Rags was a counterculture fashion magazine ahead of its time. Published monthly in San Francisco from June 1970 through June 1971, its focus was street fashion rather than the fashion found in store windows.
(via Arthur Magazine blog).
MonthOctober 2007
I originally posted this at Klintron’s Brain but I’m posting it here to get more feedback/correction/additions. I’m working on an expanded version that goes back to Carter and is more comprehensive.
One of the arguments I frequently hear when debating whether Democrats are actually any better than Republicans, or whether Bush is really in worse than Clinton, is that Clinton waged many wars of his own. I decided to do a little digging to find out whose wars were most fatal, and based on what I’ve found: George W. Bush’s wars are by far more fatal, but my data on Clinton’s wars is incomplete. I’ve posted my findings below. Please let me know if you have additional information or corrections to this data.
It’s always terrible to make these things into a numbers game, but I still hope this is useful in evaluating the scale of warfare under Clinton as opposed to Bush.
US military deaths under Clinton and Bush:
While calculating civilian deaths is very difficult, getting numbers for US soldiers killed is easier. However, these numbers are total active duty deaths, including deaths from illness, so they might not be a good reflection of combat related deaths.
Clinton: 7500 (total military active duty military deaths from 1993-2000)
Bush: 8792 (total military active duty deaths from 2001-2006)
Source: Department of Defense report (PDF). Note: This doesn’t include this year or next year. Bush isn’t done yet.
Civilian deaths under Clinton:
Because there were several different small military actions ordered by Clinton, tallying everything is rather difficult. If I’ve forgotten anything here, or if you have sources with different numbers, let me know.
Battle of Mogadishu: “More than one thousand.”. I could only find info for this one particular battle, I don’t know how many more died during the Somalia missions.
Operation Uphold Democracy – I can’t find any statistics for this one. The Department of Defense only indicated 4 “non-hostile” deaths of a US military personnel in this operation, so it’s not completely inconceivable that no civilians were killed. (As always, more information is welcomed).
Operation Desert Strike – ???
Operation Desert Fox – 600-2000.
Note: My understanding is that there was ongoing bombing in Iraq throughout Clinton’s presidency, mostly over “no fly zones.” I don’t have any information on how many civilians deaths may have occurred and that’s where the numbers comparison really falls apart. Depending on how fatal these raids were, they may tip the scales towards Clinton being the more lethal president.
Update: Iraq claimed that 323 civilians were killed in between Desert Fox and February 2001. They also say the bombing was escalated during this time period. So 162 deaths per year from the no-fly bombing is would be a high estimate of total civilian casualties during these campaigns.
1998 missile strike against Afghanistan – 21.
1998 missile strike against Sudan – Unknown (So far as I can tell, Sudan never reported a number).
Kosovo War – Yugoslavia claimed that NATO attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian casualties. NATO acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians. Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 488 civilian deaths.
So here are some approximations:
Somalia: 1500
Haiti: 10
Iraq (Desert Fox): 2000
Iraq (Ongoing bombing): 1296
Afghanistan: 21
Sudan: 50
Yugoslavia: 5700
Total: 10,577
Civilian deaths under George W. Bush:
Afghanistan: 7,300-14,000.
Iraq: 74,689 – 81,394.
Total: 81,989 – 95,394
It would certainly take a lot of civilians deaths under Clinton’s bombing campaigns in Iraq to come close to Bush’s numbers.
The following is an open letter that I have just sent to Dr. Ron Paul. I have added hyperlinks throughout for reference.
Dear Dr. Ron Paul,
My name is Klint Finley, and I’m a blogger and freelance writer. I’ve been following your campaign for some time now, and commend you on many issues such as: your unequivocal call to end the war on drugs; your condemnation of the death penalty; your call to repeal acts such as the National Security Act of 1947 and the Patriot act; and your condemnation of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I believe you are the only presidential candidate from either major party to specifically address the National Security Act of 1947 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
However, I can’t help but be disturbed by some of your statements and positions and have written various blog entries saying so. I’m writing because I believe I should offer you the chance to clarify some of these remarks. I apologize in advance that some of these questions are hostile, and in some cases read more like attacks than questions. Many of these issues are emotional to me, and frankly some of these positions look bad. I understand that you are probably too busy to respond to me yourself, and will be just as happy to receive a reply from someone on your staff.
1. You advocate the use of letters of marque and reprisal to deal with foreign terrorist threats, and in an interview with Hugh Hewitt say that “certain companies” could be hired to attack our enemies for us. Is Blackwater one of those companies? How would these companies be held accountable for their actions? If they are “deputized” as you said to Hewitt, does that many their actions on behalf of the United States reflect the United State?
2. In 1996 the Dallas Morning News and the Austin Chronicle exposed several racist remarks printed in your newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report. At the time, you defended the remarks saying they were based on “current events and statistical reports of the time.”
In 2001, in an interview in Texas Monthly, you backtracked saying “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around… They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”
Why did you feel that it was more important to defend racism for political gain than to speak your mind?
