moment after Midnight, I myself wondered whether the world had ended, and I'd been transported to Hell. For all around me were the cries and gnashing of teeth that you'd expect to hear in Hades; wails like “Oh man, I'm not gonna die!? Now I have to kill myself!”
            What horror, to think of what would happen had that lowly concertgoer known that the world would continue. How many lamentable moments of suffering could have been avoided, if only he'd have had the information, and could have taken his life all the sooner!
            Take this as hyperbole if you will. But there is no greater suffering than knowing that the religious leader of the apocalyptic doomsday cult – the cult that you trusted with your heart and your soul and your economic units - is just another Alex Jones -type conspiracy theorist who tells people to head for the hills because it's Y2K. Haven't We the People had enough of that crap already?
            And yeah: “What if a panic ensued”. Sure. But think about this: “What if one hadn't!?” I mean, it's one thing if the guests at your festival are demanding their economic units back for the world not ending, but it's another if they're trying to figure out why even a D.I.Y. outsider music fest that failed to bring forth an apocalypse, should lack havoc and bloodshed altogether. I know, it's bullshit!
            Well, by the power of Bill Cooper, I shame Meyers for her misdeeds. I hereby invoke an anarchist grand jury, call for special elections, and challenge Meyers for the title of spiritual leader of the Order. I additionally challenge J.C. Meyers for the title of J.C. Meyers. Shame! Shame! Shame!
            J.C. Meyers is dead; you all saw it with your own eyes. Thus, the avatar of Meyers hangs from the roof of this chapel like a cocoon, or stands at the pulpit like an empty suit: just begging for someone new to come into it, and assume its form. I repeat: J.C. Meyers is dead! Undead, undead, undead.
            Just the same, the Spirit of Jack is bustling in its chalice, overflowing, as it cannot be contained by (nor within) any one person nor persona. Moreover, Sri Meyers has extended an invitation, calling for more prophets. And so, I volunteer. Long live J.C. Meyers!
            My coming will herald a new era of transparency; a new Day in the accountability, and solvency of the Order. I will commit to using crypto-numerological magick to accurately back-tell miraculous and fortuitous events, while prohibiting its use for evil purposes, such as weaponization and accounting.
            Now let's put it all together: J.C. Meyers is dead, long live J.C. Meyers!
            I urge Meyers to step down; in order to end her shame as quickly as possible, and in order to immediately restore dignity to the Order..
            J.C. Meyers will fall; it's not a question of whether, it's a question of when. On this day, we proclaim: “No Masters But Meyers”.
            Ave Order. Ave Self. Ave Nostra.
            It seems I was right all along.

Written between July 16th and 18th, 2018
Originally Published in the August 2018 Issue of Issues Magazine
First Published to This Blog on August 28th, 2018

I Hereby Retract My Identity, by A. Non-Imus

     High, They're! It’s me again, Winston Smith. Fuckin' or is it? I’ve edited so much already, it could change at any moment. Like ya do. But I can do nothing but Edit (I certainly can’t right worth a damn). Would that things were the Abbasid way around. And so, I am Winston, I am Joe; I'm Jack, I'm Joe-Jack; I'm J.C., and Nostra. Just as I am Lowered, so Eye am Lord.
     Nostra diVarious, that is. Not E Pluribus Unum (“one out of many”), but Nostra diVarious: “ours out of many”. Be ye man or mashup artist, a human identity is one which is cobbled together out of many characters, personas, and masques; real and fictional alike (if any of us can be said to be real at all). That's the Nature of our sacred discourse, and our scared Discord; that's why it's sin our Nature to sew this c(h)ord.
     Ernie Wayne of the family Tertelgte, the mountain man who speaks with the voice of the wind, hath proclaimed that you are not your name; you are not in the flesh what you are scrawled onto papyrus or chiseled into stone.
     It’s not that I am no longer Joseph William Kopsick; I was never THAT (praise Bernie). And certainly not the all-caps version thereof. I “am” Joseph William of the family Kopsick. More accurately, I “am” named Joseph William. But in truth, I was named Joseph William, by the family Kopsick. But your middle name is your real name, so Will I Am. I can Will-ingly change my name. ...You see what I'm gettin' at? Take your name back into your own.
     Edit. Better. I Don’t Know My Name. It’s all there in the words of Respect, Will and Grace. And so, out of deference to “them” (even though Martin Buber says “they” don't exist), I retract my name, my nicknames, and my identity, which shall Hereafter be considered in flux.
     Like a cat retracts its claws – and like a lawmaker retr(o)acts its clause – I hereby retract all of my characters, masques, personas, titles, and claim to the throne of Imperial Russia (I know, right?).
It’s not that Time, Money, Moon, Value! didn’t sell well; it’s that Fayporwave didn’t sell well. …Of course, it doesn’t help that Fayporwave was not then released, nor moreover that it is still unreleased. But that is ear-elephant, for J.C. Meyers hath called for more prophets. And so we say unto thee: “Give Us Your Money”. Money for Nothing, cucks.
     After all, I – “Joseph”, for most purposes – am He whom “God will increa$e”, as was profitcied. God is Will incarnate, and so am I. My won true name is “He who bought lifetime peace for a dollar at Skygate, the reflector of Heaven”, but that won't fit on a puny mortal government document, so I'm forced to improvise.
     Yea, a single dollar bought Me everlasting Peace – work smoothly lifetime peace – for a dollar. I’ll buy that for a dollar!TM And you can have lifetime peace too; not from any Buddhist amulet, but by giving “me” a dollar donation after listening to Fayporwave “for free” online, when it comes out. Fulfill the profit, see? Listen to it now, before it's released, before it's realized!
     Like “my” other mashup albums, this album is “mine”, but only in the sense that I have mined the great American songbook to create them. But I have given them to you, and taken ours to complete them, for just as the past tense of “mind” ought to be “mound”, what’s yorus's is Horus's, and what's mound takes ours, cat.
     I’m Not the One who did those things, who performed all those miracles, anyway. Waterfall After all, who am Id to say who Id am? I damn well d k. The person who made those mashups - and wrote that financial advice for witch doctors and crazy people – that is not who I am today. I didn't build that, someone else did that.®
     I am officially embarking upon a dissociative episode solely in order to disown my authorship of my music. Who I am is simply too unstable to continue as a single person(a) without faction and fracture. I shall soon release myself from this Herculean burden by making the legend (that is, the Key) public. Like a soldier who does more before 5 A.M. than you do all day; or like Bob Dylan, who experiences himself as five different people before breakfast; or like the Yakuza, who’ll kill ya five times before you hit the ground; YHWH a different person every 1 to 45 seconds.
     The little flying robot from Flubber hath taught me well; for that is the true teaching of Madonna: to change your identity every time the song does. Look up the word theotokos and you'll see that there really is something about Mary: She's All THAT, and She(s) beckon(s).
     And that is what listening to Nostra diVarious is like (if I may be so bold as to review “my own” - aw, who am I kidding - your work). And that’s because that’s what it’s like to listen to no Stradivarius – or Nostradamus, Ghostradamus, or Boastradamus (the savant who brags about his prophecies), too – for that matter. And so, brav@ to You! Your album rocked. You need to quantize shit better and snap that shit to the grid, but yeah. I liked what I saw, and I saw this.
     Thus, I retract not only my name, identity, personas, titles, and musical “authorship” (that is, if you consider hyper-sampling with a white dude reggae-scatting over it an “art form”); I also renounce my claims to my work Time, Money, Moon, Value!. Not only do I welcome the unauthorized copying and plagiarism of, and profiteering from, the booklet I have created; I encourage it (provided that one dodges taxes)!. Try and enforce that, U.S. Patent Office!
     In fact – not that you needed my permission - I hereby authorize the book's continual release and re-release to the public, by whomever pleases... with whichever edits they please! It'll be just like TheTM bible! ...Hey, as long as you Do a Goddamn Thing. [Witch, if I’m not mistaken, is the name of the latest Spike Lee joint.]
     I annihilate my self at the sacred foot of Indra; I annihilate myself at the foot of The Thunder, Perfect Mind. I sublimate myself to the sublime. I retract my authorship, my Arthurship, my othership, and my mothership. Also, as I renounce my claim to the thrown, I hereby retract my Dong (VND) from the Church; that is, from the Holy Cigar Cutter, the Great Cele$tial $perm Bank. That's right, my dick is going public; this is the initial pubic offering.
     As such, I am halting my collaboration with the Order until such time as I may regain my entity.
     I also retract my foreskin while I retract my identity.

