Milk (Not Mother's)

The apron and its symbolism

By Bro. F.R. Worts, M.A., P.A.G.D.C. HISTORY OF THE APRON¹  There can be no doubt that the Masonic apron has been developed from the apron worn by operative masons in the middle ages. The few examples surviving show that the operative apron was fashioned from the skin of an animal, most probably a sheep. It was large enough to cover the wearer from chest to ankles, and its fall was held by a leathern thong which passed round the neck. From each side a thong, firmly stitched, enabled the mason to tie the apron round his waist, and the tied bow tended to fall as end-strings. The use of this rough apron continued for many centuries ; the woven apron used by modern masons is comparatively late; it came into use in the eighteenth century.  The earliest representations of the Freemason’s Apron are seen on the engraved portrait of Antony Sayer, the first G.M. of the modern Craft. (1717), and on the frontispiece illustration of Anderson’s first Book of Constitutions (1723). In the former, unfortunately, only the upper part of the apron is visible, and what appears to be the bib or flap is raised. In the second example a Tyler is bringing into the hall a number of aprons ; these have long tie-strings which seem to be of leather. They are also large, well capable of covering a man from chest to: ankles. The method of tying-on the apron was that of operative masons, with the bow and strings in front ; this method was continued later, even when silk or linen strings were used.  The leather apron died hard. Despite the use of softer materials from possibly 1740 onwards, it survived in use until at least 1811. The evidence of this is the first official reference to the apron found in the G.L. minutes of 17th March, 1731 : ²

Masters and Wardens of particular Lodges may line their white leather Aprons with white silk, and may hang their Jewels at white Ribbons about their Necks." (A.Q.C., x, p. 146.)

This regulation was repeated in the 1738 and in subsequent editions of the Constitutions up to and including Noorthouck’s edition (1784), which was the last edition before 1815.  Crowe contended that by 1738 linen had supplanted leather, but Rylands disagreed ; both scholars, however, thought it possible that in the 1730’s some masons were experimenting with fabrics other than leather for their aprons.³  We do not know when the very long aprons went out of use. Only four of Rylands' plates (Nos. 2, 8, 10, 23), depicting non-operative aprons, show the apron to be long. The most interesting of these is No. 23, dated 1754. It shows a group of six Masons and only one of them is certainly wearing a long apron. He is, presumably, the S.W. ; he wears a level as Collar-jewel, and his apron-flap is down. The sixth figure, probably the Tyler, with drawn sword and no Collar-Jewel, wears his flap up.  The early fashion of wearing the bib or flap up soon fell into disfavour. The flap was either cut off or worn down as a fall. Rylands' illustrations offer only two or three examples of the raised flap (Nos. 1, 1717; 23, 1754; 42, 1784). Of his pictures Nos. 1 to 38, no less than nine, it seems, have no flap; in the remainder the flaps are down.  It is evident from surviving aprons and illustrations of the early period that they were designed to be worn with the flap up and fastened, by means of a button-hole, to a button on the coat or waistcoat. Many of these old aprons have a button-hole in the flap, but there seems to have been a tendency amongst Master Masons to wear the flap down or to dispense with it altogether. ⁴ (See Illustrations c and g.)  From 1731 onwards the apron began to assume a more convenient shape, usually kneelength. Leather gave way to softer fabrics, silk, satin, velvet, linen, and chamois-leather. The flap, when retained, was either cut to a triangular form or in a semi-circular line. The latter was increasingly adopted-by M.M.’s, presumably to mark their distinctive rank. The lower part of the apron was sometimes squared off, but generally the corners were trimmed to give a semi-circular line, and the leather thongs were displaced by ribbons or strings.  According to Dermott (Ahiman Rezon, 1764, pp. 24-3 1), some " Modern" Masons, objecting to the working apron of the operatives, introduced a new mode of wearing their aprons upside down; what was formerly the lowest part was now fastened round the abdomen and the bib and strings hung downwards, dangling in such a manner as might convince spectators that there was not a working mason amongst them. Blackham states that this "subterfuge" was introduced between 1730 and 1740, but it was short-lived. ⁵  Before 1760, elaborately-painted or embroidered aprons came into fashion and continued to be favoured until the Union (1813). Many of these aprons were home-made, often artistically finished and adorned with symbolic designs. From 1760 onwards the printed and engraved aprons appeared, many of them being subsequently coloured by hand. (See Illustration n.)  The tendency to decorate Masonic aprons with symbolic designs began in the 1730’s, and between 1740 and 1790 this practice became widespread. These efforts were mostly crude, but many surviving examples reveal skill and taste. Indian ink, paint and embroidery were commonly used for this ornamentation. The most popular designs usually included the All-Seeing Eye, the Columns, and the Square and Compasses, all evidence of the advance of Speculative Masonry in the second half of the eighteenth century. (See Illustrations o, p, q.) Rylands sums up the matter thus: —