3. Why did it take you 5 years to denounce the statements made by a rogue staffer in your newsletter? Couldn’t you have revealed this right after the election?
4. Why were the remarks not simply renounced after they were published in 1992? Did you not read your own newsletter? If not, why did you think it was a good idea to have a newsletter published in your name that you did not even read?
5. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The War on Religion” you state “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
Are you aware that “God” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?
6. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The Immigration Question” you describe the United States as being Balkanized and state that there are millions of immigrants in the United States who do not speak English and do not “participate fully in American life.”
Yet a PBS report on immigration states that “About half of recent immigrants report speaking English ‘very well’ or ‘well,’ despite the fact that some may not speak English in the home.”
What sources do you have that say that English is not being adopted by immigrants, and what are your criteria for “participating fully in American life”?
7. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “Rethinking Birthright Citizenship” you stated that you want to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Are there any other parts of the Constitution that you would like to repeal?
8. In an article appearing on ronpaul2008.com titled “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban” you state that “Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age” but that though you intended to vote for H.R. 760 (as you subsequently did) you believed it to be “constitutionally flawed.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the statement on ronpaul2008.com that “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” How do you reconcile your vote for the partial birth abortion ban with your constitutionalist approach, and is there any other legislation that you would vote for despite its not being constitutional?
Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your, or your staff’s, response.
Sincerely,
Klint Finley
http://www.klintron.com
The following is an open letter that I have just sent to Dr. Ron Paul. I have added hyperlinks throughout for reference.
Dear Dr. Ron Paul,
My name is Klint Finley, and I’m a blogger and freelance writer. I’ve been following your campaign for some time now, and commend you on many issues such as: your unequivocal call to end the war on drugs; your condemnation of the death penalty; your call to repeal acts such as the National Security Act of 1947 and the Patriot act; and your condemnation of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I believe you are the only presidential candidate from either major party to specifically address the National Security Act of 1947 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
However, I can’t help but be disturbed by some of your statements and positions and have written various blog entries saying so. I’m writing because I believe I should offer you the chance to clarify some of these remarks. I apologize in advance that some of these questions are hostile, and in some cases read more like attacks than questions. Many of these issues are emotional to me, and frankly some of these positions look bad. I understand that you are probably too busy to respond to me yourself, and will be just as happy to receive a reply from someone on your staff.
1. You advocate the use of letters of marque and reprisal to deal with foreign terrorist threats, and in an interview with Hugh Hewitt say that “certain companies” could be hired to attack our enemies for us. Is Blackwater one of those companies? How would these companies be held accountable for their actions? If they are “deputized” as you said to Hewitt, does that many their actions on behalf of the United States reflect the United State?
2. In 1996 the Dallas Morning News and the Austin Chronicle exposed several racist remarks printed in your newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report. At the time, you defended the remarks saying they were based on “current events and statistical reports of the time.”
In 2001, in an interview in Texas Monthly, you backtracked saying “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around… They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”
Why did you feel that it was more important to defend racism for political gain than to speak your mind?
3. Why did it take you 5 years to denounce the statements made by a rogue staffer in your newsletter? Couldn’t you have revealed this right after the election?
4. Why were the remarks not simply renounced after they were published in 1992? Did you not read your own newsletter? If not, why did you think it was a good idea to have a newsletter published in your name that you did not even read?
5. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The War on Religion” you state “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
Are you aware that “God” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?
6. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The Immigration Question” you describe the United States as being Balkanized and state that there are millions of immigrants in the United States who do not speak English and do not “participate fully in American life.”
Yet a PBS report on immigration states that “About half of recent immigrants report speaking English ‘very well’ or ‘well,’ despite the fact that some may not speak English in the home.”
What sources do you have that say that English is not being adopted by immigrants, and what are your criteria for “participating fully in American life”?
7. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “Rethinking Birthright Citizenship” you stated that you want to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Are there any other parts of the Constitution that you would like to repeal?
8. In an article appearing on ronpaul2008.com titled “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban” you state that “Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age” but that though you intended to vote for H.R. 760 (as you subsequently did) you believed it to be “constitutionally flawed.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the statement on ronpaul2008.com that “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” How do you reconcile your vote for the partial birth abortion ban with your constitutionalist approach, and is there any other legislation that you would vote for despite its not being constitutional?
Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your, or your staff’s, response.
Sincerely,
Klint Finley
http://www.klintron.com
During the course of researching The Process Church of the Final Judgement I was naturally reminded of the “other” Process: the collective founded by Ogre, Genesis P. Orridge and others. Explaining the Process is sort of difficult, but Wikipedia explains it thusly:
The Process is an art and philosophy collective formed in the early 1990s. The idea was initially birthed at the same time as, and with a subset of the same people from, the studio work for the Skinny Puppy album The Process, though the direct interrelation ends there. Some of the early contributors included Nivek Ogre, Genesis P-Orridge, William Morrison, and Loki der Quaeler.