     P.S.: I hereby retract this article.
     That's a rap.

Written on June 22nd, 2018
Originally Published in the July 2018 issue of Issues magazine
First Published to this Blog on August 28th, 2018

Jack for the Order: Independence from Meyers (Abbreviated Version), by Jack Sampson

The following is an announcement of the candidacy of myself, Jack Sampson, for spiritual leader of the Order of Celestial Integration. The Order of Celestial Integration, or "the Order" for short, is an apocalyptic death cult -slash- record label based out of North Carolina.
My opponent is pastor J.C. Meyers.
This article was first published in Issues magazine in its September 2018 issue.

     It is eye, your deer leader, Jack Sampson, cum to $ave you from bad theocracy! We have nothing to fear but J.C. Meyers!
     I have come to step-up to J.C. Meyers's challenge. I hereby declare my dastardly intent to usurp Meyers's throne via the most treacherous method possible; a duly delegated special election process!

     Meyers might claim that her call was for the Order to have more “profits”, or whatever she's telling people these days. But I heard the “ph” in “prophets” with my own two ears. To be a base-line decent prophet or oracle these days, you have to either commit to nonsense, or commit to being specific in your language.
     I promise to commit to both at the same time, yet Meyers can do neither of these.
     Meyers' slogans – which worship reason and rationality without them having earned this worship – reek only of rationalizing; of a grasping at straws. Meyers struggles to explain, and remains practically speechless. Don't let the ALT-CAPS fool you.

     Not only should J.C. Meyers's fidelity to nonsense come under question, so should her lack of a plan to secure the fiscal stability of the Order. I even suspect this to be the cause of her lack of a financial plan.
     As such, I have serious doubts as to whether my opponent J.C. Meyers even understands the basics of how Crypto-Oracles generate numbers, domain names, the Holy Name of God, and robust sustained economic growth.
     J.C. Meyers's lack of a fiscal plan is worrying enough; but her lack of a non-plan is equally disturbing. I, unlike Meyers, believe that The Best Plan is No Plan. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, an apocalyptic cult divided against itself on the topic of salvific suicide cannot stand. J.C. Meyers's anti-suicide stance will simply not last in the modern-day apocalyptic piss-cult world.
     If you are reading this, and you are concerned that your pastor doesn't care enough about how non-being gets a bad rap, then I, Jack Sampson, am your candidate.

     J.C. Meyers caused untold suffering through the unnecessary prolongation of life which resulted from her failure to accurately predict the end of the world.
     It is only a matter of time before American Babylon 2 concertgoers start demanding refunds – nay, reparations! - for being robbed of the apocalypse they rightfully earned and paid for. I have a plan to print special pieces of paper with a very special person's face on it, to make this problem go away forever.
     J.C. Meyers has made us dependent on her for salvation and dank beats. J.C. Meyers has plundered our seas and ravaged our coasts. J.C. Meyers doesn't understand even the most basic principles about what makes time travel and backwards prediction possible. J.C. Meyers has refused to sign church reforms which would recognize and protect our sacred Right to Cum. The list goes on!
     Perhaps most shockingly of all, I have in my possession evidence which strongly suggests that collusion has occurred between the campaigns of J.C. Meyers and her opponent.
     We demand justice.

