Militant Nudist Revolution
by Andrew Martinez
Berkeley, California

intro by Deb Kent

Copyright 2013 Deb Kent for the estate of Andrew Martinez,
all rights reserved.

Andy Martinez Renounced, An Introduction
By Deb Kent
Co-director of the X-plicit Players

Andy renounced clothing because clothing reinforced elitism; so he sat nude in meditation and in classes to explore openness and communion.

He renounced racism, the patriarchy and all hierarchies that divided people; so he strolled nude in his "brown" skin while joking about racial labeling and handed out bumper stickers he made that said "hey man, it's just a dick".

Andy renounced UC when it criminalized him for being himself, nude throughout the school day and performing harmless acts of beauty; so after expulsion from UC he went on to study Russian history and Rhetoric on his own.

Andy renounced living in tiny cell-like rooms on properties that were rented for huge sums from rich landowners by poor folk and he renounced the slave labor such rentals required; so he pitched a tent and lived on land for trade.

Andy renounced pollution, cars and "concrete eating up the world" of plants: so he took on the daily task of demolishing the concrete drive way at the Chateau Co-op with a sledge hammer and pick axe so it could return to a garden.

Andy renounced mind control of all kinds: so he smoked pot openly, and invited 10,000 folks at the UC Nude In to smoke-out everywhere in huge numbers to end the political and economic stranglehold on herb.

Andy renounced TV and all mass media propaganda: so he participated in the performance art activist demonstrations of TV-trashing that got him arrested on the People's Park stage.

Andy renounced the acquisition of money and its degrading impact people into, causing their stratification into social class hierarchies; so he never made a career of being world famous, and even when he was the most in demand, he accepted few invitations for appearances, made little or no money, and lived penniless or without money, in a life based on barter.

Andy renounced bowing to the "priesthood that has become the courts and political private chambers", (terminology created by attorney, Bill Simpich) where common folk must be represented and wear formal attire to be heard; so he appeared before the City Council in his everyday birthday suit and stood before the court judges, representing himself in the nakedness that was his everyday "mode of dress".

Andy renounced consumerism and the mentality that enforced career-seeking conformity; so when the courts forced him to returned to life in Cupertino, CA to take refuge with his family, he found life in the suburbs painful and demeaning. Andy renounced the suburban medicalized context of constant therapies, rehabilitation regimes, and "shrink to fit" self-help programs enforcing stereotypically conservative social conduct.

Andy renounced all forms of status-seeking and indoctrination by educational systems; so he created his own home-study program on the philosophy of communism, Marxism, rhetoric and other philosophies. He wrote his own revolutionary Manifesto, which he hid safely, until it would someday become possible to share it with those who could relate to his world-views.

Andy renounced any kind of cage or repression of the weak by the institutional powers; so it was impossible for him to rent a dwelling, live in half-way houses or to live over 5.5 years waiting for trial, sometimes in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, and either through force or by choice, he left his beautiful body and entered the ethers of pure being.

During Andy's nude walks, I saw him move in a slow gentle grace, extending love through honest, tender attention toward all who approached him on the street. I believe anyone who walked nude with him, as I did, would have been impressed with the transformative effect he had on each person he focused his gentle attention on, exuding his will to demonstrate equality and freedom together. After attaining a black belt in judo and performing internationally in exhibitions, he made nudism into what he called his "personal martial art form", by turning his loving gaze and physical openness in the direction of any aggressor who approached him on the street. By attending warmly to that aggression, Andy turned one situation after the next, first into amusement, and then into shared, uplifted, awareness.

Andy was shocked that there were so few who undressed along with him when invited to do so at his UC Nude-In. Ultimately, he was destroyed by all the Berkeley citizens who remained silent and distant, though many adored him. He kept calling out those who allowed the powers that be in the UC regents to oust him from college, the City of Berkeley politicians to criminalize him, and the courts/police to run him out of town and force him into full-time, repressive rehabilitation programs. These forces banished the high quality of his thoughts and spiritual glow, the essence that some societies know how to revere, shelter and cultivate in their young. Without such forces of mass social oppression and aggressive greed that we all live amongst, Andy could have been here walking in his revealed and heavenly way amongst us to this day.

It was Andy Martinez who proved to live out advanced ideals of "mental health" and he who held an uncompromising light amongst so many of those who chose lesser lives of quiet desperation. Certainly, many here, in Berkeley have survived only by choosing battles shrewdly and we advancing freedoms strategically, one issue at a time, while surrendering daily to many of the wrongs that Andy fought full-on. It is irrefutable that Andy lived an uncompromising life of relentless activism, physically standing up for so many issues, all at once and for the betterment of us all.

His Manifesto makes clear how he lived and why he died. By reading his ideas, one can see that he could not live above, profit by, or look away when any other human beings were treated unjustly. He shared his thoughts with me in writing, asking that I protect it and get it published. We sat nude in meditation in his tent, pouring over this manuscript, during the very time that the flow of his naked beauty through our streets and parks was banned. He wrote to keep alive, for just a little while, the hope that sharing his vision in words might change what he could not change through action.

I believe his death behind bars came about because he was a Bodhisattva, one who stands up for another, no matter what the cost to oneself. In his last days as a free nude activist, I saw Andy live the quiet life of a Yogi, dwelling in his outdoor solitude, finding plenty of inspiration in nude meditation and contemplation of his Manifesto. His wild spirit comes through these few words with a pleasure that jousts and flashes, with tongue-in-cheek intensity, bounding out of the cage of language to heat up our readers' bodies and blow our minds with his fresh breath.

We, X-plicit Players held him as closely as he would let us, during our shared years of nude love actions, while he followed his muse, the free life of an individual without rules. We built an intimate, nude, body-sculpture at his UC Nude-In while I begged the crowd to watch over him, keep vigil, make safe his freedom to live revealed and vulnerable on campus. Since Andy lived for constant breakthroughs, when you see him in your mind, or see his photograph, please envision him joyfully dancing to the tune that he played through his little handheld tape player at the 1992 UC Nude-In where 10,000 came to encourage him to- "Break on Through to the Other Side"!

Photo by Katherine H Kellogg (c) 1993

Proposal by Andrew Martinez

The origin of this enormous struggle for body liberation which will be known to future historians as the Militant Nudist Revolution came one hot, stony, summer day on a park bench. I was next to my best friend who accompanied me in all marijuana enhanced ponderings when I said to myself "Its really stupid to wear clothes on such a hot day" and I realized that despite the innanely obvious truth of this statement, I was prohibited, with the full force of an entire nation, and of virtually every person I could conceive of from acting out the next logical step of this change in thought.