". . . by 1784 the apron was greatly reduced in size . . . for a long time there had been considerable laxity . . . and no definition laid down as to uniformity. So long as the material was white the face might be decorated with any number of Masonic symbols or other symbols without infringing the law, provided always that it did not interfere with the privileges of the Grand Officers, who used a purple edging to their aprons . . . The size had grown smaller and smaller. (See Illustrations a, b, l.)  . . . it was quite within the power of each mason to invent for himself almost any apron he pleased." ⁶

In the Library of the Province of Yorkshire (West Riding) is an apron dated about 1820. It is small, hand-made, of white linen edged with narrow light blue ribbon, and there is no other adornment. The strings are very long and of the same blue ribbon. The flap is down; it is cut to a semi-circular line; but it is also cut into two halves, each half forming a semi-circle, and the two parts being neatly edged with the blue ribbon. Among the "Antients" it became a common practice to draw or paint on their aprons the coat of arms of their own Grand Lodge, but in the main the Atholl Masons adopted the fashions of the "Moderns" ; indeed., they indulged their fancy even more freely than their rivals in the choice and use of embellishments. On 2nd September, 1772, the Atholl G.L. passed the following resolution: —

"It having been represented to the G.L. that several Brethren have lately appeared in public, with gold lace and fringe, together with many devices on their aprons, &c., which was thought inconsistent with the dignity, propriety and ancient custom of the Craft, Resolved and Ordered That for the future, no Brethren, Grand Officers excepted, shall appear with gold lace, gold fringe, gold embroidery, or anything resembling gold, on their Masonic clothing or ornaments." (Ahiman Rezon, 1807, pp. 90-91.)

This was simply a ban on gold decoration ; there was still no attempt to prescribe uniformity of design. BLUE RIBBONS AND BLUE SILK  The resolution of the Grand Lodge on March 17th, 1721, ordained that:

"None but the Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens shall wear their Jewels in Gold or gilt pendant to Blue Ribbons about their Necks, and White Leather aprons with Blue Silk ; which Sort of Aprons may also be worn by former Grand Officers."

This was the first official mention of Blue Silk as a trimming for aprons, and it is clear that the Blue was originally reserved for Grand Officers. The Rawlinson MS., c. 1740, mentions: " Two Grand Masters aprons Lined with Garter blue silk and turned over two inches with white silk strings."  By 1745-50 Grand Officers were beginning to edge their aprons with purple ribbon. The light blue, gradually given up by the Grand Officers, was soon adopted by Master Masons, and since there was no official ruling on the subject (until 1815), blue-edged aprons became fairly common with the rank and file of the Craft from about 1745 onwards.  Uniformity and regularity in the material, design, form and decorations of the apron were not officially insisted upon by the United Grand Lodge until 2nd March, 1814. The pattern was submitted and agreed to on the 2nd May; then the order for a general uniformity was issued. The Constitutions (1815), p. 123, prescribed:

Washington's Masonic Apron

The apron is perhaps the most symbolically important emblem found in speculative Masonry.  It is made of pure white lambskin and is worn by every Mason to all Lodge events.  The apron is the first symbol explained to the Entered Apprentice (1st degree, Blue Lodge) and the first tangible evidence that he possesses of his admission into the fraternity.  What the Mason probably doesn't know at the time of his initiation is that the apron is also worn by temple Mormons and active practitioners of Wicca (witchcraft).
The Mason is taught that the apron is an "emblem of innocence and the badge of a Mason."  According to Joseph Fort Newton, author of The Words of a Great Masonic Divine, "…'by the lambskin,' the Mason is reminded of the purity of life and rectitude of conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides." 1

