Freedom of Speech

A high-profile Koran burning by Pastor Wayne Sapp in the US recently resulted in a wave of protests across the Islamic world, which have left at least 20 people dead. This issue, namely freedom of speech, is perhaps the most important issue of our time, and it will probably determine, in large part, the direction of the world in the coming years.

People like to say that the theory of a ‘clash of civilisations’ is overdone, and that the West can live in harmony with the Islamic world, even within the same societies. This is an easy thing to claim, as it merely perpetuates the popular belief that all religions can peacefully co-exist with other, directly-opposed religions, as well as atheism and belief systems of all kinds. But, in situations like this, the right to one’s own opinion is brought into direct conflict with the ‘duty’ that many adherents of religion feel to defend it – a defence which seems to often entail the taking of innocent life.

Without doubt, the pastor was being deliberately provocative, and I don’t think he deserves much airtime. But what he has done is bring into the spotlight the issue of freedom of speech once again. I don’t believe in being deliberately provocative, but I do believe in the right to be deliberately provocative, as long as you aren’t physically harming anyone, or obstructing their right to live their life as they choose. I also believe that no one has the right not to be offended. Life is messy, turbulent, unpredictable, and rarely as we would ideally choose – that’s the deal, take it or leave it.

A similar case occurred recently in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP and outspoken critic of Islam and Islamic immigration to the West, faced the prospect of going to jail for his beliefs about Islam. I was greatly relieved when he was cleared of all charges and released, because if it were to become a crime to have an opinion about a belief system, then any concept of freedom would surely have been laid to rest there and then. But I also think that the process did him a huge favour in terms of publicity for his cause, and publicly demonstrated that it is not in fact a crime to have an opinion about a religion, even Islam. I found his speech to the court after the case compelling.

Whether or not you agree with Wilders’ view of Islam, one has to note that he now lives under constant police protection due to the very real physical threat from Muslim protesters, all because he stood and accused Islam of being a violent and totalitarian ideology. Religion, it seems, has no concept of irony. I say a ‘very real’ threat because his compatriots Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortyn have already paid the ultimate price for their criticism of Islam in the foregoing years. Ironically again, such protesters would surely agree with Wilders’ view, and be proud of it – violence in defence of Allah, they would surely claim, is no violence at all.

I have non-muslim friends who despise Wilders, and who are utterly uncritical of Islam, despite its treatment of women, homosexuals, not to mention its very dim view of many aspects of their own secular, Western lifestyle. I think it has become such a taboo to talk critically about Islam that many so-called liberals simply cannot see that not speaking out about certain parts of Islamic doctrine allows certain attitudes to flourish that they would otherwise claim to be against. I think the central issue is the confusion of religion/ideology with race.

Let me be clear: Islam is not a race. It is a belief system, with adherents from all races and countries. Yet, because most of its adherents are dark-skinned, they believe that to talk about Islam critically is to somehow be racist. Anyone who would criticise the religion that is followed by a lot of brown-skinned people must dislike brown-skinned people. Yet it remains fashionable for educated ‘liberals’ to mock Christianity without impunity, and even such ‘religions’ as Scientology. If L. Ron Hubbard had preached the hatred against gays that we hear from so many muslim clerics, he would have been attacked mercilessly for it (and rightly so). Yet when a muslim cleric does the same thing, it is either completely ignored, or explained away as extremism – which leads me neatly to my next point.

Religions are, by their very nature, extreme: they claim to have an intimate knowledge of the ultimate truths of the universe. They claim to have a direct line to the divine creator, and those who stand outside their group stand condemned for all eternity to hellfire – that’s quite extreme. I don’t plan to go into the philosophical absurdity of religion here (I think that should speak for itself) but, even if God existed, the odds of choosing the right god from all the thousands of them that have ever existed, is extremely small. Such small odds should not create such passionate certainty. Religions teach exclusivity and superiority of one group over another. There are many passages in the holy books that contradict the popular and misguided perception that they are all-loving and exclusively peaceful. This excellent documentary on British TV went undercover at the main mosque in London, and found some hateful teachings against non-muslims as mainstream doctrine.

I have showed this documentary to friends but, as ever, it was explained away as the work of a small number of extremists, even though it shows exactly the opposite. I don’t want to overplay the role of religion and the damage it can cause to Western societies (clearly the corrupt political and banking elites take first place on that front); but it warrants discussion, and there comes a point at which we have to confront the reality of that which is around us, no matter how uncomfortable it may be – the future of the freedoms we now take for granted may depend on it.

The Universal Soldier

These are times of change. My feeling is that we are at a real crossroads in human history, one where we decide to opt for freedom and cooperation, or, alternatively, fear and tyranny.

At the heart of this situation, and one of the most important determinants of its outcome, will be the man in uniform: the soldier, the policeman, the government bureaucrat. As we have all seen during the protests across the Muslim world against tyranny, poverty and corruption, these people are forced, sooner or later, to make a choice between two conflicting identities: the man who obeys orders, and the man who does what he knows to be right. It begs the question: at what point does an individual’s duty as an employee of the state become superceded by their identity as an ethical, moral, free-thinking human?