This sparked a series of questions in my mind which were the beginnings of a thought reform project aimed at ending my plastic, manufactured, social consciousness. Nudity is the most direct, simple and obvious symbol for my entire way of life. The prohibition of that symbol, state, or way of life is a clear expression of what I reject in modern American culture. The relationship between the self, politics, the state and nudity is so telling that I can pick this one cause I find through it a means of expressing virtually everything I believe in. And these relationships are not difficult to see.

I merely need to take off a 4 ounce piece of cotton and reveal something that I have, every one knows I have, half of the population has as well, to change from an average twenty year old guy, to a sex offending criminal. The meaning of this change is amazing to me. With just a small flick of the wrist, I can throw away my future as a young promising college student. All it takes is my acting as I do at home, or with my friends while in the public eye. That's the entire difference between "success" and prison. Not only is my future jeopardized, but my status as a human changes. After such a flick, I am stared at, laughed at, pointed at. I become a bizarre freak. I am removed to the fringes of society. All of this over the sight of a penis. Every one agrees that a penis is completely necessary, normal part of the human organism. But why does everyone react so drastically to the sight of one? It seems as though this is the most drastic example of how our culture has removed itself from reality.

Of course people think I'm the one removed from reality. Everyday, I am put in a position where I feel pressure to justify my actions, to justify my life. People expect me to have a lot of answers. Not only do they expect me to justify the act of nudity but the choice of nudity as a "cause", my militance in addressing the nudity "cause" and my risking middle class privileges in challenging the system. I try to provide answers to the best of my ability but I seem to always fail. I'd like to have the time to really offer something useful to questions like "whats the point, is it worth it", but no one really has the time to find out. So I end up offering some meaningless soundbite like "there is no point." This book is an attempt to answer questions, to respond to criticisms, and basically to justify my life.

This book is not just an attempt to justify nudity. For nudity to be accepted, people will need to know me and accept me. My argument doesn't matter nearly as much as my character. I can argue that I am attempting to destroy the American bourgeoisie by taking off my clothes but if all someone takes from the conversation was "Sweet Boy, I hope he goes back to college" then I am justified in a de facto sense. I am justified in being nude as far as they're concerned and that's good enough for me.

In articulating the political consciousness behind the act of nudity, I will definitely offend more people than necessary. I do this for a reason. In describing the fundamental distance between me and mainstream culture, I am attempting to describe my thought crime. Ultimately I am a criminal under a christian moral structure, no matter what I say or do. Whether naked or just stoned. Whether fucking or just sleeping, I am not christian. If Christians can accept me as a human being worthy of respect and compassion while realizing at the same time, that I am different, then all of my petty deviations from normalcy will be tolerated and even respected as stemming from true dissent. The behaviors of hedonism are much easier to accept once the thought crime of hedonism is revealed.

But if I try merely to gain acceptance for nudity or other particular acts, without revealing the major thought, crime creating the act, then I will need to spend a lifetime justifying individual acts without ever justifying the root of these transgressions. Much of what is written in the book has no logical point in being written other than to convey what effects inner thought deviations have upon a moral being. The flirtations with revolution describe what will be done, what should be done, what can be done, once people release their minds form the confines of bourgeois Christian indoctrination.

In some ways my message is individuality. But I am not an anarchist. Or a restless youth, or poorly adjusted. I feel moved by the needs of certain people in certain ways and gladly accept our rules and my obligations towards them. I am not a rebel. I am a proud citizen. I am pro-government. I am only a rebel to people deluded into thinking they have power. I am a faithful dutiful supporter of the new regime. The Militant Nudist Regime.

Who will read it?

This book will be an attempt at pop-culture political philosophy. The TV culture is starving for political literature that isn't as dry and pompous as Locke but more rigorous than self help and astrology. People who heard me say something about sex on TV will read the book to see if they had diagnosed me with the correct psychosis. It will provide a good chuckle instead of commercials, and will serve as a substitute for National Geographic when sitting on the toilet.

It should appeal to MTV generation kids who have just entered into political consciousness but don't know where to channel energies. So the book will add fuel to stoned, late night, slacker debates. The book provides a justification for much that is condemned in their lives. It offers a voice of resistance separate from the tired, parent dominated hippie youth culture. Youth movements in other countries would probably welcome a fresh rundown from Berkeley, the symbolic front line of youth resistance. Students of the humanities will read it in classes on social change.

It should also appeal to baby-boom generation as it offers them a way to relive their younger rebel days. They will love to point to this and say "see it was just so much different back in my day we really fucked shit up. But kids these days. . ." Overall they will read it and feel like they're still down with the revolution even if they just bought stock in Exxon. The right will love to read this and use it to prove the moral depravity of the left. But amidst their accusations of Satan influence, they will sense a subtle tinge of arousal as they indulge in scandalous folly. Finally cynics of the world will read this and scoff at me, calling the hedonist revolution a pet creation of my drug-crazed pondering. They will sip their coffee wondering why anyone would go through some much trouble to make a point, but will tickled nonetheless by the twisted beauty of what we call humanity.

A list of experiences

knowledge of body

knowledge of Berkeley-
2 years undergrad at UC Berkeley
l year participation in counterculture resistance

speaking events
Nude in, Sproul Plaza UC
conference on sexual science, San Diego
University of Stanford
University of Minnesota
television - Montel Williams, Maury Povitch, Univision, Jane Whitney,

published writings
Slingshot resistance newspaper (legal/organizational)
"Administering Justice in the New Regime"
Nude and Natural mainstream nudist mag (travel/support)
"Christianity and the bourgeoisie"

Major Parties
Castro- Halloween 92
Le Chateau, Berkeley Brown Fellini brunch at the pool 93
The Gathering-new years 93


The issue of political correctness is misunderstood by many of the moderates who might be more sympathetic if they heard an honest appraisal of this cultural event.

One common complaint about political correctness is that it is just trying to change society through the use of judgement-free terminology. Skeptics think participants in the pc project try to redefine their groups status in society by re-labeling themselves. Instead of calling themselves overweight, big people would define themselves as "meaty" or some other word with a more positive connotation.

To the moderates it seems silly to try to hide the truth of a condition by merely changing the name of it. To these skeptics, fat people will be fat no matter what they call themselves and they might as well get used to that idea instead of trying to kid themselves. Fat people are trying to make a claim to being oppressed but are really just whining.

These moderates usually proceed to discredit the whole movement by making a list of absurd pseudo-correct terminologies for a whole range of conditions like being short, tall, young, unemployed or insane. At the end of all the laughing skeptics argue that fat people should lose weight instead of complaining so much and Mexicans should take a shower and get a real job instead of sitting on the corner contemplating the difference between Chicano, latina, and hispanic.

