Monday, May 26, 2008


"Yeah yeah," you're thinking, "Roxy, enough of the cars and the serious politics. Say something pervy. Say something dirty to us."

Well okay then, here's a pic of a drysuited woman that gives me dirty ideas: prankstery, mean-little-girl ideas.

"Oh hi, Roxy, can you zip up my suit for me?"

"I'd be delighted, dear. My you certainly look fetching in that . . ." (notices a bucket of live eels near by).

"Thanks. It takes FOREVER to get into it,"

"I'm sure it does. Next time, ask me to help you. Oh. Your ah, husband isn't around is he?"

"No. Why?"

"No reason. Now, for that zipper . . ." (pulling a live eel out of a bucket).

Friday, May 23, 2008


George Orwell said this in 1943, right in the middle of World War Two:

"When one thinks of the lies and betrayals of those years, the cynical abandonment of one ally after another, the imbecile optimism of the Tory press, the flat refusal to believe that the dictators meant war, even when they shouted it from the house-tops, the inability of the moneyed class to see anything wrong whatever in concentration camps, ghettos, massacres and undeclared wars, one is driven to feel that moral decadence played its part as well as mere stupidity. By 1937 or thereabouts it was not possible to be in doubt about the nature of the Fascist regimes. But the lords of property had decided that Fascism was on their side and they were willing to swallow the most stinking evils so long as their property remained secure. In their clumsy way they were playing the game of Machiavelli, of 'political realism', of 'anything is right which advances the cause of the Party' -- the Party in this case, of course, being the Conservative Party." ("Who are the War Criminals?" in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 2: My Country Right or Left 1940-1943. Emphasis mine.)

What is so interesting about these observations is that while they are in some ways quite similar to the usual narrative about the pre-war years (Hitler got his way throughout the 30s because nobody stood up to him; he was appeased at Munich, etc.) Orwell deals with this theme in a class-conscious way. The usual historical narrative elides the profound significance of class in the the Nazis' rise to power. Orwell here sees the failure to stop Hitler before WWII as less a failure of nations than a conspiracy of the bourgeoisie.

In "Pacifism and the War" (1942) Orwell also refers to "[t]he fact that the rich everywhere tend to be pro-Fascist and the working class are nearly always anti-Fascist."

Tuesday, May 20, 2008


So. I read a lot about military history. Especially WWI and WWII. In a fairly well written if conventional history of the air war of the Great War (seen at left) we find this:

"Jasta 15 reverted to the Fokker D.VII, and it was while flying one of these, on 10 August 1918, that Rudolf Berthold scored his last two victories, bringing his final tally to forty-four. Soon afterwards, in a fight with Sopwith Camels, he was shot down and suffered yet more injuries. He survived them only to be murdered [italics Roxy's] by German Communists in Harburg on 15 December 1919." (page 72)

When military historians refer to soldiers killing each other, they do not usually call it "murder." They may say "killing" or may even refer to the deaths of men as "victories" as we see above. I have no problem with this historico-literary convention. However, by what right, therefor, do we accuse Berthold's killers of "murder"? Is it because they were communists? Is it because they were not lead by official generals sanctioned by a state? Berthold killed men in a war which had no clear cut good guy. It was an absurd and unjust war fought for imperialist interests on all sides. But if the men who did all this killing are not murderers then we must say that Berthold was killed, not murdered, for his death was far more justifiable than the ones he inflicted. Berthold was killed during his support of the reactionary Kapp Putsch of 1920 (Jackson has his date above wrong). He was fighting to support men much like Hitler: in effect Hitler's fanatically bloody Freikorps predecessors (and eventual followers), men who paved the way for him with murder and terror. If killing one of them must be referred to as "murder," then historians should refer to every death in WWI with that same word -- not mere "killing" or "victory."

Jackson, therefor, displays a prejudice common to historians: a prejudice which prefers officially sanctioned violence, even in an unjust war, over violence that is not so sanctioned, however well justifiable. And of course, the communists are always bastards, aren't they?

Monday, May 19, 2008


So, according to CAR COLLECTOR (August 2007) the car pictured here is an even earlier example of one sold earlier in 2007 for $932,000 U.S. I think it would be cool just to touch this thing. It's ancient. What a piece of history!

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Not satisfied with their own abundant success, it seems, some people must decide for others if they are worthy or not. The following quotation is from "Kingmakers" by Stephen Henighan. The complete article can be found here:

"The first four nominees were introduced by Canadian actors. As soon as Atwood stood up to introduce the fifth shortlisted author, Vincent Lam, anyone who understood power in Canadian culture knew that Lam had won. Margaret Atwood does not introduce losers. By placing her authority behind Lam, she was giving the equivalent of el dedazo, the crook of the finger with which a Mexican president signals his successor. The image was so powerful that the next day’s Globe and Mail misreported the event, stating that Lam had received his Giller Prize from Atwood when, like every previous winner, he was handed his cheque by Jack Rabinovitch, founder of the prize. But in political terms, the Globe’s initial report—later retracted—was accurate.