It is the normal role of the uniformed man to uphold the law and to keep the peace. But what happens when the regime, or the law itself, is hurting the people these public employees are meant to protect?

I saw a video yesterday, which really made me think about the reality of such a choice, and the different ways in which those in uniform respond to it. It’s really not nice to watch so be prepared for it.

These men that sprayed the unarmed crowd with bullets, killing and wounding indiscriminately, made their choice; they chose to uphold the corrupt and repressive regime against which these protesters were merely trying to express themselves. The irony is, of course, that these soldiers (or ‘hired killers’ as they should more rightly be called) are also members of society themselves, with families and friends of their own. They might fancy themselves as ‘insiders’, but it should be easy for anyone to see that, ultimately, everyone outside the political elite pays the price for oppression and corruption.

History is littered with examples of how the moral agency of humans is weakened or extinguished by the sense of conformity and duty that goes with being a so-called figure of state authority. This from Alexandr Solzhenitsyn on the failing of collective moral agency that led to the rise of Stalin’s tyranny:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Solzhenitsyn’s logic is undeniable: strength, quite literally, is in numbers. It doesn’t matter how many troops tyrannical governments put on the streets, how many guns they have, or how brutal and indiscriminate their violence becomes, tyranny can only thrive when good men fail to act. Every tyranny in history was upheld by a small majority of the population which created a paralysis of fear amongst the majority, something that is beautifully captured in this scene from the film A Bug’s Life-point being that even a child can grasp the idea.

Gandhi understood this logic perfectly, and it was he that created the movement which stopped the might of the British Empire in its tracks-without the use of violence. Indeed, the more the British used violence against the peaceful majority, the more assured the end of their rule in India became. Their violence was demonstrably the end of any moral authority they may have previously claimed in order to govern. Many in Gandhi’s movement died in the course of their protests, and it is this understandable fear of being the first to stand up (and likely be cut down) that enables tyrannies to take hold and sustain themselves.

‘Support our troops’ is a mantra of the modern world in times of military conflict, and it is one which has always disturbed me because of its monumental stupidity. Its stupidity lies in the assumptions that it makes: 1. That all troops are the same, and are equally deserving of respect, regardless of their personal conduct. 2. That ‘supporting’ the troops has any other function than ratifying the use of military force by governments, no matter how corrupt or immoral such actions may be. 3. That ‘support’ can never mean bringing them home to safety.

I wonder how many citizens of Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, or Tunisia are supporting their troops right now, after their brutality in defence of corrupt elites. I wonder how many black South Africans supported their troops and police during the apartheid era. I wonder how many everyday Germans genuinely supported the Nazis compared to those who just felt powerless to stop the country’s descent into madness.

I’ve become a firm believer in the disbandment of standing armies. Thomas Jefferson was also convinced that this should be so. Armies should be assembled in defence of the nation, of all nations. The very existence of a military machine can create the temptation and tendency to use force, and such a machine necessarily wields considerable influence on government by its very nature. When combined with the existence of an armaments industry, the vast financial rewards for some of building and using machines of war make conflict ever more likely. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man who held the highest positions in both the military and politics, summed up the dangers of the military industrial complex, as it has become known:

The simple fact is that politicians can lie and manipulate people as much as they like, driven by their hawkish associates and paymasters, but if the population decides that there will be no war, there will be no war. How can conflict take place if there is no one to pick up the gun? To drop bombs on villages from a plane? To beat children with clubs behind brick walls? To perform the ritualised humiliation and degradation as witnessed at Abu Ghraib? War will only stop when we really want it to.

The Body Shop

I’ve long admired the sheer audacity of The Body Shop, for what I call its ‘success by suggestion’ marketing tactics. The entire brand is built on a fuzzy, wishy-washy notion that international, large-scale capitalism can have a heart. It’s also built on the idea that its products are somehow ‘natural’, ethically-sound and good for you. The fact that The Body Shop has managed to do this with such great success demonstrates some really important truths about us humans, and how those determined to take advantage of us really don’t have to try that hard.

Exhibit A, m’lud: The Spa Wisdom™ Morocco Argan Oil & Orange Blossom Body Souffle. Sounds exotic, enticing, natural, wonderful. Yes, it does, until you take the trouble to invert the container and read the ingredients. Take a deep breath, ’cause here we go:

Water (Solvent/Diluent), C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate (Emulsifier), PEG-8 (Humectant), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride (Emollient), Glycerin (Humectant), Steareth-2 (Emulsifier), Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil (Skin-Conditioning Agent), Fragrance (Fragrance), Phenethyl Alcohol (Fragrance Ingredient), Steareth-21 (Emulsifier), Caprylyl Glycol (Skin Conditioning Agent), Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter) (Skin-Conditioning Agent/Emollient), Carbomer (Stabiliser/Viscosity Modifier), Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Butter (Emollient), Propylene Glycol (Humectant), Sodium Hydroxide (pH Adjuster), Linalool (Fragrance Ingredient), Limonene (Fragrance Ingredient), Disodium EDTA (Chelating Agent), Benzophenone-2 (Light Absorber), Butylphenyl Methylpropional (Fragrance Ingredient), Benzyl Salicylate (Fragrance Ingredient), Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Flower Extract (Natural Extract), Sorbitol (Humectant), Citronellol (Fragrance Ingredient), Hydroxycitronellal (Fragrance Ingredient), Hexyl Cinnamal (Fragrance Ingredient), Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone (Fragrance Ingredient), Farnesol (Fragrance Ingredient), Geraniol (Fragrance Ingredient), Yellow 6 (Colour).