Also, many people feel threatened by the social pressure employed by the politically correct and claim that freedom of speech is being infringed upon. They want to be able to describe low-lives and ugly people using whatever words come to mind and don't want to live in fear of being called insensitive .

To some extent these arguments make a lot of sense. However they are only persuasive to those with a surface level understanding of the Political Correctness agenda for social change whose tools includes much more than language modification. These negative reactions to P.C. are also most prevalent in people with limited knowledge of history and people who have been molded almost entirely by the mainstream media.

Political correctness is the name for an attempt to seize power through cultural manipulation. Realizing that a direct assault upon the state apparatus is unrealistic, we have decided to employ the same tactics used by the Christian regime to create a culture conducive to our own vision of a healthy community. It should come as a shock to no one that people other than Christians can be offended, can use propaganda, and can demand adherence to certain ideological structures.

Our tactics are performed in the arena of language, values, empowerment and offense.

The power we exert upon the old regime comes only after a thought crime has been defined. Whereas the old regime is continually searching for signs of unorthodoxy in the form of a lack of work ethic, lack of an anti~pleasure ethic, the political correctness regime looks for signs of old regime thought in the form of Racism, Sexism, homophobia, body hatred, intolerance and classism.

When the unPC word is used it is not so much the word but the evidence of thought crime that is offensive. Although the above crimes are the major ones being eradicated, there are a whole slew of attitudes that will evoke a response from the politically correct regime. Any comment, facial expression etc. that indicates old regime thought will be meets social condemnation. For example take a comment like "Andrew, why don't you get some more babes to get naked?" There is no way that this frat boy could really hide his attitudes just by saying "womyn" instead of "babe". His tone, and mannerisms and the context of his comment convey misogyny or an old regime attitude towards women. So a P.C. response would be "Why? so you can sexually harass them?"

The power works by the new regime being able to define what we think are crimes. The bourgeois power structure had power to define perversion, sluttiness, and laziness now we can define which thoughts and behaviors stem from adherence to their power. when a member of the old regime is told "that comment indicates a presence of racism in your thought patterns.", the indicted has only a few responses possible. For the most part everyone accepts that Racism is a crime. Only a few hard core bigots in this country could indifferently respond "yea so" to a charge of racism or would argue that racism really isn't bad.

Once the criminal nature of racism is agreed upon the next issue becomes whether or not the indicted actually committed the thought crime. The indicted will inevitably try to say "no I'm not racist, I once hired a mexican dude" or "racism is a two way process they treat us according to stereotypes too" They will realize however that they, being white are not an authority in defining racism. It is true that white people experience prejudice due to their skin color, but this prejudice is not compiled with political power to maintain a system of economic exploitation against them. The existence of "reverse racism" will not get the indicted off the hook. In fact person charged with racist thought patterns will see how nothing said removes the serious look upon the offended face. They will see that there is no way to rationalize their beliefs so that the charge is removed. If they leave the conversation or change the subject they will temporarily avoid the issue, but only a sincere attempt to understand the charge and the historic basis for it will ease the tension.

Just like in a conservative environment signs of unorthodoxy will be met with varying degrees of disapproval by the P.C. regime The statement "I am offended, that is a comment" is usually reserved for extreme cases. Many comments are met with silence. Whereas people expect a nod, a laugh or a smile after their comments, a quiet blank stare sends chills through their bodies .

Cross-group empowerment is an important aspect of political correctness. I am not a woman but I am close to a lot of women who feel a deep alienation from patriarchy. I am not gay but I have gay friends who seriously fear being bashed for holding hands with someone they love. Separate groups of people are united in that they are all alienated from the same value system. Realizing this, we see other peoples oppressions as equally our own. So someone says to me "I heard there were some fags coming to this party," even if I had no idea who they were talking about, I am likely to empower homosexuality by creating an environment hostile to homophobia. So I say "Oh yeah we just got here. I really feel like getting my ass rammed by a younger guy are you interested?"

Although political correctness goes well beyond manipulation of language, this is an important aspect of our cultural assertion of power. Certain concepts are simply useless in the new regime. Take "slut." The word slut, in the old regime, is a derogatory word for a woman who has and enjoys intercourse outside of marriage. In the new regime there is no such thing as marriage. There is no double standard of sexual ethics based on gender either. Finally, it is considered a compliment to be acknowledged as having lots of sex. So people in support the revolution have no reason to use this concept, and will be wary of someone who does.

Some words are just too broad to be effective. Take "mexican." White people will use this word to describe anyone with brown skin whose not Chinese. But when I am asked to describe my ethnicity, I wouldn't really feel "mexican" was at all accurate. White people want me to say "mexican" and to tell them when my family crossed the border into the United States. But my family has been living north of the current border since before the hidalgo treaty. I tell these people I am Chicano not to raise my self esteem but because that word best answers their question.

One of the gut criticisms adherents to the old will offer is "P.C. restricts my freedom of speech." You're somewhat right. The courts will probably define our telling a christian to shut up as a restriction of his speech even thought whenever a christian wants someone to shut up the courts will say that they are protecting the morals, health and children of the community. The constitution will never cease to define rights only to the extent that it protects the middle class and christianity. But all this is irrelevant because a reference to the constitution in a criticism of political correctness is like criticizing an atheist by referring to the Bible. Of course the constitution of the old regime is going to say its ok to promote archaic values, this doesn't change the fact that these values are seen as bigotry in our eyes.

Despite all the freedom of speech fears among the old regime, the political correctness movement is pro-speech. Say all you want in exactly the terminology you find appropriate. Don't let us hold you back, we want to hear exactly whats on your mind. But be prepared to have every aspect of your social consciousness analyzed, critiqued, and condemned. In any discussion your language, and mannerisms will convey your thought patterns. If your thought patterns maintain the old regime, you as person will be held responsible. Your beliefs aren't just abstract, distant political ruminations, they have serious implications on all our lives so think them through. If you think class issues are not longer pertinent because the Soviet Union crumbled, be prepared to be told you watch too much T.V. If you think gay people are perverts be prepared to be called homophobic. You don't have to let the criticisms get to you unless you want to.

Actually you shouldn't worry too much about being un-pc. Mostly everyone can find some way that they are alienated from the old regime. If someone gives you shit for being white, then you can pull the fact that you are poor. If someone gives you shit for being sexist tell them that you're not being sexist except as defined by bourgeois women and that their definition of sexism is a manifestation of classism. Once you counter alienation with alienation you reach a moral balance of power. But if you are not alienated either personally or out of respect for alienated friends then you are old regime.

Overall political correctness simply means questioning your ideas and attitudes and looking beyond the indoctrination of mainstream media and church. If you can take the heat of an intense political discussion in a P.C. environment then at least you can think about your role in life and aren't another sheep. This is true even for a rich white man who doesn't smoke pot. At some levels its totally pc to say "fuck all this ideological control bullshit" and to walk around yelling "all activists can suck my cock."