"The peculiarly Canadian feature of Atwood’s intervention was her astonishing decision to tell in public the story of how Lam had approached her to read his manuscript while working as the ship’s doctor on an Arctic cruise on which Atwood was a passenger. The Family Compact takes for granted that advertising pre-existing links between old and new members of the establishment legitimizes the next generation in the eyes of the public. Our bourgeoisie, being weaker than that of other Western countries, must assert its cohesiveness in public. In the United States, the story of Atwood’s role in finding Lam a publisher would have remained the property of a small group of acquaintances educated at private colleges. In Great Britain, the story would have surfaced weeks later in a tabloid newspaper. Only in Canada could it have been broadcast on national television, prior to the awarding of the prize, to enable the old Wasp establishment to claim parentage over the new multicultural establishment. In an instant Vincent Lam, in contrast to previous “multicultural” Giller winners Vassanji, Rohinton Mistry and Austin Clarke—all of them relative loners, none of them born or raised in Canada, none of them able to boast an exemplary interracial marriage such as that between Lam and his Anglo-Greek-descended wife—became a member of the Family Compact and a potential teddy bear."

Wednesday, May 7, 2008


So why the hate propaganda against reverend Jeremiah Wright? Why the intense, fanatical pressure on Obama to distance himself from this man? The notorious "God Damn America" sermon is touted as proof that this preacher is evil: a hate-filled monster, beyond the pale. The actual name of the sermon is "Confusing God and Government," and therein lies a clue.

Reverend Wright's words, "God Damn America," are not an expression of hatred and vengeance, but of just wrath. If you don't think so, here's a link to a transcript of the entire sermon. If you want to hear it on audio, it's easy enough to google.

Here's the link to the written transcript:

Here's the terrible irony of the deceitful and morally pusillanimous reaction against the sermon:
a man whose point was, among other things, that people should not confuse the American government with God is taken as hating America. How revealing! They say he is "anti-American." What they really mean is that America is God, and that therefor Wright has committed blasphemy. Wright's opponents show that in their hearts they DO confuse the U.S. government and even the U.S. nation with the Almighty. Few of them would be crazy enough to say outright "the United States government is God," but in their hearts there lies that blasphemy and confusion. Remind people that neither the American people nor their government are God and the Right Wing has a heart attack. They cannot conceive that God might be in conflict with the U.S. government, U.S. imperialism, or the U.S.A. itself. Yes, God loves her enemies, but she does have enemies.

The ruling classes and the religious fascists of the "Christian" Right hate and fear this kind of preacher more than anything: a man who will say without compromise that God is for justice and righteousness and love, even if that means anger against the bullies of the world -- such as the U.S. government and any U.S. citizens who willingly support imperialism. The religious Right think they have Jesus in their back pocket. I have news for them. Jesus is too big for their back pocket. Jesus is too big for them. They've made themselves small so he can't get in.

But he will. And they can help that process along by dropping the blasphemous will within imperialism.

Friday, May 2, 2008


Not much there yet. But see the link on the sidebar at the left.

So now I have a webpage, a blog, and a Myspace page. I hope this doesn't turn into a personal bureaucracy! I am already finding, as a writer, that I'm spending a large proportion of my time now on the net: making contacts, setting up pages, following up submissions, processing writing related email, etc. Does anyone else have this problem? Writers and non-writers included?

Also, I want to keep the whole "Roxyverse" well organized. I really dislike disorganization on the net! Nobody wants to follow what you're up to if they have to be a private detective to do it!

Speaking of that, I once heard of some chap who lived behind the old Iron Curtain. I think he was a writer. Anyway, he was some kind of government official and wanted to escape to the West. So he started writing up official communiques and the like to other officials who were fictitious. He just made them up. Then he had them write responses and communicate with each other, etcetera, creating a whole bureaucratic web which he actually used to get permission to emigrate. Anyone else hear this? Do I have the story right? Who was the person in question?

Thursday, May 1, 2008


This is the most politically incorrect holiday of the year. In fact, it is generally disregarded as a holiday. At least, that is the case in my country (Canada). But I beleive its time for rejuvenation is coming.
To the left is the self-portrait of Rosa Luxemburg, who lived her life to promote the struggle of the working classes of the world. She was a socialist, an intellectual, an activist for justice. She was murdered in Berlin in 1919 by a Right Wing goon squad sponsored by Germany's ruling classes. This was the same class (and not only in Germany) that did so much to bring about two world wars.
And yet Rosa Luxemburg lives. This is no idle rhetoric. The spirit of Jesus Christ manifests herself in all of us, and in Rosa Luxemburg she seems to have been particularly strong -- even though Luxemburg did not, as far as I know, "beleive" in him in the usual way.