In the Mormon temple ceremony, the participant is presented with a green satin "fig leaf" apron. In the "Garden of Eden" portion of the ceremony, the character portraying Adam asks Lucifer, "What is that apron you have on?"  Lucifer answers, "It is an emblem of my power and Priesthoods." 2   Participants obediently follow the narrator's voice as he directs them to put on the apron that has already been explained to them twice as an emblem of Lucifer!

According to William Schnoebelen (former Mormon, Mason, and Witch; author of Mormonism's Temple of Doom), "...in magick, the apron is a symbol of magickal energy or planetary (astrological) force.  It is the badge or rank for the third degree; and represents (when green) the priestly office of Lucifer.  It is the magickal 'tool' of that degree.

"In this third degree of Wicca, the apron serves a practical, magickal purpose.  In this degree, through a bizarre ceremony called the Great Rite, one is initiated into the principle of sex magick (tantra yoga).  The apron is often used during this sort of ritual to help contain and channel sexual energy.  This is why it covers the genital area....it serves rather like putting a lid on a teakettle to help bring it to a boil.  This channeling raises the Kundalini force and supposedly produces enlightenment when the Kundalini serpent strikes upwards and 'bites' you metaphysically at the base of the brain.

"...just as the stole is the emblem of authority in the Catholic Priesthood, so the green apron is the emblem of Lucifer's authority.  In every Satanic group I knew of, the hierophant (High Priest) always wore a green apron, usually of the finest silk or satin." 3

Schnoebelen gives this conclusion of the Mormon ceremony and use of the apron, "...as I saw Lucifer with his Priesthood apron—and as I received my own apron—I was convinced that Christianity reached its highest level of witchcraft in Mormonism.  Jesus, I had been taught as a witch, was a Medium of the highest order, who worked miracles by magick.  Now as I saw the priesthood of Lucifer transferred to Adam in the Apron, I knew it was true." 4   

Egyptian Magick

Darwinism : A Metaphysical Research Programme

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.

Statements or systems of statements in order to be ranked as scientific must be capable of conflicting with possible or conceivable observations."

"Since we should call empirical or scientific only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories... Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. 

They may be described as metaphysical."

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), 

Karl Popper's Challenge 

By Russell Kranz

Is the theory of evolution scientific?

Not according to the eminent philosopher of science, Professor Karl Popper This is all the more interesting because Charles Darwin was an Englishman and Dr Karl Popper is an adopted Englishman with a string of scientific accomplishments that fill half a column in the International Who’s Who. After a hundred years of evolution, what does this respected scientist think of his countryman's theory?  

Not much that Darwin would like.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory," Popper says, `but a metaphysical research programme."1

Popper's views are widely respected in Europe and particularly in England, where he has come to be regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century. Sir Peter Medawar rates him as "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science that has ever been."2 Another well-known mathematician and astronomer says, "There is no more to science than to its method and there is no more to its method than Popper has said." Popperian influence can be seen in medicine, in art even in politics and theology. Leading politicians have expressed their indebtedness to him.  

Not a Law

Professor Popper is severely critical of attempts to turn evolution theory into scientific fact. "There can never be a law of evolution," he wrote in one of his earlier works.3 "The idea of a law which determines the direction and character of evolution is a typical 19th century mistake arising out of the general tendency to ascribe to the natural law the functions traditionally ascribed to God."4

What happened then, he says, was this: "The earlier, naturalistic revolution against God replaced the name God by the name Nature. Almost everything else was left unchanged. Theology. the science of God, was replaced by the science of nature. God’s laws by the laws of nature. God's will and power by the will and power of nature (the natural forces) and later God's design and God's judgment by natural selection. Theological determinism was replaced by naturalistic determinism, that is. God's omnipotence and omniscience were replaced by the omnipotence of nature and the omniscience of science."5  

Demarcation

Why has Popper separated evolution from science and assigned it to the realm of metaphysics? According to Popper's principle of demarcation, only those theories which are open to empirical falsification are scientific. That is, unless there is a way to prove a theory wrong there is no way to prove it is right. As he puts it: "Statements or systems of statements in order to be ranked as scientific must be capable of conflicting with possible or conceivable observations."6 Science deals with matters that can be tested empirically and are potentially falsifiable. "Since we should call empirical or scientific only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories."7 (By empirical, Professor Popper means that which can be tested by the senses - weighing, seeing, touching, tasting, measuring, etc.)