Outline of Militant Nudist Revolution

I Christianity sucks

A) Jesus in Berkeley - impressions, dialogue and disagreements

B) institutionalized Christianity - the Christianity empowered, mandated by the current European, bourgeois regime. Not "real" Christianity but the one that puts me in jail. I don't care what the bible really says.

C) class power and christian imagery - defining the appropriate public body, confessions, how white are you, the prole (proletariat) as a thought crime, prison as a molding of the body, destroying the inner desire/capacity to be proletariat, body death and entrance into the middle class as salvation.

II Work/Anti~Pleasure ethic

A) Monogamy paradigm - economic obsolescence of marriage, love, foreplay, genital obsession, privacy; hang~ups, anxiety, dysfunction and neuroses, central requirements of monogamy

B) social/ individual disadvantages of work ethic

sleep deprivation, coffee, anxiety, headaches

theft, violence, insanity, war, prisons

C) Anal people~ clean quiet old-
seem to be harmless but continually irritate by asking you to lower the radio, expect you to maintain some luxuriously sterile standard of cleanliness

III Excuses for maintaining the old regime

A) the law, social contract, America:

critique of non-violence, civil disobedience; civil war and political obligations to an oppressive regime, responsibility to humans, not state, anarchy is not likely.

B) kids, raising kids with lies, responsibilities in maintaining stereotypes. Christian indoctrination, to raise my kids free of Christianity

C) Christians are offended easily, offense as a political tool, empowerment through intolerance

IV New Moral regime

A) Relativism vs monotheism - one good indefinable, multiculturalism, multiple moral axes, contextual morality

B) Hedonism - the social value of individual happiness and fulfillment. the party as the peak in community bonding, party tactics, the mosh pit; marijuana breaking the linear thought patterns of western Civ., bringing the subconscious out of a repressed state; industrial progress creating conditions ripe for the elimination of work.

C) political correctness - Empowerment, language, thought crimes; using social tools for political empowerment; redefining a language create cultural distance; treating thought criminal like shit.

V message to the the revolutionaries

A) a call to hedonism women - defense of male sexuality in resisting monogamy; sexual symbols creating sexual offense; women, body shame, and anorexia, gender destruction

B) people of color/poor~ assimilation and the bourgeois trap, cultural/racial identity, internalized values and the maintenance of class power.

C) hippies - selling out; generation x, forging an identity separate from hippie culture; War on Drugs - hippies recanted on the big issue, allowing a witch hunt; stoner culture and elimination of classism/racism.

VI the individual

A) introspection, guilt and hypocrisy; defining self-worth in terms of new moral axes, moral fallibility in the new regime: inconsistencies in doctrine and practice

B) personal reform - pushing the limits of homo - intimacy, Making of a bi-sexual, masturbation anxiety, ending the personal commodity fetish.

VII Militant Nudist Revolution
A)nudism - transcending social symbols nudity is a symbol: power, vulnerability, resistance, intimacy; humor

B) Cadres~ tactics, attitudes and reform emotional separation from politics; political symbolism, the media and transcending the "real" world; asserting body liberation in the public sphere; personal body liberation versus social, political body liberation; psychological abuse as a tactic against police, and old regime adherents.

C) post revolutionary order - seizure of power, nudists in the white house, first speech of the new regime; creating new institutions, administration of justice, defining the criminal, thought reform; social programs, the hedonist plane flight, the public shit house.


Eileen Goodson - Therapy Nudity and Joy

Jerry Rubin - Do it

Jerry Rubin - Growing up at 37

Dick Gregory - Write Me In

Eileen Goodson - Therapy Nudity and Joy

Ms Goodson's is the only nudist book that is similar enough to compete. Hers is just a hedonist book in disguise. First discussing the historical roots of the body taboo in America, she then describes other cultures relations to the body and lack of body shame. One culture's baby massages, Japanese public bathing, nudity in Ancient Egypt, Greece, India. She also includes a description of the major uses of nudity in psychotherapy, and body therapy, massage therapists, sensory deprivation, sex therapists. Her book is more factually based serving more as a scientific strengthening of the moral/political views argued in my book. She doesn't provide much of a class analysis or a specific mode of implementation for sciences new criteria for health.

Jerry Rubin's Do IT was a first hand description of some of the major action of the 60 youth's youth rebellion, centering in Berkeley. Jerry was one of the main leaders of the YIPPIEs who organized events like the Pentagon levitation, the Democratic National Convention march, and the money give away at the NY Stock Exchange. Now Yippie analysis, tactics, and goals remain fixed in the media's notion of youth counter culture and resistance. The yippies protested. The yippies try to shock people into higher levels of consciousness. Whenever the new youth counter -culture acts it is seen merely as a re -manifestation of the yippie agenda.

My book will be an expression of youth counter-culture that isn't just a re-hashing of old themes but tangible evidence that youth resistance has evolved in the last 30 years. Differences can be seen in level of empowerment. We are developing political consciousness at a time when many gains have been and are being made. The revolution has had 30 years to solidify its interests. The work/anti-pleasure ethic is weakened in ways so our voices aim to expand on the power seized by our parents.

Jerry Rubin's second book, Growing up at 37 offers a re assessment of his "radical" activities of the past. It tells of his personal growth period which he had to reconcile with his responsibilities to the movement. He also had to reconcile his stocks, and royalties with a class-based critique of the system. Our book are similar in that we both stress the value of individual happiness, health promoted by yoga, martial arts, and introspection. In fact my program of body liberation may be a close replica of what he had in mind as a solution for the activist/wiseperson dilemma. His book however, leaves the responsibility for government to the old regime. In free- ing his butt from a need to resist, he forgets that someone has to deal with the criminals. He didn't anticipate the day when the free would have power to imprison, to mold the adherents to the old regime. Finally much of the book was just more 60-worship, good ol' days mental masturbation that ex hippies do a lot of these days.

Dick Gregory wrote write Me In. This book has a good blend of humor and political discourse in it. Its not humor of the absurd, but humor of the real. While giving a ripping critique of Amerikan double standards and a fair treatment of the black power movement, Gregory infuses a step back attitude, an ability to see beyond conflict. I try to maintain a similar psychological distance in defining my political identity. The militant nudist revolution is about as likely to happen as Dick Gregory being elected president on a write in ticket. while Gregory was able to articulate needs and interests of African-Americans, I am defining a political view from a more hazy ethnic/racial perspective. I am a product of civil rights racial integration. I was bused out to the suburbs in third grade in a once a week program for "accelerated" students , white kids were bused in to my school in the fourth grade. Although I identify with the Hispanic heritage I recognize from childhood, my mom married a white guy and we moved to the suburbs where much of my political consciousness was created. when people ask me what my ethnicity is I'm really tempted to say Bay Area stoner. They want to hear Chicano but that only scratches the surface of my ethnic identity.