This list, for the most part, sounds like an accident at Chernobyl. It doesn’t sound very ‘Morroccan’ at all (whatever that is supposed to sound like). Certainly not very natural, and exotic only in the sense that few of these substances can actually be found in nature. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that seeing a pretty, ethnic design, and seeing the word wisdom on the jar is sufficient to determine provenance and verify quality. This jar contains the wisdom of the ages, that’s for sure, at least in terms of man’s eternal ability to hoodwink man. This was literally the first product I clicked on at the website, the thousands of others are just the same.

I quizzed a member of The Body Shop staff a couple of weeks ago about something written on each product: ‘Against animal testing’. Now, I could be accused of being a little cynical at times – in my experience it often saves time and disappointment, at least where certain things are concerned. One of those things is marketing. When such vast amounts of money are at stake, it is imperative that the marketing suggests (but not actually commits to) that which the product often doesn’t actually deliver, but which the consumer would like to have for their hard-earned buck. So my suspicions were aroused when this statement didn’t actually seem to state, categorically, that the product wasn’t tested on animals, just that the company was against it. Clearly, one can be against something that one is ‘forced’ to do, for whatever reason. Indeed, while researching this article, I found this in an Independent article of 2007: “In 1989 the West German government successfully sued Body Shop’s German subsidiary for misleading advertising, after which it swapped its ‘not tested on animals’ label for the vaguer ‘against animal testing’”- a quote which really cheers me in that the soppy, non-committal wording was still transparent to me, despite the huge salaries of those paid to concoct it.

The member of staff I spoke to was, nevertheless, clear in her belief that the company engages in no animal testing and this seems to be reinforced on the company’s website. But wait, the wording on this page says: “…we insist that all our suppliers have not tested their ingredients on animals for cosmetic purposes”. This suggests that they are tested on animals for reasons other than cosmetic purposes. What is a ‘cosmetic purpose’? Is it different than a safety purpose? It also goes on to say:

We also fund organisations that campaign for increased research into animal testing alternatives. Our parent company L’Oréal has made a significant contribution in this area and has pioneered the research and development of EpiSkin – artificially grown human skin for use in skin irritancy tests – and this revolutionary approach to testing is now used by The Body Shop wherever possible.

So, the renowned animal-testing company, L’Oreal, is now trying to get in on the act (which was obviously the idea of buying it from Anita Roddick in the first place), to get its name mentioned in an ethical context, even though it has never baulked at the idea of testing anything on animals, or buying anything from anywhere. Still, you may also notice in the above wording that that The Body Shop only commits to using Episkin ‘wherever possible’ – a disclaimer which could mean, quite literally, NEVER.

The choice of words is never accidental, huge teams of wealthy lawyers see to that. They work out what is defensible in court, or actionable, and then get every milligram of perception value out of it – such is the grim facade of ethical trading that the multinational has constructed.

My last beef with The Body Shop (there are many others, but you may want to get some dinner at some point, or even have work to go to) is a classic piece of feelgood marketing bollock-speak. May I introduce you to the world of ‘Community Trade’, which The Body Shop ‘supports’. In the interests of brevity (perhaps now a vain hope) I shall quote a passage from The Body Shop’s website and put the naughty, tricky, corporately legal, substance-free, buzz-phrases in bold and leave you to work out where the bullshit might lie, enjoy:

In 1987, The Body Shop launched Community Trade. One of the first examples of fair trade, Community Trade has numerous benefits for our company, our customers and our suppliers. Through our long term trading relationships, we do more than give a fair price. We offer our suppliers a predictable and regular income for their family and the security and confidence to develop their own businesses. In turn we can access some of nature’s finest ingredients, which are grown and harvested by expert local farmers, and our accessories are made using time-honoured techniques, helping to preserve a traditional way of life.

Wherever possible, we seek to use Community Trade ingredients in our products. Over the last two years, spending on Community Trade ingredients, gifts and accessories has risen from £6.4m to £7.4m. In the process, Community Trade allows our suppliers to build better futures for themselves and their communities. Today our programme benefits over 25,000 people in 22 countries worldwide, who supply us with 21 of our naturally derived ingredients and over 50 different gifts and accessories.

By 2010, we aim to use wood from responsibly managed sources, certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), wherever possible.

Idiocracy

Mike Judge is a really creative and intelligent man. I’ve loved so many of his previous creations (Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill, Office Space, and so on) but I just saw his feature film Idiocracy. This film chimes with so many references I’ve made before in this blog, that at times it was a bit spooky to watch.