     Reverend J.C. Liars has betrayed us all, yet she shows no remorse. She knows that what she did was wrong. Her pleas for your sympathy are but bloody crocodile tears; she begs only for your votes and your precious, hard-earned Economic Units.
     I have killed J.C. Meyers before. I am the only one qualified to kill J.C. Meyers again. And this time she will stay dead.
     A vote for Jack is a vote for a good, clean kill.
     J.C. Meyers is dead. Long live J.C. Meyers!

     P.S.: Follow the link below to read Jack Sampson's full invective against J.C. Meyers's campaign to retain her position as spiritual leader and pastor of the Celestial Order of Integration!:

     Written on August 28th, 2018

Jack for the Order: Independence from Meyers (Full Version), by Jack Sampson

The following is an announcement of the candidacy of myself, Jack Sampson, for spiritual leader of the Order of Celestial Integration. The Order of Celestial Integration, or "the Order" for short, is an apocalyptic death cult -slash- record label based out of North Carolina.
My opponent is pastor J.C. Meyers.
This article was first published in Issues magazine in its September 2018 issue.

Have ewe herd the good gnus!?
It is eye, your deer leader Jack Sampson, come to save you from high psychic trolls and high psychic tolls!
You may recall from earlier issues of Issues that I invoked an anarchist grand jury, and called for a special election, challenging J.C. Meyers for the title of spiritual leader of the Celestial Order of Integration.
It Had 2 B Done!TM. Waterfall, J.C. Meyers hath invited and condoned this special election; I was just The One(R) who started turning the gears. J.C. Meyers should not have called for more prophets, if she were not willing to accept a little competition for her position.
J.C. Meyers may seem caught off-guard, or even shocked, that I have challenged her for the title of spiritual leader of the Celestial Order of Integration. But she should have seen this coming, and thought of that before she called for more prophets.
But there's nothing more shocking than the way I'd like to be elect(rocut)ed:... same way the popes do it: through a conclave (con = with, and clave = key). Benjamin Frankly, I want to be electrocuted with a key. And there's no better way to celebrate a good election than with an erection... of an obelisk... in tribute to... me, Jack Sampson.
Where was I going with this? ...Obelisks... Oh yeah. Fuck J.C. Meyers!

Now – and this brings me to my first point - I would bet that the folks over at the J.C. Meyers campaign will tell you that J.C. Meyers called for more profits, as opposed to prophets with a “p-h”. But this is a misleading distraction; from the fact that any good snake-tongued oracle ought to be well aware of the three meanings witch their words will inevitably imply to each respective listener. I explain this in detail, in my book - Time, Money, Moon, Value! - in the passages concerning Eleggua's hat and the forked tongue of Christ. Yea, yea.
And that is why we are at this crossroads. Only the precision of language, and the clarity of meaning, will aid our ability to understand existence, understand divinity, and use that information to benefit ourselves and improve the world around us. Whether Meyers called for more profits or prophets, her position on how to secure the fiscal sustainability of the Order (if she has one) is worryingly unclear.
My fiscal plan, on the other h&, has always been clear. I have no plan, because “The Best Plan is kNOw Plan”. Quite simply, my plan is “no plan” because it relies upon Chaos, not Order. That is why I promote the use of crypto-numerological-magick-based domain-name and divine symbol generators (to which I will henceforth refer as “Crypto-Oracles” for the sake of brevity).
The idea is to use the information generated by these Crypto-Oracles to back-tell, back-dict, backrophsy, and out-see fortuitous and serendipitous incidents, in order to generate sustained stable fiscal growth. And also, eventually, to randomly generate the true Name of G-d (whose meaning is to save a coat). Whose name we will, of course, use to generate more money, in Order to create the Kingdom of G-d on Earth (thus, incidentally, resolving the conflict between materialism and spirituality for all time. You're welcome).

Meyers' slogan “A rational choice for a rational society” is outdated. Reason is The Enemy!TM, Limited Time Offer Ecstatic number, sigil, and Song generation is the true Ninth Wave of the future! Just as pi, an irrational number, governs the orbs and our lives and our holes, men are rationally irrational, and yet the pie still goes 'round.
As irrational as J.C. Meyers seems, she is not nearly as committed to nonsense as I am. Sure, a stopped clock is still wrong 1,438 times a day, and we should praise J.C. Meyers for accurately failing to predict the apocalypse. But in so doing, she deprived all the concertgoers at American Babylon 2 of the Apocalypse for which they paid good money, and thus rightfully earned and deserve.
Moreover, Meyers did not give concertgoers adequate warning of the panic that could have ensued, or failed to ensue. My policy on panic is to transform the Order's moshing pits into murdering pits, and to introduce a waiver system, in order to ensure that the amount of panic can get neither too high nor too low, while also protecting Commodity Fetish Records (C.F.R.) from legal and financial liability.
Additionally, J.C. Meyers has passed the Bu¢k onto God – thus victimizing Him yet again – by blaming Him for her failure to accurately predict the End of the World. Failing to predict the future is not a bad thing! I do it all the time. The real sin is failing to predict the past. But back to my point, does J.C. Meyers even have a plan to hold God accountable for this? My plan is to hold God accountable by holding ourselves accountable, which we will do by killing God, which we will do by killing the god within ourselves, which we will do by killing ourselves.

While we're on the topic, how can J.C. Meyers can be the religious leader of an apocalyptic cult, and not even promote suicide? She has even gone so far as to prevent suicides, and prolong life, by promising fake news of an apocalypse that never cum'd. Meyers calls my suicide non-plan “not a plan”, but that just means it is no plan, which is the best plan of all. Additionally, it is not a plan; but rather a lack thereof; so it is the negation and antithesis of philosophy, the ultimate rebellion against existence. To turn a popular saying by Camus on its head, the only way to conform to the expectations of an unfree world is to become so absolutely unfree that your very rebellion becomes a lack of existence.
Furthermore, how do we know Meyers even believes in God in the first place? Does she even watch the Moon? What is her stance on Islamic banking? There is so much we don't know about J.C. Meyers. But all of my suspicions - our suspicions - will be assuaged once Sri Meyers performs a miracle live on stage (or else presents a valid driver's license, state I.D., Social Security card, passport, or original long-form birth certificate).
Meyers has cheated us out of the Carlinian “front-row seat to the end of the world” that we paid for; paid for with a year's worth of hand-water, SweatCoin, TearCoin, WadCoin, and Economic Units. She appears to have no plan; my plan is to refund concertgoers with whatever funds remain in the FloorCoin trust. The Emperor insists “we're keeping your money”, but I intend to do something about this. Even if C.F.R. funds cannot be recovered, I am positive that investing existing C.F.R. funds into CryptoOracles will help fill the gaps which remain in my “reparations for lost apocalypse” program.