Now, philosophical or metaphysical theories are empirically irrefutable by definition, There is simply no way to test them in laboratory conditions, Popper is prepared to admit that the line of demarcation is not absolutely sharp. There are degrees of demarcation - well-tested theories, hardly testable theories and nontestable theories. The latter, he insists, do not belong to science: "Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical."8

And it is in this "non-testable" category that Popper places evolution, Science is just not equipped to deal with the question of origins. "The search for the law of "unvarying order' in evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of scientific method, whether in biology or sociology."9  

Why?

Simply because if the evolution of life on earth did occur, it was a unique historical process which cannot be tested because it is unrepeatable. "We cannot hope to test a universal hypothesis nor find a natural law acceptable to science ifwe are forever confined to the observation of one unique process. Nor can this observation of one unique process help us to foresee its future development."10  

Repeating Itself

In several of his later lectures Professor Popper finds fault with the theory of evolution on the grounds that it is tautological; it repeats itself.

Natural selection explains evolution in terms of the survival of the fittest, But he points out that this is really no more than saying, "Those that survive are those that survive. Darwinism, therefore, "is by no means a perfect theory."11 When all is said and done, "neither Darwin nor any Darwinian has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ. All that has been shown is that such explanations might exist (that is, to say) they are not logically impossible."12

Evolutionists often try to rescue their theory by adopting a device which makes it irrefutable. By pushing back the frontiers of time, anything becomes probable. Dr. Popper objects strongly.

"Statistical explanation must operate in the last analysis with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the available time, then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to explain almost everything. Even so, we have little enough reason to conjecture that any explanation of this sort is applicable to the origin of life."13

Popper also returns to his argument about the tautological nature of Darwinism. "At first sight, natural selection appears to explain the evolution of variety - and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way."" Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this."14  

Metaphysical Differences of Opinion

Yet, despite his criticism Popper thinks Darwin's theory has been valuable in encouraging some very real and practical researches. That is why it has been so widely accepted. There could be another reason too. It was the first non-theistic theory that was convincing. "Theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."15

At this juncture, Karl Popper makes a very interesting comment. "Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression it is not very much better than the theistic view of adaptation." "It is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical."'6

So what for the last hundred years has appeared as a conflict between religion and science is simply a difference of metaphysical opinion. No doubt Popper's insistence on the nonscientific nature of evolution will come as a surprise to those who cling to outmoded definitions of science, You don't settle metaphysical disputes in the laboratory. On the issue of origins the last word definitely does not belong to the scientists.

It now looks as if the whole evolution/creation question will have to be reappraised in the light of purpose and meaning. I, for one, am convinced that when it comes to providing man with a metaphysical framework in which to view his living experience, the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality. the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest.

REFERENCES 
1 Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151. 
2 BBC Radio 3, July 28, 1972. 
3 Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p. 108. 
4 Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p. 340. 
5 Ibid., p. 347. 
6 Ibid., pp. 38.39. 
7 Ibid., p. 197. 
8 Ibid., p. 257. 
9 Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, p.108. 
10 Ibid. 
11 Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) p. 242. 
12 Ibid., p. 267. 
13 Popper, Unended Quest, p. 169. 
14 Ibid., p.171. 
15 Ibid., p.172. 
15 Ibid. 

"Karl Popper's Challenge" 

<http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm>

CSSHS • Creation Social Science & Humanities Society • Quarterly Journal

Project Iguana, Corbyn and BreXit

I love that man - I really, truly do.