The premise is, contrary to the Darwinian notion of evolution being through the survival of the fittest, the human species had engineered a situation whereby only the most mindless and moronic elements in society actually reproduced. The more intelligent, who thought so intensely about whether it was the right time to have children, who worried whether the economic situation was right, and who just didn’t want to rush into it, just never did. Those who were ignorant of any possible consequences of having a child, and much less cared about them, ended up populating the planet with children who they would raise to be as mindless and ignorant as they. Generation after generation of unwanted, unloved, and uneducated children eventually resulted in the average IQ of the species going into decline and society crumbling.

Perhaps the reason this seems so pertinent today is a brief exchange I had yesterday on a website for ex-pats here in Sweden. One poster had started a thread about The Obama Deception – a film that I have my own link to on this blog. The reaction, with one or two exceptions, was typically irritating and pathetic. Some highlights follow:

“ha ha ha ha ha ‘facts’ “

“OP we’ve already reached our quota of right wing American numpties on this site. Please find somewhere else to post your opinions.” - this one came from the aptly-named ‘Thick Edge’.

“We don´t need another right wing extremist.”

“To the posters that say Obama has an agenda….What the hell is ii then? Stop saying he has an agenda STATE what it is with evidence to support your claim. If not just go away.” This poster seemed to be unaware of the sole purpose of the thread, which was to post a link to a film that would answer this very question.

“Those little round brown pills you take aren’t smart pills they are sheep shit.”

Now I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. Having a discussion with someone coming from another angle can teach us things, improve our understanding of our own point of view, make us look at things in different ways, and even change our minds. What I found, and routinely find, irritating about people’s reactions to things they don’t understand is their lack of curiosity; their incredulity that they could possibly learn something from someone else; the absurd notion they don’t know everything already.

The drivel just continued, so, ever willing to lend a hand to a kindred spirit, I decided to enter the fray with this:

“The hallmark of someone who has no counter argument to what he’s saying is that they go after the man, not what he’s saying. It’s wrong that so many people don’t, or can’t, debate the actual issues. If only you could get your heads around the fact that the only way to discredit someone is not to laugh at them, but to defeat their ideas. Are you able to?

This thread started with someone posting a link to a film he made, viewable for FREE, on the internet. Yet not one of you has watched it and tried to debate the ideas, but have literally wasted all that time and energy bickering like children – about NOTHING. Don’t you see how pathetic that is?”

Of course this cut no ice, it rarely does, but sometimes the point of saying something is for your own satisfaction of having said what you believe in. I’ve promised myself I won’t post again, getting sucked into an online argument such as this is the very definition of modern madness – I’ve been there, you may well have too, and I don’t want to go back.

Anyway, Idiocracy is a funny, intelligent and entertaining film and, judging by the rampant anti-intellectualism in our world, could well turn out to be a visionary masterpiece. By the way, when I turned off the DVD, the TV clicked onto MTV’s Jersey Shore, which made me realise we’re closer to the future than we would like to think.

Oil and water

There was a guy, let’s call him ‘me’, that went for an interview once for a job at an advertising company here in Gothenburg (I’m not proud of that, but I needed the money). Well, it wasn’t even an interview, just an informal meeting which came from a speculative email that I sent, advertising my English language services.

The meeting went well. A full hour of spontaneous, enthusiastic chat where minds met, interests converged, and corporate appetites were whetted. As we approached the door after having had a very fruitful meeting, at which several specific possibilities of employment were mentioned, something very strange happened: the man asked me where in Gothenburg I was living. The question in itself wasn’t the strange thing, it was his reaction to my answer.

At the time I was living in a place called Lövgärdet. This is an area about 20 minutes on the tram from the centre of Gothenburg – yet many Swedes haven’t even heard of it. Why? Because it is an area overwhelmingly inhabited by immigrants.

On hearing this news, I saw his face. It literally dropped. The chemistry and bonhomie which had built between us instantly evaporated. I’ll never forget it. I even thought of asking him at the time if everything was ok. I knew exactly there and then that there would no longer be an opportunity to cover maternity-leave as a copywriter. There would no longer be a vacancy for an ‘ideas man’ who very closely fitted my description and experience. There would not be any offers of freelance project work because so much of their work was in English. I was an immigrant. And when I say immigrant, I don’t mean the ‘good’ kind. Here in Sweden there are two types of immigrant: the acceptable, and those that don’t come from the West. At first sight I had, by virtue of my being English, appeared to be the former. By dint of the location of my flat, I had instantly become the latter. Rudyard Kipling said it best: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”

After the meeting, the writing was on the wall. I later sent a couple of emails, trying to revive the cadaver of my foray into their company. I sent a sample of work I had done for another company, as I had promised. He wrote back with a favourable review from his chief copywriter – all to no avail. The responses were curt but polite, always with the entreaty to ‘stay in contact’. This was now over a year ago. Of course there was a simple element of snobbery involved here as well – advertising companies, and a large number of Swedes in general, are obsessed with their image of ‘cool’ – but to not see the role of race in Swedish society is to miss the main point.

