Bye, Bye Bush: A Legacy Of Incompetence And Arrogance
The Middle Finger On The International Stage
In trying to reflect on a man, an administration and a political movement that has so crippled America and the West in the eyes of the world for almost a decade, I found it a little difficult to figure out where to begin. The last eight years that we in the free world have had to endure with George W. Bush as our ‘leader’ has been a long litany of screw ups, and to try and figure out where to begin in reflecting on this legacy of incompetence is difficult. So I figured I’d start at the point most immediate to me, as a British citizen, how Bush’s America has fitted into the world of the 21st century that the rest of us co-habit.
What the Bush Administration bought to the world was a foreign policy of absolutes. Rather than understanding – or even attempting to understand – any geopolitical situation for what it was, the higher ups in the Cartel of Incompetence had only one view; every situation, conflict or political deal boiled down to ‘Good vs Bad/Right vs Wrong’. There was no nuance, no carefully figured out shades of grey, merely black and white. America – and her allies – was right, always, by default, and any who opposed/disagreed/refused to comply with her was wrong. Totally. They were portrayed in the national media as cowards, traitors, elitists, uncaring snobs, uneducated terrorist loving socialists or grave threats.
And how did Bush seek to deal with those that refused to toe the line with his Government? Well, there are two examples, you have the way that they dealt with France, those boneheads who refused to along with the brilliantly planned and genius invasion of Iraq, where the media and the political system drip fed insults, encouragement to xenophobia or direct, open lies and hatred abut a country that stuck to its principles and backed the law. Who can forget ‘freedom frees’ – McDonalds’ cheap gimmick of refusing to use the name ‘French’ in its products – or talk show host Bill O’Reilly talking about how – on his encouragement – the fact that several (stupid) American businesses refusing to trade with France had crippled their economy and cost them billions of dollars. When ideological opposition presented itself on a national scale, the Bush policy was clear; they’re too big to invade, so we’ll just destroy their image.
Of course, that option is immensely preferable to the approach they took toward a smaller country that had less clout on the international stage, like say, Venezuala. They started with calling the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez a socialist, communist and sponsor of terrorists, but when he refused to do business with the Red, White & blue Empire, when he refused to ship his vast reserves of oil at cheap price, when he refused to let American industry buy his country and his people, the Bush CIA simply helped stage a military coup within the country, and had him overthrown, plunging the majority of the population, who prior to Chavez had never, ever been able to call any politician someone who stood up for the, into turmoil, for they were well aware that things would go back to the old ways, where the rich got rich and the poor stayed in the barrios (slums). It was only after a massive display of people power, when they marched on Caracas and Miraflorez Palace and demanded the return of their leader, that things were reversed.
This is the shadier side of the Bush Administration, that viewed things only in terms of right and wrong, coming into play. This was the way they handled the middle east (to be covered in a later article) and how they would have built the case for war with Iran had they the time.
It is in this manner that the Administration has dealt with the rest of the world throughout its time in power; you’re either with us, or against us. There has been no political give and take, no deals, no middle ground, nothing, only the ultimatum; stand by America’s might, or in front of it. It was this bone headed, dim witted diplomatic direction that Bush and Cheney took their nation, lecturing the planet on the needs to stand up for what was right in one moment, and then illegally invading countries, using nations like my own as pet poodles, or sullying the name of others the next. While Tony Blair stood by George W Bush, gently made Britain grip it’s ankles tightly and wait for the big red, white and blue shaft of ‘freedom’ be embraced by its people, he allowed our prostrate nation to march happily into an illegal and wholly unsupported war, he allowed our airspace, planes and airports to be stop off points for Bush’s extraordinary rendition kidnap victims, he decided to play soft on Bush’s continual middle finger that waved in the face of combating climate change and he decided to follow his old Christian pal’s example and began stripping away the civil rights of the people of a country whose established democracy is older than America itself by half a century.