Iguana Project

The Iguana Project is as good a name as any other for this volatile thing that we're into. Why not? And so much for labels. The potential of the thing is so vast that we can't possibly define the ends-so all we can talk about for now is the "potential," the "goals," the possibility of massive "leverage," and the entirely reasonable idea that any body or bloc who can speak for twenty million voters will emerge - by mathematical definition - as a primary force in American politics. 

The original discussions - in Aspen, during late June and early July of 1971 - have all been agreeably resolved to the same ends: One, that the ugly realities of 1971 America leave us no choice but to involve ourselves in basic politics on the national level-beginning with the presidential campaign of 1972, then to the congressional campaigns of 1974, and finally the presidential campaign of 1976. This scenario should be kept in mind by everybody involved with this project. 

The likelihood of mounting an Aspen-style "Freak Power" campaign on the national level is a far-fetched joke for 1972-at least that's what it looks like, for now. We should keep in mind, however, that in July of 1970 we all (in Aspen) considered it a "far-fetched joke" that I might run for sheriff three months later. Yet in November of 1970 I got something like 44 percent of the total vote in a three- way race with two establishment candidates-the incumbent sheriff and the under-sheriff-backed by the local Democratic and Republican parties. Even with my head shaved completely bald and running full-bore on the "Mescaline Ticket", I forced a coalition of the establishment parties that resulted in total humiliation for the G.O.R candidate. He got about 250 votes, compared to my 1,065 or so, and the incumbents 1,500. (These figures and percentages are approximate, but no matter how they're cut or interpreted, a bald-headed "dope fiend" (admitted) got at least 40 percent of the vote in a three-way race which suggests to me that I was right (in Rolling Stone 10/1/70) when I said that the electorate here was far more (potentially) radical than anyone knew.) 

Whether this is true on a national level is another question. I think not. At least not until somebody runs a genuinely Weird campaign on a national level-to put the Freak Vote together and let them see their strength. This is what the "Joe Edwards for Mayor" campaign accomplished in Aspen in the fall of '69. We came out of nowhere and lost that one by only six votes. And it was easy, a year later, to mount a heavy Freak Power registration campaign. 

There is a possibility that the McCarthy campaign of '68-which formed the death-aborted R.F.K. effort-could provide us with the frustrated momentum and unfocused power base for a full-bore power move in 1972. If so, this would be a disastrous thing to ignore -because it might not exist in 1976. 

This is a crucial and perhaps fatal question. Can we afford to nurse our momentum along for another four years? Personally, I can't be sure--but I tend to think we have to establish a national equivalent of Back to Freak Power in '72, before we can work off a genuine power base in '74 and especially '76. Everything in the history of political base-building points in this direction- especially with regard to getting on the ballot. 

On the other hand, I remember that month I spent covering the Nixon campaign in New Hampshire in '68: I spent a lot of time around McCarthy headquarters, but only because they were in the same motor inn as George Romney 's HQ . . and Romney, at the time, was considered the main challenger.

I also remember that we began the "Thompson for Sheriff' campaign in Aspen as a joke and a smokescreen-only to find, too late, that we'd tapped a latent firestorm of political energy that none of us had ever anticipated ... and in the final analysis, this failure to take ourselves seriously, soon enough, was what cost us the whole campaign. 

We can afford this kind of loss on a local level, but we can't afford it nationally. If the momentum exists in '72, it should be used in '72. (According to Carl Oglesby's analysis of American politics and the prevailing winds in the Pentagon "H ring," there will be no elections in 1976.) 

But Oglesby is a fool-an S.D.S. refugee who got hired by M.I.T. to explain "radical politics" to old liberals. He makes a good living doing this, but as far as we're concerned he's absolutely useless. 

And so much for all that. In the first three pages of this memo I have tried to define the main question we're faced with-whether to mount a flat-out Alternative Campaign/Candidate in 1972, or use this coming year to build a base for a total shot in 1976. We should also consider the notion that if we mount anything serious in 1972-and if Nixon wins, which is likely-anybody identified with our `72 campaign will be living in a fishbowl for the next four years. There will be IR.S. harassment, phone taps, drug surveillance. all the normal bullshit that comes with menacing a high-stakes establishment. 