A few weeks ago, there was a festival in Hammarkullen – another almost exclusively immigrant area of Gothenburg – unknown, and certainly unvisited, by most Swedes. I went with two of my friends. The entire festival was created by immigrants, and was attended largely by immigrants – there were few blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedes to be seen on the day we went. A couple of weeks later it was Sweden’s National Day, which I also attended. This time there were only white Swedes, almost no one from any other race. There are two Swedens, as there are two of many Western countries – that of the host culture, and that of the various immigrant cultures, which are becoming ever greater in size. Whatever your view on multiculturalism, it cannot be denied that there are problems ahead as differences between communities become further entrenched.

One Swedish friend once had this to say: “We don’t see immigrant areas as really being Sweden”  - a straight-up case of a racist individual you might say, but this attitude runs deep in society. My fiance’s ex-colleague, a nice, intelligent guy by all accounts, put a picture of himself on Facebook stood outside a Chinese restaurant in New York pulling his eyes into a slitty shape. When she remarked that this was a racist picture, another ex-colleague piped-up: “No, Victoria, it’s cool!”

The situation becomes further complicated when you add-in the ‘pecking order’ amongst immigrants themselves, which was clearly illustrated to me by an American who has lived in Sweden for 15 years, and who blogs on a ex-pat website. In one entry she described her trip to Rinkeby, an immigrant area of Stockholm, to sample the immigrant culture. I’ll finish by posting a reply she received about her ‘adventure’ on ‘the wild side’: “I am so tired of Rinkeby being classified as something “exotic” that people should try, sort of like going to the Zoo. We who live there, know that it is not all about Samba there or crime…There are plenty of hard-working people there who do not live on subsidies. We are a group which choose to live in a nice, affordable 3-bedroom rental apartment without bank-loans, instead of living in a 20sqm. room in the City with a million-krona bank loan…It is time that Swedes and others stop seeing Rinkeby as something exotic. Skin color should not be a trait which is “exotic” in Sweden anymore. Sweden will never again be an “Aryan” homogenic nation and neither will the rest of Europe be.”

“Good evening, this is NOT the news”

Juvenal, a Roman poet circa 100 AD, first coined the phrase “bread and circuses” to describe the way in which government would achieve the instant gratification of its people by pandering to their most superficial instincts. It was not by inspirational leadership and a genuine desire to improve society that such governments would make their people happy, but by the use of cheap, effective, distraction. There were two such ‘stories’ in the news recently that put me in mind of how, as a society, we seem to thrive on ephemeral, inconsequential pleasures, while issues of real significance often play second fiddle, that’s if they get a fiddle at all.

I went to Berlin recently and, as you will probably know, there isn’t much to choose from on the TV in your average hotel room, so I was unfortunately reduced to having CNN on in the background. It was Larry King Live with LeBron James. Yes, LeBron James. Now I’m not an elitist, if you have something interesting to say, then I don’t care what you do for a living or where you are from – let’s hear it. James was being interviewed about – what King called – his ‘historic decision’. Hmm, interesting; or so I thought, until I discovered that this ‘historic’ decision referred to which basketball team James was going to play for next season.

Now you might think I’m overdoing this a bit, but I’m not. King asked to be allowed to sit in the room with James and his agent while they came to the decision. He promised he wouldn’t say a word, he wouldn’t interfere and would sit in the corner. Just the privilege of being able to sit in on this ‘historic’ moment was enough for one of the biggest names in international media. Google ‘Larry King LeBron James’ – you won’t believe the scale of the fuss.

I know people are interested in sport, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. Being able to appreciate the physical skill of professional sportspeople and the excitement of a contest is something I have often enjoyed; though I certainly think more people should take part in sport than just watch it and talk about it. What worries me is how the cult of sport has grown to the extent that entire evenings with my friends could, if not for some subtle steering, be consumed entirely by conversations about the result of some game, or how this one player is crap, or brilliant (depending on how the game went that week).

We humans do some irrational things sometimes. I remember how when ‘my’ football team (it is, at least, the team from where I was born) was relegated from the top division of English football, I was stunned and depressed. However, no one died, nothing really changed at all in anyone’s lives (except the players who jumped ship to keep their vast pay cheques coming in from elsewhere). I had to examine why I felt so bad. The situation was this: eleven men who I had never met, who I was never going to meet, who earned as much in a week than I will ever likely earn in a year, many of whom weren’t even from the same country, and who had no affiliation to the city beyond their contractual obligations, had just finished bottom of the division. Why exactly was I feeling so down? I couldn’t explain it. I had to reevaluate my feelings about sport as a whole.

We often see that stories that should never appear anywhere but the back page make it to the front. And some stories that really have no business making the news at all – this isn’t just about sport, it’s also about our fascination with celebrity.