The End of the World screws things up enough as it is; it takes a hell of an idiot to screw up the End of the World itself. And that, my friends, is what you have in J.C. Meyers: A Hell of an Idiot.TM FFS, the end of the world couldn't have happened, therefore it didn't have, ipso facto it couldn't have. If the glove don't fit, you must have quit trying to put it on over your other glove.
I... me... backrophsied in previous Issues that the world wouldn't and couldn't have ended. That backrophcy was post-dicted long before American Babylon 2 in the pre-post-condition-necessitating backwards-timeline that runs simultaneously parallel and perpendicular to our own “forward” timeline. Basically, the world not ending was inevitable, because the world is a planetary orb and not a time frame which can end. And so the necessity of the world not ending when AmBab 2 ended, forced the previous pre-conditions to arise in order to have made these later post-conditions possible. The works of Einstein, Professor Irwin Corey, and Brian May will confirm this. Think of it as “retroactive continuity”, except the author is God, the Architecter of the Universe.
But J.C. Meyers has no idea about any of that. And that is why you need me to lead the Order; to lead the Earth to become the Kingdom of God it so yearns to be. Only one obstacle remains: Meyers. She who has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. She is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Order.
Granted, I promise to ravage your coastlines and pillage your ports every bit as much as Meyers. But I will do it in a way that makes us greater, and does good things for people. And you better believe me that it's gonna be as great as I say it is. You won't regret it.

We must wean ourselves of our dependence on Meyers; for salvation, for forgiveness, for dank beats. After all, did Martin Luther wage the Protestant Reformation on the notion that people ought not suffer going to but a sole provider for Da Riddim, and salvation therethrough?
That is why I would mash-up dank beats with illuminated meme-u-scripts, in order to create another fiscal safeguard; in the way of an additional free-floating meme-based currency. This currency would compete against C.F.R.'s burgeoning Crypto-Oracle dividend, whose quarterly gains show promise according to Order Budget Office projections. We also project that, by 2025, illuminated meme-u-scripts will complete the fulfillment of the biblical end-times prophecy that all of mankind would miraculously learn the Word of God without reading it, and thus usher-in the Kingdom of Heaven. It would be hard to overstate the number of 999 Economic Unit notes this will allow C.F.R. to print; this means loads of fiscal Gaines for all of us.
What are J.C. Meyers' policies on religious education and absolution through meme-based currencies? Fuck all if we know! Furthermore – and this is Meyers' greatest treachery yet – I have it on good Authority(R) that Meyers aims to deprive us of our sacred right to cum. I know! Fear not, though; that is why I have signed a pledge to sign Right-to-Cum legislation (also known as Right-to-Jerk laws) into law on my first day in office. (*Note: Right-to-Cum legislation neither recognizes, confers, nor protects any actual right to jerk, except in West Virginia and Wisconsin).
This is solid legislation, it has been tested, it works, it jerks; yet Meyers asks “how will we pay for it?”. It'll pay for itself! The same goes for my Air Value Taxation plan. And by the way, Air Value Taxation is not – I repeat, not – a tax on breathing air. It is also not not a tax on breathing. And that is a great teaching example of why politics is all about compromise. But anyway, just like Crypto-Oracles and Right-to-Jerk laws, Air Value Taxation will pay for itself. Even if it won't, then just try all three of those things, and whichever one doesn't work, just bail it out with the funds from the other two! Do What Works, Do What Jerks.TM
J.C. Meyers – Reverend Liars, as I call her – is unpredictable, unpredicting, and unbackdicting. She has no plan to prevent the raiding of the Order's sacred Treasury by the many spiritual vampires set upon the Sacred Heart.
Lastly, I demand that Meyers respond to allegations of collusion with the Jack Sampson campaign. Collusion may not be a crime, but conspiracy and election fraud are crimes. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Neither is a complete lack of evidence of guilt, and neither is irrefutable evidence of innocence. Some people have got to rule, others have got to submit.
A vote for Jack Sampson is a vote to ensure that the “J” in “J.C. Meyers” stands for Jack again. I am the only person(a) qualified to usurp Meyers, because I am the only one with direct experience killing Meyers. And that is why I will make sure that J.C. Meyers stays dead. I will kill her, and with a large circular rock I will seal her in a vault from which she cannot escape for three days.
J.C. Meyers is perpetrating a long-con on all of us; she is playing a game with us, just as a predator toys with its prey before devouring it. I, on the other hand - though mercy be undeserved by definition – will grant my prey an even sweeter end; a quick, honorable, painless death, which is much more than you – and J.C. Meyers – deserve.
I have killed J.C. Meyers before. I am the only one qualified to kill J.C. Meyers again. And this time she will stay dead.
A vote for Jack is a vote for a good, clean kill.
J.C. Meyers is dead. Long live J.C. Meyers!