An address to womyn-

In order for the hedonist revolution to make any headway, it needs the participation and support of women. Immediately barriers between the two factions come to mind. In defining a new sexuality to replace monogamy some will immediately claim that I am some young guy trying to get laid more often. They might see this as a rehashing of hippie free love equipped with hippie style sexism.

Also the University, before specifically banning nudity, defined it as sexual harassment. Although I'd hate to use the notion of sexual harassment to describe my behavior, I do see how the symbolism of my presence could evoke sexual offense. There's a kind of travesty of possible sexual identities, given my gender status. It also smells like an interesting divide and conquer tactic of the old regime. I do think that much of the symbolism would be meaningless however once someone gets to know me a little better.

So what symbols are evoked from my presence. Before taking my clothes completely off in school, I had been wearing no T-shirt in class. I got a lot of negative reaction from that. In some ways more intense negative reaction than when I went naked.

Why is that? I think I look like a very old regime sexuality kind of guy. I have a crew cut. I am 6'4 210 lbs. I also work out a lot. Walking around with my shirt off just puts the icing on the stereotype. The macho jerk meters probably go off the scales when I walk into a room.

When I took off my shorts people immediately saw what I was doing in a different way. They didn't think I was showing off my body within a old regime pattern of reasoning, like before, but thought I was making a statement about humanity. They could then see me as a resister for the new regime. Suddenly people were supportive of me when before they thought I was threatening.

That is one example of how my sexual identity is created as I walk into a room. These symbols are usually interacting with the subconscious of a group and this is only an attempt to explain why people feel sexually offended by my presence. But lets look at what other symbols are around.

I am brown. I'm sorry to annoy all you guilty white people by factoring race into my analysis, but here it seems definitely appropriate to do so. Not only am I a big confident man but I am big confident brown man. So recently bound with likely hood of young white girl rape, my brown skin symbolizes macho brown sexual prowess. A sexuality that is inherently threatening, even if I act no more manly than the average guy. My body screams a certain tendency to be overly sexually aggressive. As if when I walked into a room I was offering to fuck every girl in there.

This all happens way before I even come close to taking off my shorts. When I do this it all gets worse. There I am now a big brown confident even militant naked man. So the nakedness adds to the others symbols, a release from social restraints. As if the only thing keeping me from raping is the enlightened repression of ordered civilization. In my nudity, I show a disrespect for these few rules (like shame), that prevent barbarity. My penis is sexual gun pointing, exhibiting aggressive intimidating sexuality at every civilized girl saying "I wancha".

The thing is I'm not like that. These emotive symbols are coming from a whole shit-load of stereotypes that are unnecessary, outdated and personally insulting. The one about brown men raping white women straight up needs to go. As if the brown urban man stalks and rapes a white suburbanite scenario, is at all as common as the same, race date-rape scenario.

As for the nudity. I'm sorry honey but I not trying so show you a thing, and there is no sexual gun point anywhere close to your sorry ass. So, I lack civilized restraint. I don't have any shame. Well, just because I'm not rigid like you are does not mean I'm some beast. Besides, the United States probably has the biggest problem with sexual assault not the smallest, so don't even pretend that your enlightened repression gets you anywhere.

I don't mean to belittle the womyns movement or claim to oppression by defending male sexuality. I am not saying men are oppressed by women or are somehow less to blame for the oppression of women but I am saying that bourgeois power is exerted through a definition of appropriate male sexuality.

I am resisting this gender binding in the same way that women are. A strictly defined bourgeois manhood constrains our identity . In a lot of ways male sexuality is tainted. Women can read erotica and it is no big deal. But to read the letters in a Penthouse mag is reading pornography. That's kinda seedy.

Not only is it seedy to the right but the feminist movement has defined it as mysogynistic, closely mirroring the attacks from christian repression. I would totally agree that these magazines perpetuate old regime sexuality in catering to and being created, by a male dominated bourgeois world. There is a high level of genital focus in these magazines along with a focus on intercourse and ejaculation. The focus is on male pleasure, the women are doing what turns him on. At the extremes of power-fantasy come the pornography representing gang-rape, murder during sex, kidnap-rape.

The new regime will have to deal with these manifestations of the old order at some point, but I would like to offer a criticism of current attacks on male erotic literature in order to re-legitimize beating off.

Surrogate sex is degrading in that it does not focus on the person in the body, her hopes, fears, dreams. This brings up the ultimate man vs woman little debate. Is it ok to fuck?

The whole game is pretending I don't want to fuck. Its ok to make love but to fuck is a different story. Women especially promote this kind of dichotomy in the mindset accompanying physical pleasure. No leftist chick is gonna say "do you love me", right before we get busy but they are still paranoid by the possibility of being fucked. Don't you see that the whole experience is hampered because of this imposed anxiety.

Fucking is a sexual thought crime to old regime women. To fuck is to forget about love during the act of intercourse. It is focused merely on the pleasure. To fuck is to be able have great sex with someone without ever having spoken a word together. Fucking is not feeling any economic obligation the morning after, but leaving with the feeling of an intense shared friendly experience.. Fucking is no big deal. Fucking is being able to say "Thank you for a funky time call me up whenever you want to grind"-Prince.

Also think about all the shitty symbolism involved here. White guys, christians, rich people, smart people, sensitive types "make love". Savage, brown, inarticulate, uneducated, macho, laborer types "fuck".

Male dialogue about sex has a bad rap too. The locker room talk. Not all guys sit around and brag about their accomplishments in bed. Some guys might but they probably hardly ever hook up anyway. Most guys talk about who they hook up. Don't you? I mean when I have a really cool experience I like to talk about it with my friends. I'm also interested when my friends have cool experiences. Not only do I listen when a friend meets someone new but I also listen to the sad words, to a picture of a beautiful woman. At this level, distinctions between old and new regime are blurry at best. Masturbation is one of few reliable sources of pleasure in this chaotic world. The individual takes full responsibility for his pleasure. The hands only do so much however. Sex can involve large portions of body touching other large portions. A hand can only stimulate small areas at at time. The individual often uses the resources of the imagination to augment the gratification of masturbation.

Our imagination brings us to the realm of fantasy, where the potential for old regime influence is great. Our sexual fantasies involve deep psychological power symbolisms. Fantasizing about a hoard of women paying detailed attention to every sexual need may look really mysogynistic if transplanted onto film. Fantasizing about a woman begging to be fucked also would be considered mysogynistic if put on film.