Perhaps people invest so much of their time and energy in strangers’ activities because they are bored; perhaps because making an ultimately inconsequential person or event the centrepiece of your life allows us to avoid asking ourselves the real questions, or facing up to the real issues; whatever the reason, for me none of it makes sense, it’s like going to the theatre and playing along with the illusion of reality, but permanently. However, the real crux of this issue, for me, goes beyond the individual. The absurd, fawning Larry King episode showed me that the media are complicit in selling this counterfeit world to the masses. They positively encourage it. Investigative journalism is dead, and in our age of corporate media control and spin doctors who offer media access to people in return for favourable reporting, it strikes me that they would rather we occupy ourselves with other things that didn’t trouble their friends so much. Hmm, do you really think Fabregas will move to Barcelona?

Bully Beatdown

Those of you who have read previous entries will know that I have little time for the vapid enterprise that is MTV. For me it embodies everything bad about the world today; it is loud, bright, colourful, extremely fast, but has ZERO to contribute to the evolution and betterment of mankind. In fact, it is my contention that modern popular culture, particularly TV, is actively holding the human species back, keeping us in suspended animation while real life passes us by. Keeping us believing that winning the X-Factor is both possible and desirable. Fooling us that Susan Boyle is anything more than an averagely good singer that Simon Cowell chose to be his latest cash-cow. MTV is the fly sitting atop the cone of dog shit that is modern popular tv.

‘Bully Beatdown’ is the latest offering for the delectation of the cerebrally impoverished. It is a show so tasteless, offensive and flawed that it beggars belief. Ok, the conceit is thus: A couple of wimpy, effete-looking guys have a problem. This problem always comes in the form of some large lump of scarcely-human organic matter, usually called something like ‘Duke’, who has been making their lives a ‘living hell’. Physical abuse, having loud parties, damaging property, refusing to pay rent, are all examples of what these morons do to their semi-female prey to warrant the show’s attention. Now, you might have thought that standing up for yourself, taking legal advice, or calling the police might be a suitable courses of action in such situations. Well, you’d be wrong. What is actually called for is whining to MTV and getting them to offer the bully the chance to fight an MMA professional (and possibly win $10,000) in the hope they will get their heads kicked-in.

The show is presented by a truly sickening individual known as Mayhem. Mayhem used to be a pussy, just like the pussies that called the show. He used to get bullied, just like the pussies that called the show. He decided to stop being a pussy, just like….no wait. Anyway, we see that this contest has two possible outcomes: 1. The bully gets battered and the ladyboys get all the cash, or, 2. The bully wins the fight and pockets some or all of the money. As this is meant to be popular justice, let’s briefly examine what the possible outcomes of this process teach us about right and wrong.

In scenario 1, the more commonly occurring one, the bully is left battered, humiliated, and potless. Revenge is truly sweet, the bully gets a taste of his own medicine and the victims get a decent slice of cash, presumably with which to buy new corsets. This is REAL justice, and, if you haven’t worked it out, if you ever get bullied, the same logic justifies you hiring someone to go and do exactly the same thing, or worse, to the person bothering you. REAL justice is, therefore, the preserve of those who are in a position to hire thugs, or those with access to MTV executives - maybe that’s the same thing. It is about revenge, it is about money. Nice. But is this what the Founding Fathers really imagined for the Republic?

Scenario 2, is even more problematic. Picture this: The pussies call MTV and inform them of their plight. MTV is ‘sympathetic’ and challenges the bully to fight the MMA pro. Bully accepts and duly kicks the pro’s arse. Bully departs the scene with a wry smile on his face and 10,000 clams in his back pocket. Pussies are left stood there still feeling aggrieved and now knowing that they are also responsible for their nemesis’ increase in wealth. If that were to happen, would it be possible to sue MTV for any resultant suicide? Worth a thought.

A Beginner’s Guide to Conspiracy – Part 2: “The Human Dynamo”

Alex Jones is a phenomenon. He makes us all look bad. If each of us had but a quarter of his energy and focus, the world would be a very different place indeed – perhaps better, perhaps worse, but very, very different.

Jones could justifiably call himself ‘the godfather of conspiracy’ – a reputation hard-earned through 15 years of radio broadcasting and documentary film making. In addition to broadcasting live to the world four hours a day (6 days a week, although ‘just’ 2 hours on Sunday), making films, doing countless other projects, interviews and other engagements, Jones manages to be a family man too.

Alex Jones is a controversial, divisive, and to say the very least, colourful figure. He often has the delivery style of a crazed Southern baptist minister and a similar fire-and-brimstone message. Though a serious Christian, Jones’ main message does not relate to the Bible. Oh no. Jones’ entire life is devoted to exposing and bringing down what he calls the New World Order. He says (and he has a substantial following, currently ranked around 3000 in the world for internet traffic - no mean feat) that a unimaginably wealthy group of bankers, politicians, business people and assorted others are actively and knowlingly engaged in a conspiracy to subvert democracy, the US Constitution, the nation-state itself, and our very integrity as free-thinking individuals; think Brave New World and you’re best part of the way there.