Written and Published on August 28th, 2018

Read the abbreviated version (which appeared in a printed edition of Issues magazine) at the link below:

Friday, August 24, 2018

On When Speech Becomes Threatening and Incites Violence

     Maybe the Berkeley riots and fires of 2017 – called “leftists destroying their own communities”, even though only a small area was burned - were in response to people who are known to routinely dox people, demanding the right to surreptitiously out vulnerable people to mobs of angry xenophobia-trendies.
     Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was blockaded by anti-Alt-Right and anti-fascist protesters because Yiannopoulos had become infamous for speaking ill of transgender people, undocumented immigrants, and others. In late 2016 in Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos publicly named a transgender individual, and publicly mocked that person for filing a Title IX complaint about discriminatory bathroom access rules at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. According to The Independent (UK), protesters at Berkeley argued that Yiannopoulos had threatened to out undocumented immigrants.
     Yiannopoulos denied those claims. But whether that accusation is true or not, outing transgender people or undocumented immigrants, and spreading personal information about them, does potentially threaten their safety, especially if done in a mocking way. This behavior not only hints that such people should be targeted; it creates every element of a realistic, credible, and possibly even imminent risk of violence, by giving potential attackers virtually all of the information they will need to successfully target the vulnerable person who has been outed.
     I am not totally convinced of ideas like "fighting words", "suicide by cop", nor even necessarily "hate speech". But I do firmly believe that only speech which does not advocate harm against others should be protected.
     And telling a crowd of people the location and previous name of a transgender person, or telling a crowd of students that an undocumented immigrant attends their school and giving out their name and address, would look like deliberate attempts to provoke and incite people to commit acts of violence to me.
     While Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and others in the Alt-Right have not exactly done that, they have helped to create an environment in which speech that incites violence is being increasingly accepted, and arguably even normalized, and thought of as part of our freedom of speech, and thus deserving of protection by the authorities.
     All of this demonstrates the purposes of the 4th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution perfectly; that we are supposed to remain secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; that our rights do not come from a piece of paper; that we have the right to live without constantly having to show our papers to the authorities; and that we ought not have the obligation to reveal things about our identity which could endanger us. Especially when we are just trying to use the restroom.

     Please click the link below to watch Milo Yiannopoulos dox a transgender student in late 2016 in Milwaukee:
    Click this link to read about reactions:
    Click this link to watch the full video (the relevant part of the video begins at the 49:52 mark):

Originally Written on August 24th, 2018
Edited, and Post-Script Added, on February 15th, 2019

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Crafting a Health Insurance Law Acceptable to Both Libertarians and Socialists

     Note: The full title of this article is
“Crafting a Health Insurance Law Acceptable to Libertarians and Socialists,
and Reducing Health Insurance Rates Through Voluntary Cooperatives and Syndicalism,
by Expanding Choice and Competition, While Cutting Taxes, Subsidies, and Barriers”.

     Earlier this month, 22nd District Michigan State House of Representatives candidate Matt Kuehnel received the nomination of the Socialist Party of Michigan. This is a phenomenal feat, especially considering that he has already received the nomination of the Libertarian Party of Michigan.
     Dual nominee Kuehnel, an HVAC service technician and carpenter residing in Warren, is a member of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus (L.S.C.) of the Libertarian Party (L.P.). That caucus, one of at least 40 in the party, was originally named the Black Flag Caucus, when it founded on August 25th, 2017, by Mike Shipley of Arizona.
     For the past 90 or 100 years, and especially between approximately 1980 and 2006, the split between American right-libertarians and the more left-leaning anarchism and radicalism of Europe has been noticeable. Many people, Libertarians and socialists included, have their doubts as to whether and how an alliance between the two groups could work. That's because each group has its own reasons for suspecting the other of being predisposed to authoritarianism.

     On the matter of legislative policy concerning health insurance, most libertarians are adverse to any calls for “universal health care” or “Medicare for All”. Of course, “universal health care” does not necessarily always mean “Medicare for All”, so we should at least acknowledge that “universal health care” does sound appealing, even if we might not agree about which specific policies it would involve.
     That considered, it's entirely true that the vast majority of people want health care, and also want health insurance to help them pay for it. If libertarians want a voluntary society, then shouldn't they logically approve of people voluntarily pooling their purchasing power together into cooperatives? Moreover, following that line of logic, shouldn't those cooperatives be free to cooperate with each other, in order to maximally benefit from the reduced cost effect of their economy of scale?
     What I am advocating is essentially “group insurance pooling” on steroids. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky promoted group insurance pooling in 2017, as part of his four-point health insurance reform plan. While his plan focuses on allowing people to join into voluntary cooperatives on the basis of common profession, I would like to see that idea extended so as to include any voluntary association.
     The practice of urging cooperation between cooperatives on a voluntary basis may be referred to as either cooperative federalism, or syndicalism. When done entirely on a stateless, voluntary, horizontal, autonomous basis, this cooperation among cooperatives is called anarcho-syndicalism; whereas, when done as a matter of public policy, it is state syndicalism or national syndicalism. Groups of cooperatives are referred to as secondary cooperatives, cooperative unions, syndicates, and cooperative wholesale societies.

     Both Kuehnel and the current Libertarian Socialist Caucus platform accept Medicare for All as one of several “pragmatic” reforms to consider. The Platform of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party was adopted on March 21st, 2018. Section 1.2 of the L.S.C. platform, on “Incremental Reform”, reads thus:
     “We advocate the abolition of harmful laws, regulation, agencies, and positions wherever possible. However, we do recognize electoral politics as a valid form of tactical harm reduction, provided that incremental policy reforms do not further cement the oppressive power of the state. Such incremental policy reforms may include Universal Basic Income, some version of “Medicare for All”, a Land Value Tax, and others. These are not libertarian solutions but socialist ones, which are arguably preferable to the current […] non-libertarian, capitalist model. The caucus does not endorse these policies as libertarian solutions, but will not explicitly exclude individuals supporting such policies from the caucus.”