These fantasies shouldn't be taken at face value. People fantasize about actions, scenarios which are rare, or unlikely to happen in reality. The fantasy serves to fulfill needs that are not being fulfilled. So that people who feel unattractive and are treated as unattractive will fantasize about attractive people treated them as if they were attractive. People who are never even approached for sexual activity are going to fantasize about being begged for sexual activity, when they get dumped or neglected.

A strong critique of sexual fantasy based on the inherent power relations of sexual symbolism could have the effect of stifling already repressed sexual desires. Making people feel guilty for desiring a certain type of position with certain types of people may prevent the release of sexual shame necessary for body liberation. Many women argue that this form of Pornography is visual sexual fantasy useful only for surrogate arousal.


So the university uses a progressive notion of sexual harassment to defeat another progressive movement in nudity. I hope that women will not empower attacks on nudity but would see their own interests facilitated by an increase in body liberation and a destruction of old regime sexuality.

The top-free movement which has been strong on the east coast seems to be just a moderate version of the full nudist package. I hope they don't ever argue that some body parts should be hidden but not boobs. I wonder if the discrimination argument could be used twice to get full body liberation. Women argue men show their boobs why can't we show ours. Then could we could argue in a later court case that women can expose their erogenous zones why cant men expose theirs.

Women get the brunt of the body shame issue. Guys are to made to feel self-conscious but women have to be seriously concerned with their bodies. Anorexia and Bulimia are serious health problems that shouldn't have to happen. You never hear of a guy getting turned down from a job because he was chubby. That whole diet, cosmetic industry is out of control.

Unfortunately women will be subjected to the most uncomfortable types of harassment in exercising decreased body shame. We must commend these courageous revolutionary cadres. While nudity for me creates intimidation, nude women will be seen as an invitation. Already rampant unwanted sexual contact is multiplied by the females state of undress. The old regime see this as a symbol of unlimited woman sexuality, the slut. Women who do not feel like putting up with that shit should realize that body liberation doesn't just mean full nudity in public. Reclaiming control and definition of our bodies is a personal thing. Women who are willing to push that much into the public space, do the revolution a great service.

Transcending Gender-

Many moderates claim that their behavior fits into normalcy quite well. I argue otherwise. To me certain thing are banned for reasons and accepting them means accepting the consequences of doing so. Take for instance homosexuality. The real acceptance of homosexual behavior and eroticism will have a drastic effect on gender roles, which lock us into monogamy. The issue of homosexual acceptance should immediately be followed by a discussion of a trans-genderal world.

Some assume that people can fuck people with similar genitals because their life is easy. Society should get prepared to deal with the consequences of ending an entire regime of gender segregation, indoctrination, men dressing like women, women hitting on men, men being sexually harassed. Is everyone a mixture of those characteristic which we dichotomize as female/male. What is a male thought process.

Traditionally men have been the aggressors in a relationship. They do the asking, calling, first move, etc. Men are not used to being approached by strangers, treated really friendly, smothered by affection, sexually harassed etc. Basically they are not used to the shit women have to deal with. But a real toleration of homosexuality will definitely change this.

Real, as opposed to a pseudo toleration, where guys say "homosexuality is ok as long as they don't look, talk, or act like it is in front of me". Real toleration means accepting a homosexual advance the same as any normal heterosexual advance. It means not knowing if a random advance of male affection stems from a desire to butt-fuck. Real toleration would mean that guys will be subjected to the same passive role as women at some point, when a aggressive gay male makes advances upon the heterosexual male. The same goes for the aggressive role and women. Some women will adopt an aggressive role in order to make lesbian relationships happen.

Men will need to get beyond their "As long as they (fags) leave me alone, once I tell them I am not interested", attitude. This attitude rules out the possibility of carrying on a conversation with a member of the same sex who is interested in more than just conversation. Men will have to have extended relationships with other men who are attracted to them. The bank teller will never stop thinking about sex when he asks you what your deposit is. The person who sits next to you in class doesn't go away just because you are not interested. Guys will have entire conversations with some random dude who is thinking of nothing other than hard cock.

Being accustomed to a wide range of sex roles; butch, fem men and women, some people will be attracted to a certain type, or want to express which type they are. Traditional clothing roles then will also be destroyed. Why shouldn't a male who adopts female traits look feminine sexy. Why shouldn't we dress in drag, then.

What about bathrooms. They are segregated because people don't want to be seen by the opposite sex. Isn't the importance there that the opposite sex is sexually attracted to them. With homosexuality present, there is a good chance that people will be sexually attracted to others in a same sex setting. Is there still a point to sex segregation.

Sex segregation in the greek system offers time to rigidify roles and frameworks useful in monogamy. The alpha zetas are real studs when they can get the gammies to one of their new parties. Bobby, the new rushee, will be a sure bet to get called back by the brothers when he gets Aimee drunk and in bed. When they all go home, they can discuss their sex lives within their gender defined realities. Guys will pretend to be macho, girls will pretend to be prude.

Gender limits my ability to be human. I want to be a woman in so many ways. Hit on me. Tell me I'm special. Embrace me with strong confident arms. Touch me starting with my nipples. Rub your dick, or hand, or boob on the inside of my thighs, then lay on top of me. Enter me from behind.

Am I still a man while having those feelings. I also wanna be a bitch sometimes. I can never be a bitch because I'm a big muscular guy. People would freak out. What if when a dorky little chick started hitting on me, I turned around, raised an eyebrow and said "get lost, geek", then walked off never to think of her again.

I want to be able to listen patiently as you tell me what a stud you are. Don't ask me about my life.

Monogamy equals Patriarchy. Womyn, join the hedonist revolution!

To the Ex-hippies-

"Mr. Ginsberg- Will the hippies revert to the middle class as they grow older?

No, impossible. . . . That way's been barred by beatings and arrests. What bridges they haven't burned behind them have been burned for them with pot busts. What's happened to young people is a sudden breakthrough catalyzed in part by psychedelic drugs. Another factor was the deconditioning caused by alienation from social authority as it proved itself completely incomprehensible and mad and burned its own bridges from Hiroshima to Vietnam".

To a lost generation-

I look around and I wonder, "Where did it all go"? My childhood is filled with fantastic stories of questioning, discovery, and self directed release from chains. Could they be just dreams, dreams implanted in my mind so I can feel pride in people that show me little to be proud of.

Or maybe a dream in their minds so they can feel some pride in doing nothing. Am I really supposed to think something actually happened in that time of change. Oh ya you kept it in spirit right. please tell me how the spirit breathes while smothered in plastic suits and protein drinks. Do you give philanthropic contributions after your 50 hour work week is finished? Do you smoke a joint on your view-enriched yuppie patio with old college buddies, when you're feeling a little old or a little hypocritical?