But Tony Blair got his medal at Bush’s dog show for Best Poodle, and George W. Bush and his legion of dolts are able to con themselves – and probably no one else – that they stood up for the side of ‘good’, whatever that means in their heads, and refused to compromise America’s integrity, telling the planet what it was going to do and when it was going to do it. Those Governments, like my own, that went along with this misguided, deluded concept of diplomacy should rightly hang their head in shame, those that stood against them, that stood for true goodness and what was right and the population of billions that resented every second that they had to tolerate the hypocrites and criminals within Bush’s regime, can breathe a sigh of relief. We’ve reached the end of that long night, the new dawn is almost here.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Bye, Bye Bush: A Legacy Of Incompetence And Arrogance: The Exploitation Of The Religious
One thing that the Bush Administration has been so very, very good at is using and exploiting people for their own ends. They have been shameless about it, playing the unity card one minute, and then hurling their one time friends under the bus the next. No political figure, party or group has been more politicized and exploited by the Bush Regime than the religious, namely the Christian right. Where they saw a fellow born again man of God, Bush and his team saw idiots who could win them elections, toe the line and fight the opposition on any issue. They saw pawns that only had to be rewarded with more neo-conservative policies and practices already favoured by the Bush Drones.
The exploitation of the religious right by the George Bush and his handlers has been an on going experiment. It was they that helped win him the Governorship of Texas back in the ‘90s. Most of them couldn’t have cared less about his conservative policies, the fact that he was an ex-alcoholic now born again warrior for Christ was enough for them. The fact that he was in favour of rewarding rich white people – people he called friends – while also being a Biblical literalist who thought that the death penalty was important to utilise and that evolution and global warming were ‘theories’ just sat perfectly with the lambs of God, the flock of sheep, that swallowed his drivel hook line and sinker.
His first (illegal) election was not, largely, due to the Christian voting, but following 9/11, his drawing of the line in the sand of history, proclaiming that the threat the nation faced was nothing more than a case of good vs evil, repeatedly using phrases like ‘crusade’, and underscoring that the America that believed in freedom, Christ and faith was under threat bought the once fringe idiots of the extreme right of evangelicalism to the forefront of their communities, with the tone that they had been preaching for years now being echoed by the most powerful man in the world.
Next came the ‘faith based intiatives’, the abstinence only sex education programs, the repeated attempts to have creationism taught in science classes and the horror of boys kissing boys. As Bush’s support grew in the wake of 9/11, he and his acolytes began to roll out a litany of strict, conservative policies, that found support in one of the most vocal, overzealous and combative areas of the country; the Christian right. It was this kind of forward thinking from Bush’s election guru Karl Rove that allowed them to roll perfectly into the 2004 elections. Despite the catastrophic failure that the Iraq War had turned into – even at that point – Rove’s concept of pushing ‘traditional American values’ into a battle with ‘elitist, liberal, progressive reformers’ that wanted to do away with everything that America was built on, and pushing gay marriage as a hard issue to battle on, worked perfectly. Bush was re-elected, and then the shit really hit the fan.
The horror of the bungling of Katrina, the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the scandals involving Scooter Libby, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, the continual misery coming out of Iraq, none of these things could dent the unwavering support that Bush and company maintained from the religious right. The faithful flock of sheep fought Democrats on every issue they could, whether it benefited the country or not. Torture was a good thing, illegal, warrantless wiretapping was a necessity. George Bush was a good, Christian man who would stand up for God. True to the nature of the extremely religious, they never looked below the surface.
The promises of an outlaw on gay marriage never happened, the idea that prayer would be re-established in schools never materialised. It came to light – and this shows how truly cynical and exploitative Bush’s lackeys were – that Karl Rove, the architect of the Bush Presidency, was an atheist. He didn’t believe in any of these causes, but he knew that playing to this audience of over a hundred million would keep him, his friends and his boss in power.
And what is America left with? What has been the knock on effect around the world? A resurgence of extreme right wing religious values in Christian nations. In this country we have seen theatre shows cancelled and the rise of faith schools, spearheaded by our ex Prime Minister, the formerly Christian, now Catholic Anthony Blair. In America the resurgence of religious right has been far more alarming, with widespread intolerance for alternate lifestyles, religions and viewpoints rising with almost militant ferocity in many red states. We see things like Proposition 8 passing in California, the outright outlawing of same sex marriage in states like Florida, repeated attempts to change school boards and curriculum’s, and even attempts to repeal/challenge Roe vs Wade, the lawsuit that legalized a woman’s right to have an abortion in America.
Bush and his cronies have exploited the religious, feeding their fervour, their paranoia and their conviction that they are the only ones who are right. It has coloured American thinking, American policy and American interests abroad. It has, in effect, opened up a Pandora’s box, that will not be quietly closed. Those that were once the fringes of nutty religious society are now the mainstream, with tens of thousands of followers. They attack, relentlessly, until they get their way. They have been led to believe, by Bush and his attack dogs, that they are in a war for their own survival and the survival of the America they love, and they are too gullible, too eager to swallow the misinformation, double speak and lies of the President that they adore, to look at the obvious facts, and the truth and realise that they have been exploited for nothing more than an easy vote.