I was a member of the Process mailing list, drawn in by the Skinny Puppy connection, starting sometime in 1996 1997, but I was pretty much only a lurker (I don’t remember ever contributing). It was an early exposure to fringe thinking (this was before I’d stumbled across Disinfo), and I loved it even though I probably didn’t understand half of what the conversations were about. Looking back now, I guess it was a pretty big influence on me.
Messages still come across the wire every once in a while, mostly “hey does anyone still read this list?” messages. I actually managed to spark some life into it a couple years ago, indirectly with this post that got picked up by Disinfo. Members saw the Disinfo post and weren’t happy with being called a cult or the claim that it was started by Ogre and GPO. Oops.
Also, syncroniciously, two active contributors to the list, JFitz and Phil Farber, were online acquaintances of Danny Chaoflux around the same time he was being introduced to occulty memes.
Oh, someone recently started a web forum called The Process Underground.
More info:
The Process web site (Perpetually under construction…)
A partial reassembly of the original site.
Phil Farber interviews with Ogre and Genesis P. Orridge.
Here’s an extensive collection of Process related material, including photographs, Exit and other texts by by Robert DeGrimston, letters and recollections by former members, and various articles including a wacky article by a LaRouche follower called We Must Exit the Suicide Club: How the Counterculture Ushered in Fascism.
Gnostic Liberation Front: Process Church
Update: The parent site has some… questionable content. I do not endorse it.
Update 2: For even more on The Process Church, check out our dossier.
Update 3: The Church’s magazines have been collected in a book from Feral House called Propaganda and the Holy Writ of The Process Church of the Final Judgment
Credo Mutwa: Can your newspaper kindly send somebody to Africa in the near future?
Martin: We are financially not able to do that at this time, but that may change in the future.
Credo Mutwa: Because there are some things that I would, please, like your newspaper to check-out, independent of me. You have heard of the country called Rwanda, in Central Africa?
Martin: Yes.
Credo Mutwa: The people of Rwanda, the Hutu people, as well as the Watusi people, state, and they are not the only people in Africa who state this, that their very oldest ancestors were a race of beings whom they called the Imanujela, which means ‘the Lords who have come’. And some tribes in West Africa, such as a Bambara people, also say the same thing. They say that they came from the sky, many, many generations ago, a race of highly advanced and fearsome creatures which looked like men, and they call them Zishwezi. The word Zishwezi means the dival or the glidal-creatures that can glide down from the sky or glide through water.
Everybody, sir, has heard about the Dogon people in Western Africa who all say that they were given culture by the normal beings, but they are not-the Dogon people are but ONE of many, many peoples in Africa who claim that their tribe or their king were first founded by the supernatural race of creatures that came from the sky.
Are you still with me, sir?
Martin: Oh yes, very much so. Please continue.
Credo Mutwa: Sir, I can go on and on, but let me bring you to my people, the Zulu people of South Africa.
Martin: Please.
Credo Mutwa: The Zulu people, who are famous as a warrior people, the people to whom King Shaka Zulu, of the last century, belonged. When you ask a South African White anthropologist what the name of Zulu means, he will say it means ‘the sky’ (laughter), and therefore the Zulu call themselves ‘people of the sky’. That, sir, is non-sense. In the Zulu language, our name for the sky, the blue sky, is sibakabaka. Our name for inter-planetary space, however, is izulu and the weduzulu, which means ‘inter-planetary space, the dark sky that you see with stars in it every night’, also has to do with traveling, sir. The Zulu word for traveling at random, like a nomad or a gypsy, is izula.
Now, you can see that the Zulu people in South Africa were aware of the fact that you can travel through space-not through the sky like a bird-but you can travel through space, and the Zulus claim that many, many thousands of years ago there arrived, out of the skies, a race of people who were like lizards, people who could change shape at will.
See also: Did Clinton shapeshift on TV?
Pretty fucking interesting:
But perhaps the greatest mystery is why politicians, editors, and much of the public care so much. Clearly, the fear and loathing are not triggered by the concepts themselves, because the organs and activities they name have hundreds of polite synonyms. Nor are they triggered by the words’ sounds, since many of them have respectable homonyms in names for animals, actions, and even people. Many people feel that profanity is self-evidently corrupting, especially to the young. This claim is made despite the fact that everyone is familiar with the words, including most children, and that no one has ever spelled out how the mere hearing of a word could corrupt one’s morals.
Progressive writers have pointed to this gap to argue that linguistic taboos are absurd. A true moralist, they say, should hold that violence and inequality are “obscene,” not sex and excretion. And yet, since the 1970s, many progressives have imposed linguistic taboos of their own, such as the stigma surrounding the N-word and casual allusions to sexual desire or sexual attractiveness. So even people who revile the usual bluenoses can become gravely offended by their own conception of bad language. The question is, why?
(Thanks Mark!)
© 2025 Technoccult
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