I’m not going in to the evidence that Jones presents for his arguments, which is substantial and compelling. The list of, frankly, beautifully-made documentaries continues to grow, as it probably will until he dies. If you are curious, you will watch them and I strongly recommend that you do. Whether or not you end up sharing his conclusions, you really should be aware of what he is saying. There’s a lot going on out there that isn’t on the news, everyone should already be aware of that much at least. I’m going to post links to two of his movies; the first, The Obama Deception, is a critique of the Obama presidency. Contrary to the extraordinary hype of the Obama phenomenon, Jones examines the real mechanics and personnel behind the Obama administration and presents a view of the President which will shock, but may not entirely surprise you.

The second film, Fall of the Republic Vol.1, is a general overview of how the US is being changed both socially and politically and why. It contains contributions from many prominent researchers in the Truth Movement and delves beneath the headlines of which you will probably already be aware. These are his two most recent films and provide an excellent insight into what Jones is all about. I guarantee that whatever your opinion of what he has to say, you will truly feel like you have watched something that you will not quickly forget.

A Beginner’s Guide to Conspiracy – Part 1: “Where We Are today – The Death of Curiosity”

So I’ve been thinking about writing something like this for ages now, as much for my own benefit as for anyone out there that might read this. This issue has been bouncing around inside my head for years, and with every new discovery, the need to create some order out of it all has grown ever more pressing – that’s where my blog comes in. I think I’m going to write several parts on my blog about this (you may have already grasped a sense of my interest in this area from reading some of my previous entries). I’m not going to suggest that anyone takes any information at face value without looking for themselves. I have no interest in pushing anything other than the healthy habit of curiosity; good old-fashioned interest beyond the realms of Jordan & Peter and Paris Hilton’s New BFF.   

I suppose it has been brought to the fore by some recent interactions with colleagues and by my recently seeing a certain film, namely Zeitgeist, here on good old Swedish TV. Coming from the UK, this was a strange experience. The media in the UK just don’t show alternative media productions. The only attention they give to the so-called Truth Movement is the occasional derisive laugh or attack should they be forced into a corner. The Truth Movement is an unofficial umbrella term for those who subscribe to one or more of the array of beliefs that, one way or another, postulates that those in power really don’t have peoples’ best interests at heart; now, I’m sure that many of you would probably feel that this description fits you already…but it probably doesn’t, at least not in the sense that the Truth Movement means.

The Movement doesn’t talk with one voice, it talks with many (often contradictory) voices and about a great many things. There are alliances and cooperation with the Movement but that doesn’t mean complete agreement. This should not be surprising as I have yet to encounter a group of people who agreed about everything. What I aim to do in these entries is to tell you what I know about some of the key participants and, in the process, make more sense of the whole phenomenon for myself! What they all share, however, is the desire to expose and remedy the problems of the systems of politics, finance, media and military we currently have.

As the size of the Movement slowly increases, there has, amongst the wider population, grown a vague awareness of ‘conspiracy theories’. When this term is used, it is almost exclusively used to mock. It seemingly has become fashionable to reject a thesis without first knowing what the thesis actually is, and it is this instinctive dismissal of information without consideration which, to me, is the saddest part of all. It’s not that more people don’t agree with what the Movement has to say that is the hard part, but the almost complete absence of reasoned debate about certain subjects - it’s just forbidden territory to many. To entertain these ideas is preposterous to a lot of people, even if you aren’t really aware of the reasoning behind them. I have friends, intelligent friends, who have taken this view. I have sent them information. I have tried to explain various things. It has all been rebuffed without discussion or, at best, it has been greeted with a numbness or indifference which has never resulted in a follow-up conversation. When I recently heard Noam Chomsky state that he believed it really had no significance even if Kennedy was indeed murdered by the CIA, I became aware afresh of just how far away most people are from a sensible discussion about such things.

I don’t consider myself stupid, neither do I consider myself a genius. Like most people, I’m somewhere in the middle. I have a penchant for debate, for challenging ideas and orthodoxies, for being thorough on matters of importance and for chasing down vague answers and weeding out the bee ess. To me, it’s a human duty to think critically, to not blindly accept what one is told out of deference or plain laziness. Now most of us have the internet, we have access to channels of information that simply didn’t exist before. Even though the mainstream corporate media still enjoy the lion’s share of people’s attention, for the first time in history, anyone can make their thoughts available for public consumption. I have consumed more than my fair share of alternative media and there are a lot of interesting, intelligent and articulate people doing just that. They won’t be appearing on mainstream TV any time soon – with some notable exceptions:

The first film I ever saw was called 911 In Plane Site; I came across it quite by accident and I remember how taken aback I was by its content. It seemed audacious and even dangerous to me at that time that someone would openly state that governments and mass media of the world would openly hide the truth and actively mislead people about events such as 911. I’d just never heard anyone come out with something like that, let alone make a film about it. Of course, all the obvious questions came to mind, such as: “How could it be kept a secret?” or “why would governments lie to and harm their people?” These remain perfectly natural and rational questions to ask, but it was thinking about these questions for the first time that was the start of a significant mental journey into places that I never knew existed.