     While right-libertarians such as at-large Libertarian National Committee representative Joshua Smith may argue that they pursue the goal of uniting all “small-L libertarians”, the so-called “Bottom Unity” which the L.S.C. is pursuing, accomplishes just that. But by any reasoning or measure, it does that much better than an alliance solely between free-marketeers and libertarian-conservatives, which the “libertarian Southern Strategy” paleolibertarians and the so-called Fusionists are proposing.
     What we are discussing is whether the Libertarian Party should be about that (that is, right-unity), or whether it should be about Bottom Unity. While right-unity focuses on preserving capitalism more or less at any cost, whether it attempts to operate with or without the state helping it, Bottom Unity opposes authoritarianism and absolutism and totalitarianism of all varieties, regardless of which economic system it enacts, or whose class interests it serves.
     Kuehnel's candidacy, and the Libertarian Socialist Caucus's advocacy and outreach efforts, are certainly pragmatic, as is their stance on being open to Medicare for All without wholeheartedly endorsing it. In my opinion, the Libertarian Party needs more of this: suggestion of possible, voluntary solutions - and many of them - to prove to voters that we're full of ideas, but also that we don't want to impose any of those solutions on people (at least not before they can be convinced that a measure is in their best interest).

     The Libertarian-Progressive Alliance, which South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham once called an “unholy alliance”, consisted of the likes of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Bernie Sanders. Towards the end of the second Bush administration, these politicians banded together in opposition to illegal wars, irresponsible budgeting, unsound monetary policy, usurious banking practices, and continuing the failed war on drugs, among other issues.
     Although Nader, Kucinich, and Gravel became much less involved in politics in the several years following the 2008 election, the legacy of the alliance continued on in the halls of Congress with Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, as well as Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. Another figure who was around at that time was Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's 2008 nominee for president.
     The spirit of the alliance carried on with the 2012 and 2016 debates which the Free and Equal Coalition held, inviting third-party candidates for president. In 2012, Free and Equal founder Christina Tobin co-moderated the debate with Larry King, and participants included Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green nominee Jill Stein, as well as Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson. In 2016, Tobin moderated along with actor-turned-activist Ed Asner, and Johnson and Stein, again nominated by their parties, declined to participate, resulting in a debate between Gloria LaRiva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (P.S.L.), Constitution Party nominee Darrell Castle, and independent Rocky de la Fuente.
     I hope that the first anniversary of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party – roughly coinciding with the announcement of the L.S.C. endorsing or aligning with seven additional candidates nationwide, as well as Matt Kuehnel's dual nomination and first television appearance (on RT's “Watching the Hawks”) will hopefully prove to be a key event in the history of the revival of the Libertarian-Progressive Alliance.

     I also hope to see even more candidates reach out to multiple parties – Green, Constitution, Justice, P.S.L., etc. - in order to become dual or even multiple nominees. While living in Portland in 2014, I noticed that a Libertarian in a local race had only one challenger, a candidate who was endorsed by both the local Democratic and Republican parties. I thought, “If they can do it, why can't we?”. Unfortunately, it is illegal for petitioners to collect ballot access signatures for multiple candidates nominated by separate parties.
     But on the other hand, there is no reason why multiple parties cannot work together when their cooperation is legal (like when they're cooperating in non-political respects, such as through speech, advocacy, and activism), and when multiple parties are not competing for votes in the same races and districts. Practically, it would work like this: if you're a Green, and there's no Green running in one of the races you can vote in, then if a Libertarian or a Socialist (etc.) is running, then feel free to vote for any one of them that you like.
     Each of those parties agreeing to vote for each other wherever competition isn't occurring, and also agreeing to pursue societal change outside of politics (in addition to their political advocacy), can help to build and revive the Libertarian-Progressive Alliance and promote Bottom Unity. Not only that; they will also, very likely, inspire many anarchists and politically disinterested and disaffected people to vote against authoritarianism, and thus help spread awareness of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and the ideas of synthesis anarchism and “Anarchy Without Adjectives”.
     Additionally, I believe that these efforts will help lead the Libertarian Party (along with its platform) to the logical conclusion of libertarianism and a voluntary society; that in a stateless society, people may choose to live however they please; including as a member of any voluntary association, cooperative, or intentional community, as long as it doesn't conscript people into joining it and into paying and/or working for their services.
     Ideally, these organizations would not be affiliated with any legal monopoly on violence (i.e., a state), and they would be free to cooperate with each other, or else refrain from associating with each other if they do not choose to cooperate.
     And that brings me back to legislative policy on health insurance.

     Although Medicare for All is far from my first choice in regards to national policy on health insurance, I cannot say that I don't see the point which the L.S.C. and Kuehnel are making.
     After all, pooling everyone together would maximize the effects of the power to leverage prices down, thus reducing the costs of bargaining and the price of the policy. Moreover, there's no reason why Medicare for All, nor even a purchase mandate, would conflict with the idea that if public services serve the common good, then they must serve everybody. Given that some high-income people are being put on Medicaid while others who need it get kicked off or struggle to get insured at all - and given that the insurance that citizens buy should be good enough for our politicians as well – Medicare for All certainly looks like it could be pitched as a practical, pragmatic solution.
     I would hope that if such a measure were implemented, it would only be temporarily, and I would hope that it would be done in a manner which balances both the needs of voluntary participation and the interest of the states to self-direct on health policy to the extent to which they have negotiated with the national government that they retain such authority.

     As someone who wants free, open, and fair markets, one issue that I have with calls for “universal health care” is that the response to that is usually to implement a single-payer system. In a single-payer system, the government would be the sole entity allowed to purchase health insurance (which it would do on behalf of all citizens). We might describe this state of affairs as giving the government a “monopoly on purchasing”, but the proper term is monopsony.
     While a “monopoly” describes a situation in which a single firm sells some good or service, a “monopsony” describes a situation in which a single firm buys, purchases, or pays for a good or service. Therefore, the single-payer system which “Medicare for All” would create, would be a “monopoly” on the purchase of health insurance.
     It sounds good, because it includes everyone, pools purchasing power, and potentially even abolishes for-profit health insurance. However, no individual person, nor entrepreneurial nor cooperative firm, nor voluntary association, nor “lower-level” state or local government, would then be free to purchase health insurance; only the federal, national, or central government would. Such a measure might violate antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, and if it doesn't, then maybe it should.
     Additionally, such a measure might only be possible through requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance, which would almost certainly lead to higher costs. This, for the simple reason that if you can force someone to buy something, then you can charge them whatever you please. That goes even if they're “forced to choose” from among a small set of insurers, because it's illegal not to buy from one of them, so collusion becomes likely. Additionally, subsidies for insurers render the health insurance market rigged and unfree, even if those subsidies are intended to lower policy rates.