American culture has been thrown to the wolves, left to fight for its survival in the face of resurgent religious extremists who want a theocracy established in their lifetime. Those that believe in freedom, liberty and equality have been left to fight this battle, all because encouraging these psychopaths, this American Taliban, was an easy way to get public support and faithful votes. Once again, America’s future was up for sale, it was the needs of little George and his minders that came first.
The exploitation of the religious right by the George Bush and his handlers has been an on going experiment. It was they that helped win him the Governorship of Texas back in the ‘90s. Most of them couldn’t have cared less about his conservative policies, the fact that he was an ex-alcoholic now born again warrior for Christ was enough for them. The fact that he was in favour of rewarding rich white people – people he called friends – while also being a Biblical literalist who thought that the death penalty was important to utilise and that evolution and global warming were ‘theories’ just sat perfectly with the lambs of God, the flock of sheep, that swallowed his drivel hook line and sinker.
His first (illegal) election was not, largely, due to the Christian voting, but following 9/11, his drawing of the line in the sand of history, proclaiming that the threat the nation faced was nothing more than a case of good vs evil, repeatedly using phrases like ‘crusade’, and underscoring that the America that believed in freedom, Christ and faith was under threat bought the once fringe idiots of the extreme right of evangelicalism to the forefront of their communities, with the tone that they had been preaching for years now being echoed by the most powerful man in the world.
Next came the ‘faith based intiatives’, the abstinence only sex education programs, the repeated attempts to have creationism taught in science classes and the horror of boys kissing boys. As Bush’s support grew in the wake of 9/11, he and his acolytes began to roll out a litany of strict, conservative policies, that found support in one of the most vocal, overzealous and combative areas of the country; the Christian right. It was this kind of forward thinking from Bush’s election guru Karl Rove that allowed them to roll perfectly into the 2004 elections. Despite the catastrophic failure that the Iraq War had turned into – even at that point – Rove’s concept of pushing ‘traditional American values’ into a battle with ‘elitist, liberal, progressive reformers’ that wanted to do away with everything that America was built on, and pushing gay marriage as a hard issue to battle on, worked perfectly. Bush was re-elected, and then the shit really hit the fan.
The horror of the bungling of Katrina, the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the scandals involving Scooter Libby, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, the continual misery coming out of Iraq, none of these things could dent the unwavering support that Bush and company maintained from the religious right. The faithful flock of sheep fought Democrats on every issue they could, whether it benefited the country or not. Torture was a good thing, illegal, warrantless wiretapping was a necessity. George Bush was a good, Christian man who would stand up for God. True to the nature of the extremely religious, they never looked below the surface.
The promises of an outlaw on gay marriage never happened, the idea that prayer would be re-established in schools never materialised. It came to light – and this shows how truly cynical and exploitative Bush’s lackeys were – that Karl Rove, the architect of the Bush Presidency, was an atheist. He didn’t believe in any of these causes, but he knew that playing to this audience of over a hundred million would keep him, his friends and his boss in power.
And what is America left with? What has been the knock on effect around the world? A resurgence of extreme right wing religious values in Christian nations. In this country we have seen theatre shows cancelled and the rise of faith schools, spearheaded by our ex Prime Minister, the formerly Christian, now Catholic Anthony Blair. In America the resurgence of religious right has been far more alarming, with widespread intolerance for alternate lifestyles, religions and viewpoints rising with almost militant ferocity in many red states. We see things like Proposition 8 passing in California, the outright outlawing of same sex marriage in states like Florida, repeated attempts to change school boards and curriculum’s, and even attempts to repeal/challenge Roe vs Wade, the lawsuit that legalized a woman’s right to have an abortion in America.
Bush and his cronies have exploited the religious, feeding their fervour, their paranoia and their conviction that they are the only ones who are right. It has coloured American thinking, American policy and American interests abroad. It has, in effect, opened up a Pandora’s box, that will not be quietly closed. Those that were once the fringes of nutty religious society are now the mainstream, with tens of thousands of followers. They attack, relentlessly, until they get their way. They have been led to believe, by Bush and his attack dogs, that they are in a war for their own survival and the survival of the America they love, and they are too gullible, too eager to swallow the misinformation, double speak and lies of the President that they adore, to look at the obvious facts, and the truth and realise that they have been exploited for nothing more than an easy vote.
