Subject: An answer to Stang

From: ZONTAR JOHNSON <n@m.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

> "Support the troops" does not necessarily mean you support the war or
> the fucking president. That's only what They WANT you to think. That
> black and white thing works in both directions, indeed in 3D.
>
> For instance I thought this whole war thing was a total crock from the
> git-go, and still do, and to me, Bush being President is among the most
> disgusting symptoms of the End Times yet. Such is OLD HISTORY. The
> actual fighting is NEW history.

The first thing one sees when entering the Sub Site from the news and
updates page, a place that I would think most folks who have spent much
time with the sight would have book marked, is:

"BOB" SUPPORTS THE COALITION TROOPS.

This is the phrase that has been hammered in by the media on all fronts
as a weapon to tarnish any descent with the brush administration with
treason. No matter what qualifiers you may voice here in this newsgroup,
and I will be addressing them, they are absent from the web site.

My original post was both to start a discussion and to provide a link to
a site that illustrated how far the them or us, black and white, patriot
or trader thinking can lead to. This site, on closer examination, seems
to be a clever parody. However, I think it sill makes a point.

> I have this thing about soldiers of my homeland (to deliberately use
> loaded language) in time of war, whereby I support their effort to kill
> the other guy before he kills them, or else to retreat and get all back
> home tucked in their beds safe and sound and fuck the war. This is
> completely above and beyond any rightness or wrongness I might feel
> regarding the conflict they're engaged in.

I have a thing about judging the value of a life by the accident of
birth. I can not fault "our troops" for unquestioningly killing Arab
people. After all they have been constantly given the message that they
are less than human.

> I am working right now (among other things) on trying to organize and
> post on SubSITE, or maybe even someday a PAPER Fist, the marvelous
> artwork and commentary of every possible stripe that the various
> SubGenii have done regarding the hideous turmoil of this Now Age. I am
> am bound and determined that SubSITE and any parts of the Church under
> my watch should represent ALL SubGenius hatreds and bigotries, left
> right and indifferent. For whatever vain reason.

Fine and well. But I still believe that the update page as it now stands
represents only one view, that of the rest of the corporate controlled
media. What you have long called the conspiracy.

> I want the SubGenius grunt to see that "Bob" is on his or her side even
> if it's only because "Bob" wants to be able sell more bullets to him or
> her later.
> We have never gotten so much as a DOLLAR for a bullet OR a pamphlet
> from Iraq, whereas there are many SubGeniuses who happen to be in the
> U.S. military overseas, or in SubMarines spying on evil do-gooders,
> right this very minute. I realize that this is typically AMERICAN
> thinking. It is also typical THINKING.

Now here I've been thinking for over 20 years that SubGenius wasn't
about typical thinking.

I must say you have gotten into the spirit of the thing. Just this
morning I read that the Bush administration has granted the unyet formed
Iraq government privileged status to buy weapons from American
companies.

> Also, I sincerely appreciate certain work that soldiers have done for
> me in the past, whereby I get to loudly, and with impunity, denounce my
> entire culture and heritage in mass media (albeit very SMALL TIME and
> NON-PAYING mass media) for 23 years now.

I would say that the last time we fought a war where our rights were at
all at stake was WW II, and before that the revolution. However, a lot
could be said about the power structure that these wars first created
and then preserved. Ask any black WW II Vet what they came home to.

> I spent a whole year working on THE CU CHI TUNNELS, a documentary movie
> about the Viewnam War AS TOLD BY FORMER VIET CONG. (That movie is now
> available on Amazon.com by the way and it is a VERY VERY EYE OPENING
> MOVIE.*) I was also editing a movie about Americans in modern Vietnam
> called DESTINATION DA NANG. It enriched my understanding of the
> realities of war. (And in the comfort of a Dallas office.)

I have treasured my copy of this important documentary since you sent it
me so many years ago. I have been amazed that it got made and have been
meaning to ask if it ever got distribution. I am enough of an
idealist/romantic to wish that this would be shown on PBS. I am enough
of a realist/cynic to know how silly that is.