     I do not buy into what I consider the false dichotomy between “free markets” vs. “free stuff”. I believe that there is a way to achieve “free markets” (free competition and free cooperation) and low-cost health insurance at the same time. And that is to legalize untaxed not-for-profit insurance, and to allow cooperatives leverage their purchasing power against the selling power of large companies, so that costs can decrease. If similar measures are done in industries aside from health insurance, the likely result would be increased cooperative ownership of property, but without abolishing markets (or, at least, not before most of us are ready).
     I also believe that private health insurance might even continue to exist; and maybe even without hindering the freedom of individuals, cooperatives, charities, and public options to exist and compete as well. I believe that the key is to tax the profits of any subsidized insurers and medical technology sellers, but to tax solely the unimproved land value of non-subsidized insurers.

     While I do not believe that Senator Rand Paul is perfect or always right, he is a doctor and he does understand a few things about health care and insurance. Paul believes that it's possible to make health insurance available for $1 per day. He supports refundable tax credits, expanded access to health savings accounts, and keeping people with pre-existing conditions on Obamacare subsidies temporarily for 18 months.
     Senator Paul has even admitted that capitalist health care is flawed, saying “the reason capitalism doesn't work in health care is the consumer is disconnected from the market”. explained that this means capitalism hinders the ability of consumers to demand low prices. I even heard a rumor that Paul's home state of Kentucky has established a $26 monthly price floor on health insurance policies. If such a statute truly exists, then it should be repealed, or else efforts to legalize low-cost health insurance in that state are almost certainly futile without significant reform elsewhere in the law.
     One of the most important points in Paul's four-point health insurance reform plan is to allow “group insurance pooling”, and the creation of what he terms “buying pools”. That is, he wants to legalize the purchasing of health insurance by cooperatives, organized on the basis of a common profession. Potentially, such cooperatives could be organized on any other basis aside from profession as well, but I believe that the idea which should drive Paul's idea forward is the practicality of insuring people based on mutual safety and health risks to which they are predisposed to being exposed (depending on their profession, membership in any type of club, school attendance, etc.).
     Through uniting large numbers of people, voluntary cooperatives can leverage their purchasing power against the selling power of large insurance sellers, in the same way that pooling people together in a “public option” can. The only difference is that a voluntary cooperative plan would do that voluntarily. Given these facts, it would be difficult to argue that an implementation of "Medicare for All" could prove to be the most economically efficient solution to the problem of high health insurance costs (that is, as long as it includes significant deference to separation of powers, decentralization, and individual rights).
     Through sufficient consumer information and voter education, I believe that it would be possible to convince at least 60% of the American population, if not significantly more, that universal pooling would be financially advantageous for all insurance customers. But I also doubt that most of those people would object if the cooperatives plan were implemented on a voluntary and local basis rather than a mandatory and centralized basis.

     There are several health care and insurance proposals which I believe would do wonders to both alleviate poverty and restore individual choice to the health insurance system. Among them: 1) offering incentives for providers of health care who operate on charity bases; 2) eliminating barriers to untaxed non-profit and low-cost health insurance; 3) eliminating barriers to untaxed non-employer-provided health insurance policies; and 4) eliminating unnecessary sales taxes on medical devices, as well as eliminating import fees on foreign medicine. These proposals, along with the “state lines plan” - which Trump praised in the debates, but failed to adequately explain - would do wonders to achieve a free interstate market in health insurance. I hope that it will be one which is open to participation by private, public, cooperative, non-profit, and individual actors alike.
     Despite the many flaws of Trump, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz, I believe that they are more or less correct in their agreement that the solution to health insurance will involve “getting rid of the lines around the states”. The “state lines plan” will help establish an interstate market for health insurance, enticing companies to expand their geographic market reaches outside the boundaries of the states in which they are headquartered, and allowing companies to compete to provide better and cheaper policies. Once competition is introduced, fewer places will be stuck having to “choose” from among only one insurance company, which due to its monopoly can charge whatever it wants. If done right, the “state lines plan” will result in more choices and lower prices.
     What the plan specifically involves is convincing certain states to legalize health insurance policies issued from other states, as long as those policies satisfy the laws of the state in question. This probably sounds familiar. Although Obamacare's authors and architects stated that the A.C.A. would accomplish exactly that, they unfortunately lost sight of that original goal very early on (because they decided that a monolithic federal law was the only way to ensure the uniformity of insurance policies).
     Unfortunately for our representatives in Congress, the “state lines plan” is not something that cannot be done by the federal government (at least not constitutionally). Only five states currently allow their citizens to purchase plans from out-of-state, so the most that a person holding a federal office can to is to urge governors and legislatures of the other 45 states to support the “state lines plan”, by enacting statutes legalizing purchase of out-of-state policies which comply with state health insurance laws.
     Senator Ted Cruz notes that another way to help this “interstate health insurance market” plan along, is to eliminate the federal tax credit for employer provided health insurance. That tax credit makes it comparatively more expensive for an employed person to find and afford insurance when he changes jobs or moves to a new state. If you think about it, it's almost as if the employer tax credit serves as a financial incentive to fire people before they get coverage through their employer, or to reduce their hours to part-time, such that they're no longer required to insure those employees. Amending H.I.P.A.A., so as to eliminate that federal employer tax credit, will remove the disincentive for employees to purchase any policy other than one which follows them from job to job and from state to state. My hope is that someday such a policy will be legal and offered by a non-state actor.