American culture has been thrown to the wolves, left to fight for its survival in the face of resurgent religious extremists who want a theocracy established in their lifetime. Those that believe in freedom, liberty and equality have been left to fight this battle, all because encouraging these psychopaths, this American Taliban, was an easy way to get public support and faithful votes. Once again, America’s future was up for sale, it was the needs of little George and his minders that came first.
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Don’t Kill Me, I’m You
Here’s something I was thinking about while reflecting on this dreadful Israel/Palestine ‘conflict’ (or, as I prefer to call it: ‘The suffering of mostly unarmed civilians who are being held hostage by a very small cartel of heavily armed religious psychopaths that hold influence in their democratically elected Government being assaulted by a heavily armed military nation whose Government is influenced by a similarly small cartel of religious psychopaths that have no problem murdering said hostages because they believe in a the correct version of the divine sky pixie and think they have undying support from the international community because of the attempted genocide of their people that occurred 60 years ago allowing them to break ceasefires at will, act unilaterally across the region declaring wars on whoever they feel like and in a both funny and saddening way starting to become and act like those same monsters that tried to exterminate them from the face of the planet all those years ago’), that led me to reflect in a wider way on the futility of human conceit:
Regardless of what faith you believe in, whether we came from a big bang or a supernatural finger poke into dirt, we are all made of atoms. We, the entire species, the entire planet, every object in existence, are all formed from the same building blocks. In that sense, the fear of death, the fear of the unknown, the fear of other creeds, beliefs, races or beings out there is stupid, because it’s just part of me out there. My atoms are not unique. Before me they were dirt, water, air, rabbits, gazelle, puppies, coke cans. As I exist I consume food, alcohol, oxygen, medicine while I expel faeces, urine, skin cells, hair cells. Atoms leave and atoms re-enter. We are all made from the exact same stuff. I am a part of you, just as much as you are a part of me. We are all part of nature.
So the idea that you need to be comforted with the idea of an afterlife, or you need to be comforted that yours is the superior race, or that you have to be comforted that you have a right to this land, is ludicrous, because all that awaits you after death, all that awaits you in a different race, all that awaits you on that part of land, is you. The same building blocks across the universe. You are intrinsically tied to it. Doesn’t that make the killing of other people – for any reason - or the destruction of the environment, or malevolence towards animals, seem kind of stupid?
In killing each other, all we are doing is killing ourselves.
Regardless of what faith you believe in, whether we came from a big bang or a supernatural finger poke into dirt, we are all made of atoms. We, the entire species, the entire planet, every object in existence, are all formed from the same building blocks. In that sense, the fear of death, the fear of the unknown, the fear of other creeds, beliefs, races or beings out there is stupid, because it’s just part of me out there. My atoms are not unique. Before me they were dirt, water, air, rabbits, gazelle, puppies, coke cans. As I exist I consume food, alcohol, oxygen, medicine while I expel faeces, urine, skin cells, hair cells. Atoms leave and atoms re-enter. We are all made from the exact same stuff. I am a part of you, just as much as you are a part of me. We are all part of nature.
So the idea that you need to be comforted with the idea of an afterlife, or you need to be comforted that yours is the superior race, or that you have to be comforted that you have a right to this land, is ludicrous, because all that awaits you after death, all that awaits you in a different race, all that awaits you on that part of land, is you. The same building blocks across the universe. You are intrinsically tied to it. Doesn’t that make the killing of other people – for any reason - or the destruction of the environment, or malevolence towards animals, seem kind of stupid?
In killing each other, all we are doing is killing ourselves.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Sexual Freedom
There is an extremely unpleasant movement rolling through our fair isle. It appears to move in the shape of something altogether good and wholesome, something which aims to protect people from an unscrupulous and morally degenerative few. But looks beneath the surface, and you will see that it is not that, it is, in fact, something quite the opposite.
I am talking of a new law that the Government is intending to pass, one pushed by a grieving mother who’s daughter was murdered, that will decriminalize the possession of ‘violent or extreme pornography’. Possession of images deemed to be ‘sexually violent’ will incur up to three years in prison. The law was pushed by Liz Longhurst, whose daughter, Jane, was murdered by a man who claimed to be addicted to violent pornography.
One’s heart, of course, goes out to anyone that loses a loved one under such horrific circumstances, but one’s head has to triumph over one’s heart in such an instance, when the consensual, adult, private lives of at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in this country are under threat by a vaguely worded and emotionally driven law.