I want to say from the outset that my beliefs about such issues centre around evidence. I am just not the sort of person that will accept assertions without at least some compelling evidence that presents a puzzling contradiction or gap in the accepted history. But it was in that ‘accepted history’ that I found parallels with what many people in the Movement were saying about modern day political events. If 911 was indeed a ‘false flag’ operation (an event, usually an attack, initiated by the ‘victims’ themselves in order to achieve a larger strategic goal) then there were historical facts accepted by everyone where exactly the same thing had taken place.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is one such historical ‘false flag’ operation which I actually remember studying in history class when I was 17. It happened on August 2nd, 1964, when the USS Maddox was ’collecting intelligence’ stationed just off the coast of Vietnam; it sighted North Korean ships and fired ‘warning’ shots at them, shots which were answered. In a coordinated misrepresentation of the facts by the military and the Johnson administration, it was alleged that on August 4th another attack by North Vietnamese boats had taken place. Hours after the second ‘attack’ the US instigated the military action that later became the Vietnam War – all on the basis of an attack of which no one even had any evidence, even the captain of the USS Maddox. I heartily suggest you read more about this, to really understand the detail and how such a gross atrocity as the Vietnam War can be created from nothing. It really is the easiest thing to do to start a war if you hold the strings of power and have the desire.

For an even clearer demonstration of how covert government/military operations are conceived you should be aware of Operation Northwoods.

When you present evidence about events such as 911 and people say: ‘Well, surely they couldn’t have kept that secret”, I point to events such as Tonkin and Northwoods which aren’t secrets, they just aren’t widely known about – why they aren’t known about or widely discussed is another question. All it takes is the realisation in our own minds to make the connection between what we know, what has already happened and the events that are shaping our world right now. The link is there, it’s up to us to find and understand it, to think critically for ourselves and not be distracted by the modern-day obsession with popular culture or the mainstream media.

Zeitgeist is a great film to start with, as it gives a good broad understanding of the myths of modern-day life that we all live with and mostly accept. It explores how governments and media operate, how the political/public/social agendas are controlled and perpetuated and should provoke some real thought and new questions of your own. Enjoy.

No more heroes.

I know I’ve written before about people, artists, those who should know better, selling their integrity to the highest corporate sponsor…but I just saw the new Ricky Gervais film; I had to write again.

The Invention of Lying is a feeble film. Although it is typical Gervais in theme: a bittersweet comedy that takes on the big, fundamental things about life, the really interesting themes that we should all be interested in. It’s not typically Gervais in its execution though: it’s annoying, predictable….and not that funny. Gervais pulls out all the usual Brentisms that we love him for, but it’s all to no avail. I suppose the time had to come when he’d make something that truly disappointed though; it was inevitable given his vertical trajectory over the last few years.

The thing that really bothered me about this film, however, wasn’t the fact it was a bit crap; it was that in the film’s crucial scene, Gervais stands in front of the camera for the entire time (probably about ten minutes) holding two Pizza Hut boxes with their logos up to the camera. Of course, the plot justification for this is that they were the first stone-tablet-like things he could write his ‘commandments’ on. I read an article about the film where it says that Gervais ‘swears’ it wasn’t product placement. I really hope he didn’t say that…because it is. It’s crass and insulting, and when you’re supposed to be concentrating on the key scene of the film, all you can see are those logos being held up to you, so that you can remember to eat more junk. Thanks Ricky.

The real irony is that a film which is an unsophisticated and clumsy satire on religion should choose to sell its soul to a more contemporary god. I recall that Gervais once crtiticised the guys from Little Britain (a rival British comedy show to The Office) for commercialising and merchandising from their show, and I thoroughly agreed with what he said. The problem is, though, that after The Invention of Lying, Gervais has shown himself every bit as culpable…even more so. At least Little Britain (over)commercialised their own ideas - Gervais brought in a multi-national corporate junk-food company to uglify his latest project. You could also say the guys from Little Britain could have reasonably believed that they might not again get another chance to make their pot of cash - Gervais chose to wait until he was one of the most highly-regarded comedians in the world to sell himself to the corporate world.

Earlier in the year, there was another episode that left the same bitter taste in my mouth. Matthew Le Tissier (a footballer who played for Southampton FC, my home city club) was/is regarded as a hero in the city. Even though he was one of the most naturally gifted players in the game throughout his career, he always refused to consider going to the big money clubs and earning many times more money than Southampton could ever pay him. His footballing genius never benefitted another club; the fans, and the city, never forgot this. Imagine then, the disappointment of his admission, while promoting his autobiography, that he once tried (and failed) to make money by betting on a game in which he was playing…in a Southampton shirt.

I suppose there’s a valuable lesson in here somewhere. Probably that we should never meet our heroes. Maybe that we should never have heroes at all. It’s good to respect the good things that people achieve, but we should never assume a wider significance or virtue on the part of those that do things we like. We’re all human, we all screw up. We all say and do things we know we shouldn’t and we do things we regret. We’re all inconsistent at times and we all love to be loved; this can alter our perceptions of what is right.

I’m guessing Ricky Gervais won’t be too bothered by this little rant of mine, and that’s ok. But you should take my advice and don’t add to your list of regrets by going to see this film.