     Three things that I feel are making medicine and medical technology more expensive than they should be, are: 1) taxes on the sale of, and profits from, medical devices; 2) non-tariff importation barriers on foreign medicines that are perfectly legal in (and approved by) other developed countries, and 3) unnecessarily long duration of patents on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, which hinder the ability of technology to adapt quickly. I hope that Libertarians begin to see intellectual property protections as not just contracts but
laws; enforced by the state, the Patent Office funded through coercive extortion from the taxpayers' earned income from productivity.
     I praise Senator Sanders and Senator Paul for their opposition to importation barriers which affect health products. Senator Paul, for example, supported a law that would legalize the importation of foreign medications, as long as they come from industrialized developed countries that have approved those medications, and 90 days have passed since approval. Senator Cory Booker notably opposed a similar measure regarding importations of cheap drugs from Canada, on the grounds that he felt that the bill in question did not do enough to establish sufficient consumer protections.
     I believe that these three measures will cause the price of health goods to plummet, leading to improved affordability for the most vulnerable people in our society. So will eliminating subsidies for Big Pharma, the employer tax credit, and the individual purchase mandate. But in the spirit of promoting free trade among nations, we must also achieve free trade among states in regards to health insurance policies. That is why I believe it will also help reduce rates to establish an interstate health insurance market; through the “state lines plan”.
     Allowing medical technological innovation and competitive pricing to run their courses will help the cheapening process along, without either diminishing quality, revoking the rewards of "innovation" prematurely, or hindering people's freedoms to find and produce alternatives which adopt those "innovative" scientific developments (which are not inventions, but merely applications of known scientific laws, which are nobody's property).

     In the best-case scenario, and if all taken together, these measures could potentially cause health goods to become so cheap that the entire health insurance industry becomes obsolete, not just the for-profit model.
      If it doesn't, then perhaps a “radical” solution might involve encouraging provider networks to ask doctors and nurses if they would like to formally, and voluntarily, agree to be held liable to the part of the Hippocratic Oath which requires them to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. This could be accomplished through signing a contract which obligates the network to penalize or dismiss them for refusing to treat those who are incapable of paying, and it could be enforced by a non-state-affiliated dispute resolution organization just as easily as it could be enforced by the state.
     Contrary to what “market fundamentalists” on the right will tell you, free markets are supposed to give us “free stuff”. Some libertarians love to say “T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.” (“There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”), which is basically code for “there's no such thing as a free anything”. However, it doesn't make sense as a motto of a group that is supposed to be telling us how great freedom is; that it can and does exist, that we're born free, that nature is free, and that markets should be free. Yet not a peep about freedom is coming from these people anymore, because they're worried it means stealing in order to get free stuff. But government subsidization isn't the only way to make things inexpensive; as a matter of fact, sometimes subsidization only protects the producer from having to rely on improving productivity in order to acquire wealth, instead of getting by on taxpayer money that was arguably extorted (at least from a libertarian perspective).
     Achieving “universal coverage” or “free health care” doesn't necessarily have to mean stealing from people, nor taxing people more, nor even taxing the rich more (although certainly we should be taxing those who take advantage of the public to make money, whether they're rich or not). Achieving lower-cost health insurance and care through free-market measures should involve: 1) advocating for free markets, free competition, and free cooperation to provide lower costs and lower prices; 2) establishing open markets, free trade, and free interstate commerce, with free movement of goods (in this case, of health insurance policies, medicine, and medical technology); and 3) simpler taxation, and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money.

     When discussing health insurance, keep in mind that it's impossible to insure against something that has already happened; because sick people don't need health insurance, they need health care. Getting bogged down discussing health insurance legislation can do a lot to distract us from talking about how much of our suffering could be relieved by some of the amazing technological and scientific breakthroughs that are happening right now in medicine, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. These include surgery performed with robotic assistance, adult stem cell treatment, gene therapy and telomere therapy, and 3-D printed organs.
     It is regrettable that, considering all of these advances, many people still call for the legalization of euthanasia (“the right to die”). Nevertheless, I and the L.S.C. support voluntary euthanasia. But we also support the “right to try” unapproved medications which might save lives, even if their potential hazardous effects are yet unknown. But on the other hand, reducing the costs of bargaining for lower health insurance rates, and eliminating unnecessary taxes on health providers, might just help make health care and insurance so cheap, that the development and dispersal of medical technology accelerate to the point where more terminally ill people demand access to experimental medications and devices than the number of terminally ill people demanding doctor-assisted suicide.
     Maybe then, we can relieve the paradoxical burden of having to work while injured in order to stay healthy, and we can direct our attention at taking care of ourselves - and towards living longer, healthier, better lives - instead of being focused on competing against our friends and family for the means of survival, in (what is supposed to be) a voluntary and civilized society.
     Something else that will help us focus on avoiding and preventing unnecessary stresses on our bodies, is to promote the mass production, and mass ownership, of robotic assistants in the home and workplace, specialized for the task of assisting in the movement of heavy objects. Additionally, it will help to promote their affordability and availability. Additionally, to promote the affordability and availability of 3-D printers; whether it be for use in home manufacturing, or C.A.D. (computer-aided drafting) and C.N.C. (Computer Numerical Control) router cutting and related fields, or medicine, etc.
     Finally, another thing that will help us avoid getting sick in the first place, is to get poisons out of the consumer products we buy, and toxins out of the air we breathe and the food we eat. But as libertarians, we should not jump to bans are the way to solve the problem of hazardous materials near us and inside of us. Voluntary and legitimate methods should remain available, and be considered; including lawsuits (with increased responsibility for corporate board members), or voluntary recalls of unsafe and unhealthful products.
     If right-libertarians claim to support the free market, yet they believe that we should protect the freedom to charge exorbitant rates on insuring the health of the poor, then maybe they can be convinced that it's in the interest of people's freedom to charge  exorbitant rates to insure firms that produce and sell dangerous products (and then get the government to pass taxes and subsidies to effectively order us to buy those products and work for those companies).

Written on July 4th, 20th, 26th, and 27th, and August 1st through 4th, and 6th, 2018
Edited and Expanded on August 23rd, 2018
Originally Published on August 23rd, 2018