To understand my outrage at the potential passing of this law, one must understand what is meant by ‘violent’ or ‘extreme’ pornography. We against it, we who may find ourselves accused of criminal behaviour should the law come to pass, willingly accept that things such as necrophilia or bestiality are aspects of the sexual makeup that should remain illegal; for simple reason, they are non-consensual (and yes, I don’t care if a horsey has a hardon, that doesn’t mean the horse is in anyway consenting to being bothered by one of us (to say a physical stimulation is an indicator of consent is to justify rape should the victim’s nipples be erect)).
However, beyond this initial boundary, I’m afraid it has to be said to this grieving woman, Liz Longhurst, that neither she, nor the Government that rules the land in which I live, has any business deeming any act between consenting adults to be illegal. If I choose to consume material that depicts something as mundane as simple BDSM, or something as heavy as simulated rape, provided that material is produced by two consenting adults, who have decided to enact these scenarios under their own free will and share the images with others, neither I or anyone else has done anything wrong. If I acquire images of genuine rape, then I understand the problem. But should I consume images of simulated rape, or consensual violence (again, something like simple S&M play could fall into this category), that has taken place between people who chose to do so, how can I be called wrong?
You see, what this law is moving to do, is to criminalize human emotion, human desire, and – most alarmingly – human thought. The Government, or anyone else, has no place trying to regulate what goes on inside the privacy of my bedroom. I’m sorry, you have no business there.
The disturbingly vague language of this law also leave it open to a horrific level of manipulation. Just wait for some overzealous moral crusader to start calling sodomy a violent sexual act. Just wait for those that enjoy dictating how others should live their lives to begin dictating that all pornography is, in its essence, unnecessary and untoward.
Initially, I was willing to give the woman who pushed this law, Liz Longhurst, a decree of leniency, given the trauma she has been through. But then I came across this disturbing quote:
‘Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others.’
I am sorry, Mrs Longhurst, but the words you spoke here are anathema to any free society. Let me ask you this, had the man that murdered your daughter been a heavy drinker, would you have sought to criminalize everyone that ever chose to get drunk? If the man had stabbed your daughter to death, would you have sought to criminalize anyone who ever chose to purchase a hunting knife? No one’s freedoms, NO ONE’S, should ever be put up for a vote, or ever put up to a committee to choose if they may exercise them. For such a thing to happen means that I no longer enjoy ‘freedoms’ I enjoy ‘privileges’. What you are saying, Mrs Longhurst, is that I am not free to choose the sexual stimulation that arouses me, rather, that I am permitted, for the time being, to do so.
Just as the Government has no place inside my bedroom, neither does anyone else. You are entitled to your opinion, just as it is your opinion that your daughter would still be alive if the man that murdered her had not been ‘addicted’ to violent pornography. But that is an opinion, Mrs Longhurst, not a fact. And even if it were, then should you not be seeking to deal with the obvious mental illness of this man, rather than potentially criminalizing the thousands, probable millions of us across the country that choose to indulge in pornography that revolves around power exchange, pain or violence?
Someone took away the right that Mrs Longhurst’s daughter had to life. In turn, Mrs Longhurst has pushed this Government to take away the right of others to enjoy consensual sexual lifestyles. Benjamin Franklin said,
‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lost both.’
To think that making any kind of violent pornography illegal would help in combat the very serious issue of sex crime is ridiculous. Those that are a genuine danger will merely disappear deeper into the psychosis of their own minds, while those of us that know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality, those of us that understand what is real and what is not, those of us that choose to indulge in such pursuits have to face up to the risk of being called criminals. The freedom of few should never be put at risk to ease the minds of the blinded many.
I am talking of a new law that the Government is intending to pass, one pushed by a grieving mother who’s daughter was murdered, that will decriminalize the possession of ‘violent or extreme pornography’. Possession of images deemed to be ‘sexually violent’ will incur up to three years in prison. The law was pushed by Liz Longhurst, whose daughter, Jane, was murdered by a man who claimed to be addicted to violent pornography.
One’s heart, of course, goes out to anyone that loses a loved one under such horrific circumstances, but one’s head has to triumph over one’s heart in such an instance, when the consensual, adult, private lives of at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in this country are under threat by a vaguely worded and emotionally driven law.
To understand my outrage at the potential passing of this law, one must understand what is meant by ‘violent’ or ‘extreme’ pornography. We against it, we who may find ourselves accused of criminal behaviour should the law come to pass, willingly accept that things such as necrophilia or bestiality are aspects of the sexual makeup that should remain illegal; for simple reason, they are non-consensual (and yes, I don’t care if a horsey has a hardon, that doesn’t mean the horse is in anyway consenting to being bothered by one of us (to say a physical stimulation is an indicator of consent is to justify rape should the victim’s nipples be erect)).