So, where do we go from here? Mike is fully convinced that realpolitik is inevitable, even for Essalen. Jann agrees with a vengeance-to the point that he feels only a Freak Power-type candidate (a "Free" Democrat, entering Democratic primaries) will accomplish what we're after. Jann, from a journalistic viewpoint, is opposed to running a Freak Power or Free Democratic candidate, he favors the original idea/mechanics of a "summit conference," out of which will come a "Platform Statement" that will speak for the twenty to thirty million potential voters who will not go to the polls unless they're convinced that at least one of the candidates (in November or even the primaries) is representing them. 

In other words, if we can put together a platform that speaks not only for the new eighteen-to-twenty-one vote but also the eleven million or so who turned twenty-one since '68, and also the Rock Vote, the Drug Vote, the Vet Vote, the Hippie Vote, the Beatnik Vote, the Angry Liberal Vote - if we can do all this, we can force at least one candidate for the Democratic nomination to endorse out position and sink or swim with it. 

My own point of view (somewhat reluctantly) is basically in tune with Jann's. I think the best we can hope for in '72 is the creation of a general platform and a cohesive voting bloc for 1976. (Jesus, this is such an obviously dull and foredoomed notion that I don't have much stomach for it, myself ... and frankly I doubt if we could generate much stomach for it in anybody else, once the word got out that we were only greasing the rails for a run in '76.) 

This visceral reaction just occurred to me, about eighteen seconds ago. And now, after eighty more seconds of further reflection, I can see where I couldn't possibly involve myself in any kind of political effort, next year, that wouldn't focus on TOTAL VICTORY OR DEFEAT in November 1972. Anything less than that would deprive us, I think, of that energy edge that comes with running an honest, full-bore campaign... and the loss of that edge would be fatal to the only advantage we have. 

What we have to decide, then, is what exactly would constitute a flat-out run for a "victory" in '72. Would we have to run a candidate? Or could we win by constructing a platform that would speak for a minimum of twenty million potential voters ... and then use this platform as a bargaining vehicle for that massive voting bloc? 

What would McGovern, for instance, say to a platform that included 

(1) Total amnesty for all draft dodgers, deserters, etc. 

(2) Legalization of all drugs (without dropping the "by Rx only" concept, which would place the responsibility on doctors, where it should be, instead of cops) 

... and (3) a mandatory cut of 25 percent in the Pentagon budget in fiscal '73, followed by a mandatory cut of 50 percent in fiscal '74. Then another cut of 25 percent in '75, and back to 50 percent in '76.

My own feeling is that if we could force this sort of a radical position on any serious candidate in '72, it would constitute the sort of victory we could work from in '76 ... but this could work only (according to the scenario that Jann and I worked out) if the Demo nomination were still up for grabs by June of '72, with Lindsay and Kennedy (or Bayh and McGovern) going into the California primary head to head.

At this point-and especially in California-a dramatic bid for the Youth/Freak vote might make the crucial difference. But, as Jann has pointed out, you can't just wander into the California primary like an acid-freak with a manifesto in his hand. To have any leverage in California, we will need the exposure that can come only from a skillfully orchestrated participation in at least a few other primaries ... and this, unfortunately, would require at least a dummy candidate. But the idea of a "dummy" is sick.

If we entered Ken Kesey in the Alaska primary, for instance, we'd play hell dumping Kesey for Nick Johnson if our gig looked good by the time California came around. The idea that almost anybody can run on our platform is a nice, idealistic sort of notion-but the savage realities of running any political campaign would croak the idea of switching candidates in midstream, no matter what the rationale.

Maybe we should settle, from the start, on a Kesey/Ramsey Clark ticket. Or Nick Johnson and Jerry Garcia. Any combination of these four names would be good for twenty million votes, I think, if we could get on homebody's ballot. 

We might even consider the possibility of letting George Wallace light the battle to put the American Independent Party on the ballot in all fifty states, then suddenly forcing him into a primary race for the A.I.P nomination. He is, after all, a Populist-and so are we. The only difference is that Wallace hates niggers and Radicals, but I think we could turn that shit back on him. His main trip is anti-establishment, and we can beat him like a gong on that one. 