No seriously, can you honestly tell me you didn't all sell out. I know its hard to worry about morals when you have Acura's to buy. That's ok but just don't tell me its still in you. Then you tell me "its just a matter of growing up". Like its really a natural thing that everyone goes through to grow up feeling that money-based ethics, sex-fear and Puritanical starchiness are detriments to the soul. Within ten years there appears to be everything you distrusted in your parents but they're in possession of a great classic rock collection. Maybe its a part of life that parents throw their kids in jail- Yours did- you're carrying on the tradition.

That's a bunch of post-sale rationalization, if you ask me. We're being thrown in jail with a more fierce determination and desire to hurt than you were ever exposed to.

Meanwhile, you hide in a cloak of civility. You tell me its all been done already. Then why is everything still illegal. I guess you put in your two sit-ins, then you wanted your check.

Maybe you were doing it all just for the thrill of en vogue rebellion.

I'm not.

I hold dearly the values in your dream.

It wouldn't be so bad, except I feel just like you tell me you did.

But all I see is partnership for drug free America commercials, statements of no-inhalation and proudly waved flags.

Would I be so lonely if it were anything other than a dream?

You hippies really screwed my generation up. You fucked shit up when you were our age. After you mellowed out a bit you began talking incessantly about how cool you were. You smoked pot and had a lot of sex. You broke the laws and justified it with civil disobedience. Woodstock was your symbol. There you did all those cool free things and it was ok cause your parents weren't around. You didn't realize you're kids were with you every single time you bragged about that stupid concert.

You're not the same anymore . You realize how crazy and rebellious you were in those college days. Now you really know how to deal with the power system. You can achieve whatever minor political adjustments you want and don't care about the kids political whinings. They're restating the same issues you dealt with so skillfully and these idealistic youth haven't seen the real world. As far as you're concerned most of the generation & agenda is passe. And to some extent you don't care about change anymore. Everything takes time. You're just trying to save up for retirement.

As a member of the MTV generation, I have a bone to pick with the ex-hippies from the 60's. We are youth counterculture. A few kids trapped in the retro-revolutionary timewarp might still eagerly grasp for your tie dies and Beatles CD5. But most of us have forged an identity independent of your tired symbols. We are not just like you were when you were a kid. This is 20-30 years after you did your stuff. The youth movement and the culture of resistance in general has changed quite a bit.

First of all you did do a lot of cool shit. People were organized and resisted the heinous Vietnam draft. You made an impressive showing at the pentagon. You made LSD and marijuana household items. But you gotta realize that you were just one movement of rebellion that came and went and wasn, even the only movement around at the time. When we study the past and the broad historical "movement" against European Capitalism, we study you as just one expression of revolution. It is critiqued and analyzed with as much scrutiny as any other social movement in history.

As a new wave of cultural expression, we can refer to you for symbols, expressions and analyses of the revolution but we are also going to develop our own theories with help. from other movements as well. Ex-hippies often criticize the current youth as not knowing the true spirit of revolution. But maybe we don't like all that you have to say.

One really annoying thing is when ex-hippies tell me they dealt with certain issues (those of the current youth movement) already in the past. Now the issues are basically resolved. Its really not that bad now. Well maybe its not that bad for you. You were raised in the middle~class, decided your parents were a little too anal and then revolted. Now You can lead a middle-class lifestyle and wear blue jeans at the same time. Sure things aren't so bad anymore. You have achieved complete social acceptance of long hair. Your revolution has been successful.

But the rest of us unfortunately need to articulate the same old criticisms of Amerikan society. Yeah, you've heard it before, you're probably going to hear it for the next two hundred years. The criticisms are going to be identical as long the current regime maintains power. But members of the resistance can't give up an analyses of power and reform just because its out of fashion. We're dealing with life, death and suffering, not hair style, hippie.

You might have made the world a little better by pushing the bourgeoisie to be a little more tolerant, but now you are the bourgeoisie. The class system that you revolted against is now run by you. The third world exploitation that you criticized when you were young, now happens under your guidance. Sure the bourgeoisie is a bit more inclusive but it still manipulates the entire world and is quite unjust in doing so.

You say my anger and militance are a sign of my youth. You were just like me before you grew up and became so wise and at some point, I gotta sell out just like the rest. Well, I don't think so. I disagree agree with your analysis, your prescription for a moral world and as member of the same revolution, I find your lack of understanding disturbing. My analyses of social problems and prescription for social change go well beyond generational conflict. Anger isn't necessarily an age thang. Forceful rejection and dismantling of the bourgeois regime has been described and promoted by people much older than you. These writers and political leaders didn't mellow out and accept western imperialism as they got older. Some assumed power, some were shot. You shouldn't assume I will become an obedient citizen just because you did. How old was Mao at the time of the communist take over in China.

Didn't anything after Vietnam ever really piss you off. Don't you feel a tinge of responsibility for the shit that still happens in this country. You act like you're still living in an isolated commune. My biggest problem with the hippies is how absolutely clueless they are when it comes to racism.

There was more to the sixties than the white middle-class youth movement. There was the civil rights movement, which had a longer history of discontent and overall, seemed to stem from greater degree of suffering. But you guys didn't seem to groove on too much of what they were saying. So you picked up on Martin Luther King. He was so great cause he was a peaceful negro. The civil rights bill passed and Racism was never to be a problem again. Boy, thank God you hippies were so cool that you pressured the government into ending racism.

Then came watts. Oh the revolution suddenly got so tainted. You were talking about love and sex and then out of the blue angry black people start talking about shooting back at cops. Malcolm says Kennedy's death is like chickens coming home to roost. Things started flaming and the protest turned into a riot. You didn't like conflict. You preach harmony. When you make your schpeal for passive resistance you always make it sound so enlightened to be peaceful. If somebody's not all "Love me brother" about the revolution than you see her as angry, poorly adjusted, a little too eager for change.

But listen. You were always able to return from your rebellions. You were able to confess in the proper mode whenever the government put the heat on. The power structure could never really justify killing you off.

There are people who couldn't recant to their parents and receive the economic benefits of renewed harmony. People of color didn't get to hide again and get treated nicely by the power structure. The war on drugs was created.

The baby-boomers recanted on this big issue, drugs. Notice all of the baby boomer demands have been acknowledged. You're satisfied by Clinton, except the part about marijuana decriminalization. Clinton portrayed the typical boomer. Tried it didn't like it haven't tried since. You guys tried the drugs, had a really good time, burned out, found something better to do and don't think you're kids should have to even deal with the issue. Overall you'd give it a thumbs down. So, to keep your kids from the hassle of the drug use, rebellion, sell-out circle, you'll let the government carry out the war on Drugs.