> The behavior of world leaders is way out of any control of mine. *I*
> didn't vote for the fuck. *I* threw my vote AWAY on my stupid
> CONVICTIONS. However I still sympathize with the people who have their
> asses on the line. Even if I think volunteering for the shittiest job
> in the world was probably a dumb idea in the first place. That's no job
> for a SubGenius.
>
I totally agree with the above. That is why I am so upset with the
message that the "support the troops banner" sends. I had hoped that
the SubSite and alt.slack would be the one place where current and
future cannon fodder would be able to find free thinkers. I do not
support the choice to join the armed forces in the same way I would not
support a kid to drive drunk or shoot up their school.

> I even sympathize with the Iraqi soldiers and dumbasses and draftees. I
> just sympathize with the so-called "coalition" grunts a whole lot more,
> and I do not CARE how my words on some dumb newsgroup affect a bunch of
> fat assed spoiled college students and aging hippies who are going to
> have plain normal days all this month. I do care slightly about how
> they would affect somebody with their actual butt being shot at in the
> here and now. Not that said butt would be terribly concerned with my
> opinions during said fussillade. The other fantasy is that the words I
> say now might later, in some miniscule, microscopic trickle-down way,
> merge with a zillion other life impressions to indirectly affect some
> future kid's decision on down the line, a decision that unlike our
> blatherings might be important somehow. Leaving a little tip for the
> next poor sucker on his one way trip, to quote Zappa. Mindfull, if
> vainly, that all IS vanity.

You, my friend, are in a position to affect a number of minds. It seems
from here that a lot of your time for the last two decades has been
spent on obtaining that goal. Given the small percentage of folks that
even care it can be extremely disheartening. But, the "superior
Mutants" are hungry for other voices. (At least that thought has kept be
going.) For the last 20 years we have been losing ground on many fronts.
Civil Liberties, Woman's Rights, Labor, Gay rights, you name it. People
died on the streets of America to give us such things as the 40 hour
week, to name one. We are in a struggle for the very idea of what it
means to be a free thinking human being. And the other side has
demonstrated that they think multi generationily.

> When the senseless slaughtering of humans for many abstract and complex
> bad reasons is finally over, relatively, for a while, I am sure I'll go
> back to the blanket military industrial complex bashing that I make my
> fucking living at and stop "supporting troops."

So this phase will only last while they are killing folks who are
defending their homes?

> But my wife is such a sweet peace activist that I have to be
> PatrioPsychotic just to provide a modicum of balance in the vast karmic
> skein underlying all things. (WINK)

"BOB" love her.

> And I personally really do "support the troops" while NOT supporting
> the war.
>
> If you don't think that distinction can be made, then maybe you fell
> into Their line of reasoning too.

Even though I think that distinction is thin, I am relieved to have you
make it. I do wish it was made on the much more public web site.

> Nothing personal; this is a "rant."

None taken. This is the first time that I have cared enough to go up
against the master ranter. I would not try this in real time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: An answer to Stang
From: rev dode <dode(pee)@tystie.com>

Thank you for a well written post which has taken me back to the golden
years of alt.slack which almost certainly didn't exist outside of my head.

ZONTAR JOHNSON wrote:

> Fine and well. But I still believe that the update page as it now stands
> represents only one view, that of the rest of the corporate controlled
> media. What you have long called the conspiracy.

Although I probably agree with you on the subject of the war I can't agree
with this simplistic view of the conspiracy. I've also found what I would
identify as conspiracy thinking in portions of the anti-war movement. Some
people support the war because they are sheep, some people are anti-war for
the same reason. Both sides are equally capable of dismissing the other
sides rights to hold and express those beliefs.

Personally I can't find any difference in the value of the life of an Iraqi,
British, American civilian or soldier. For that reason I can't "support our
boys" but I can understand that someone living another life might.

Back to document index

Original file name: An answer to Stang - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:45