I think we should consider this angle. It's so incredibly bizarre that it makes sense only when you remember that the polls in April/May of '68 showed that Robert Kennedy was the only candidate who also appealed to the Wallace voters. A lot of people called this "weird," but it wasn't. Both R.F.K. and Wallace appealed to the "Fuck the Bosses" vote-and Wallace will be going the same racist/populist route in '72. His people are already working twenty-five hours a day to get the A.I.P. on the ballot--on the assumption that Wallace is that party's only candidate. 

This is admittedly a lunatic idea, but if we let Wallace get the A.I.P party on the ballot in all fifty states -then took the nomination away from him- we'd be in a hell-heavy position by November of '72. And even if we lost, we'd have generated enough national publicity to consolidate that vote-bloc we're talking about-which means we could wield it as honest leverage between Nixon and the Demo candidate. The other way to go, of course, is to run a traditional race against all comets in the Democratic primaries. But this would require a hell of a lot of money-and with our prospects of victory almost nil, big money would be a hard thing to come by. 

On the other hand, I suspect it might be cheap-at least in terms of dollars-to beat Wallace out of the A.I.P nomination. This would, after all, be a sudden/savage return to the Power Coalition that led to the breakup of S.D.S.... and beyond that, it's so crazy, so intolerably weird, that the very idea would probably attract a laughing, wild-eyed swarm of dropout S.D.S. organizers. 

The only serious problem with this plan-provided it's mechanically feasible--is that it would require the full-time salaried services of at least a dozen Kennedy-style, state-level political operatives. The Hrst moves would have to be made quietly ... or we would lose the advantage of total surprise. But once we got the basic organizing machinery working, I think the excitement and crazy adrenalin of the thing would take care of the rest. 

For the first steps, however, we need somebody who understands that kind of local machinery, and who is also not committed right now to any other candidate. I think we can get the mechanics/type information we need for this move by brain-picking radical/lib Demos on the pretense that we want to "take over" the New Party--or maybe Peace and Freedom; whatever's on the ballot. The idea is to learn all the local A.B.C. steps (that's A-B-C) of taking over the state-level machinery of a party that's getting on the statewide ballot for the first [or second) time. Then, once we get this information, I think we could move in and grab the A.I.P nomination just about the time they get themselves on the ballot.

Woody Creek, 1971

The Fundamental Interconnectedness of All Things

"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."

Auguries Of Innocence 

By William Blake

To see a World in a Grain of Sand 

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, 

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 

And Eternity in an hour. 

A Robin Red breast in a Cage 

Puts all Heaven in a Rage. 

A dove house fill'd with doves & Pigeons 

Shudders Hell thro' all its regions. 

A dog starv'd at his Master's Gate 

Predicts the ruin of the State. 

A Horse misus'd upon the Road 

Calls to Heaven for Human blood. 

Each outcry of the hunted Hare 

A fibre from the Brain does tear. 

A Skylark wounded in the wing, 

A Cherubim does cease to sing. 

The Game Cock clipp'd and arm'd for fight 

Does the Rising Sun affright. 

Every Wolf's & Lion's howl 

Raises from Hell a Human Soul. 

The wild deer, wand'ring here & there, 

Keeps the Human Soul from Care. 

The Lamb misus'd breeds public strife 

And yet forgives the Butcher's Knife. 

The Bat that flits at close of Eve 

Has left the Brain that won't believe. 

The Owl that calls upon the Night 

Speaks the Unbeliever's fright. 

He who shall hurt the little Wren 

Shall never be belov'd by Men. 

He who the Ox to wrath has mov'd 

Shall never be by Woman lov'd. 

The wanton Boy that kills the Fly 

Shall feel the Spider's enmity. 

He who torments the Chafer's sprite 

Weaves a Bower in endless Night. 

The Catterpillar on the Leaf 

Repeats to thee thy Mother's grief. 

Kill not the Moth nor Butterfly, 

For the Last Judgement draweth nigh. 

He who shall train the Horse to War

Shall never pass the Polar Bar. 

The Beggar's Dog & Widow's Cat, 

Feed them & thou wilt grow fat. 

The Gnat that sings his Summer's song 

Poison gets from Slander's tongue. 

The poison of the Snake & Newt 

Is the sweat of Envy's Foot. 