The government thinks this is great. In order to keep the class system running smoothly, the corporate power had to create a new reason to justify the bourgeois police state. The power structure will let you (recanting ex-hippies) smoke a little pot and maybe use coke if you agree to keeping it illegal, keep it quiet and agree to a few "excesses" in the WAR. The baby boomers bought the offer and were accepted back into the bourgeois clique.

They even bought the propaganda from it. "The hippies knew how to use drugs man, but black drug users weren't hip to the groove. The black people use crack. We use cocaine. They use heroin. We use LSD. They are addicted. We experimented. They use it to waste time. We used it to find inner peace".

So now the old regime can continue to run a system of class exploitation through intimidation against poor Chicanos and blacks because these people use drugs in a bad way.

We see the war on drugs. I don't think you are willing to sit and listen to what we see. My drug use is treated a lot differently than the drug use of certain other drug users. Because I'm a student, I am treated like a white person even if my skin is brown. I can party and get away with it. I'm still a good kid. I'll probably mellow out just like everyone else, so just slap me on the wrist. My drug use is almost cute to the power structure.

The government definitely sees me differently than the black dudes at people's park. The police are making every effort to make sure black kids partying out in the street aren't drinking 40's or selling weed. They make busts everyday. Sometimes issuing misdemeanor tickets or sometimes hauling him off in handcuffs. The cops never raid the fraternities to rid them of their horrible drug problem. Kegs of budweiser drunken by rich white boys are definitely less of a harm to society than 40's of Colt Malt Liquor.

If I get caught, I just need to say, "hey I'm a bourgeois student don't fuck with me"; I'm protesting". They let me go, cause I don't have a "problem", like the other kids. The other kids get probation, with drug tests or mandatory drug counseling.

I was actually caught selling bud in the park. The police guy said to me, as I tried to stuff a bag of weed in my pocket, "The park is closed! go somewhere else, and you can take your little baggie back to the dorms and finish your business there". Later on I saw the same cop who pulls me aside and says, "I did you a favor. You owe me one. Just don't go out like that to the park. Keep it inside". See I can sell pot to the hippies and their kids and no-one cares. The police only need to make a periodic token hippie bust to convince the world that they're not racist. They only really give a shit about people of color on drugs. As soon as I start hooking the brothers up with kind bud, the government gets nervous.

It's really ironic that the city is trying so hard to stop drug dealing in the park, given the nature of the drug trade. So many times, I've see rich white people, students, teachers buying buds from the poor black people in the park. The otherwise "straight" citizens who can't find reliable connections, go the difficult way to get their drugs. These rebels from the white culture stoop down to buying drugs from the scandalous negro. But they have nothing big to worry about. The war on drugs isn't directed at the professor, who uses speed to stay up all night correcting papers. It is directed at the vicious gangster people who run the underworld. Yeah, real vicious. They're just making a buck on the ave and supporting your addictions.

So everyday I watch this fantastic display of injustice on the Berkeley streets. Black stoners living in systematically created anxiety about the police, while trying to provide drugs to rich white people and make some smoke and money in the mean time. The police eagerly try to catch and stop the dealer criminals on the street, but don't seem to care much about the ones in the dorms and frats. The police only seem to care deeply about the drug use of poor young men who resist the paths leading to becoming productive laborers, ending up in warehouses, restaurants, and telemarketing jobs.

The average ex-hippies are unaware of the serious levels of police control and abuse that is exerted upon the African American and Chicano communities in the name of eliminating drug use. They fail to see that the Drugs are just one more in a long series of reasons why the bourgeois finds it morally necessary and justified to dominate the laboring classes. Before the War on Drugs the prisons were filled with people of color convicted of vagrancy, now they are convicted of drug "crime", and drunk in public arrests, etc.

The ex-hippies don't know anything about the standard low-intensity harassment police initiate. Police arrest you cause they don't like you or because you act uppity. They give you 4 or 5 trumped up bullshit misdemeanors charges, half of which are dropped at the arraignment 'cause there is insufficient evidence. Then the courts continue their charade of justice by offering you a light sentence if you plea guilty to one of the charges and accept probation, the yoke of class control. You never actually get to tell anyone that the cop was going to take you to jail for "drunk" in public, then when you expressed shock and resentment, beat you up, charged you with assault, then charged you with property destruction, for getting blood on his shirt. You accept the plea 'cause you don't have money for a real lawyer and the last thing the public defender wants you to do is go to trial. Hippies would be soo much less loving towards their oppressors if they had this shit to worry about every time they lit a bowl.

Hippies also fail to see the power mechanisms involved in saying "black people cant use drugs well." Why can't they use drugs well? When they smoke buds they don't think about loving the oppressors at peaceful sit-ins, do they? They don't think about the inner mysteries of life while stoned, do they. You saw how pot changed your view of the world and changed your attitude towards oppression. You thought pot would produce similar voices of discontent. When you heard the militant, forceful voices of the civil rights movement you thought they didn't deal with pot well. When you saw the fury of Rodney King riots you thought the blacks and Chicanos had an adverse reaction to a bong load. Drugs make them hate. Drugs make you love.

Well now, MR. and MRS. baby boomer, your kids use drugs. They didn't buy the hype against drugs that came once you sold out and were re~embraced by the bourgeois power clique. Are you kidding. Your few years of hype anti-drug commercials couldn't outdo your generation's inner love and longing for pot as it was reveled in your frequent generational self pat on the back with your friends. Your kids were never really convinced of your sincerity on the drug issue so we tried pot. We saw that all the education programs were complete hype on the pot issue. We, of course, didn't believe your flashback, jump out of the window, shot twenty times acting like the Terminator on PCP exaggerations about other drugs, so we tried them too. We didn't do them to piss you off like you did to your parents. We did them to see how much you were lying to us. Your exaggerations and fear tactics were much more the gateway to shrooms, acid, speed, coke and ecstasy than pot itself ever was.

Now we face the drug war head on as we, the new youth counter culture try to experience our own highs and see what the drug experience is for ourselves. We see how your selling out was selling out on your kids and on the rest of the revolution. It wouldn't be so bad, but you really buy the drug war propaganda. You're accepting a war against pot smoking americans while you worry about human rights in China.

The class domination you are a part of, is maintained through the idea of improper drug use, which is a perfect example of racial double-standards, as they are employed by the power structure. To the extent that you are ignorant of the double-standards you continue to believe that black pot-heads are worse that white ones. If you accept that all pot smokers are equal, and that the bud treats us all equally, then maybe you'd pay a little more attention to the strategies and analyses of African and Chicano American resistance.

Smoke pot and do acid again
Hippies, join the Hedonist Revolution

The X-plicit Players Home Page Contact the X-plicit Players

Site design by Sixth Sense R & D
email the Site Maintainer