The poison of the Honey Bee 

Is the Artist's Jealousy. 

The Prince's Robes & Beggars' Rags 

Are Toadstools on the Miser's Bags. 

A truth that's told with bad intent 

Beats all the Lies you can invent. 

It is right it should be so; 

Man was made for Joy & Woe; 

And when this we rightly know 

Thro' the World we safely go. 

Joy & Woe are woven fine, 

A Clothing for the Soul divine; 

Under every grief & pine 

Runs a joy with silken twine. 

The Babe is more than swadling Bands; 

Throughout all these Human Lands 

Tools were made, & born were hands, 

Every Farmer Understands. 

Every Tear from Every Eye 

Becomes a Babe in Eternity. 

This is caught by Females bright 

And return'd to its own delight. 

The Bleat, the Bark, Bellow & Roar 

Are Waves that Beat on Heaven's Shore. 

The Babe that weeps the Rod beneath 

Writes Revenge in realms of death. 

The Beggar's Rags, fluttering in Air,

Does to Rags the Heavens tear. 

The Soldier arm'd with Sword & Gun, 

Palsied strikes the Summer's Sun. 

The poor Man's Farthing is worth more 

Than all the Gold on Afric's Shore. 

One Mite wrung from the Labrer's hands 

Shall buy & sell the Miser's lands: 

Or, if protected from on high, 

Does that whole Nation sell & buy. 

He who mocks the Infant's Faith 

Shall be mock'd in Age & Death. 

He who shall teach the Child to Doubt 

The rotting Grave shall ne'er get out. 

He who respects the Infant's faith 

Triumph's over Hell & Death. 

The Child's Toys & the Old Man's Reasons 

Are the Fruits of the Two seasons. 

The Questioner, who sits so sly, 

Shall never know how to Reply. 

He who replies to words of Doubt 

Doth put the Light of Knowledge out. 

The Strongest Poison ever known 

Came from Caesar's Laurel Crown. 

Nought can deform the Human Race 

Like the Armour's iron brace. 

When Gold & Gems adorn the Plow

To peaceful Arts shall Envy Bow. 

A Riddle or the Cricket's Cry 

Is to Doubt a fit Reply. 

The Emmet's Inch & Eagle's Mile 

Make Lame Philosophy to smile. 

He who Doubts from what he sees 

Will ne'er believe, do what you Please. 

If the Sun & Moon should doubt 

They'd immediately Go out. 

To be in a Passion you Good may do, 

But no Good if a Passion is in you. 

The Whore & Gambler, by the State

Licenc'd, build that Nation's Fate. 

The Harlot's cry from Street to Street 

Shall weave Old England's winding Sheet. 

The Winner's Shout, the Loser's Curse, 

Dance before dead England's Hearse. 

Every Night & every Morn 

Some to Misery are Born. 

Every Morn & every Night 

Some are Born to sweet Delight. 

Some ar Born to sweet Delight, 

Some are born to Endless Night. 

We are led to Believe a Lie 

When we see not Thro' the Eye 

Which was Born in a Night to Perish in a Night 

When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light. 

God Appears & God is Light 

To those poor Souls who dwell in the Night, 

But does a Human Form Display 

To those who Dwell in Realms of day.

"He died … in a most glorious manner. He said He was going to that Country he had all His life wished to see & expressed Himself Happy, hoping for Salvation through Jesus Christ – Just before he died His Countenance became fair. His eyes Brighten’d and he burst out Singing of the things he saw in Heaven"

"What was the Sherlock Holmes principle? 

'Once you have discounted the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

I reject that entirely. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. 

How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? 

Your instinct is to say 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.' "

Murder at 1600

Fox Mulder lives in an apartment of the same number in Alexandria, Va.

"I don't know my father's entire sexual résumé" - Kyle Neal / Neil Bush

That's very ironic - because if you are alumni of Skull & Bones at Yale, that would be precisely what you know.

The applicable term in intelligence community circles, notably MI5 and SIS is "Positive Vetting" - the insane and irrational principle whereby individuals are expected to disclose and share all of their secrets to render them unblackamailable and double-seal them to the fraternity.