However, beyond this initial boundary, I’m afraid it has to be said to this grieving woman, Liz Longhurst, that neither she, nor the Government that rules the land in which I live, has any business deeming any act between consenting adults to be illegal. If I choose to consume material that depicts something as mundane as simple BDSM, or something as heavy as simulated rape, provided that material is produced by two consenting adults, who have decided to enact these scenarios under their own free will and share the images with others, neither I or anyone else has done anything wrong. If I acquire images of genuine rape, then I understand the problem. But should I consume images of simulated rape, or consensual violence (again, something like simple S&M play could fall into this category), that has taken place between people who chose to do so, how can I be called wrong?
You see, what this law is moving to do, is to criminalize human emotion, human desire, and – most alarmingly – human thought. The Government, or anyone else, has no place trying to regulate what goes on inside the privacy of my bedroom. I’m sorry, you have no business there.
The disturbingly vague language of this law also leave it open to a horrific level of manipulation. Just wait for some overzealous moral crusader to start calling sodomy a violent sexual act. Just wait for those that enjoy dictating how others should live their lives to begin dictating that all pornography is, in its essence, unnecessary and untoward.
Initially, I was willing to give the woman who pushed this law, Liz Longhurst, a decree of leniency, given the trauma she has been through. But then I came across this disturbing quote:
‘Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others.’
I am sorry, Mrs Longhurst, but the words you spoke here are anathema to any free society. Let me ask you this, had the man that murdered your daughter been a heavy drinker, would you have sought to criminalize everyone that ever chose to get drunk? If the man had stabbed your daughter to death, would you have sought to criminalize anyone who ever chose to purchase a hunting knife? No one’s freedoms, NO ONE’S, should ever be put up for a vote, or ever put up to a committee to choose if they may exercise them. For such a thing to happen means that I no longer enjoy ‘freedoms’ I enjoy ‘privileges’. What you are saying, Mrs Longhurst, is that I am not free to choose the sexual stimulation that arouses me, rather, that I am permitted, for the time being, to do so.
Just as the Government has no place inside my bedroom, neither does anyone else. You are entitled to your opinion, just as it is your opinion that your daughter would still be alive if the man that murdered her had not been ‘addicted’ to violent pornography. But that is an opinion, Mrs Longhurst, not a fact. And even if it were, then should you not be seeking to deal with the obvious mental illness of this man, rather than potentially criminalizing the thousands, probable millions of us across the country that choose to indulge in pornography that revolves around power exchange, pain or violence?
Someone took away the right that Mrs Longhurst’s daughter had to life. In turn, Mrs Longhurst has pushed this Government to take away the right of others to enjoy consensual sexual lifestyles. Benjamin Franklin said,
‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lost both.’
To think that making any kind of violent pornography illegal would help in combat the very serious issue of sex crime is ridiculous. Those that are a genuine danger will merely disappear deeper into the psychosis of their own minds, while those of us that know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality, those of us that understand what is real and what is not, those of us that choose to indulge in such pursuits have to face up to the risk of being called criminals. The freedom of few should never be put at risk to ease the minds of the blinded many.
Monday, 17 November 2008
‘What do you call Assassins Who Accuse Assassins?’ The Rise Of Counter Culture, The Anti-Hero & Entertainment’s Hand In The Decline Of Polite Society
‘What do you call Assassins Who Accuse Assassins?’
The Rise Of Counter Culture, The Anti-Hero & Entertainment’s Hand In The Decline Of Polite Society
By Miles Weaver
This article also fits in as part of my ongoing ‘Saving Planet Earth’ as a critique on the ‘culture war’ and the blame that the entertainment industry is unfairly saddled with by the side that views themselves as the arbiters of moral value and taste.
The late ‘60s and ‘70s in Hollywood saw a very interesting sea change in cinema. Whereas the classic hero, so frequently encapsulated in the mould of John Wayne, had dominated the screen for so long, the late 1960s saw the likes Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper roar into town on choppers, smoking dope, flipping off the man and bucking the system. They rallied against political correctness, they fought back against traditional ‘American values’, they spoke out, stood out and refused to toe the line. These two men, accompanied by the somewhat unhinged Jack Nicholson, in ‘Easy Rider’, helped open the floodgates, ushering in a new generation and mindset in entertainment; they being the anti-heroes and the purveyors of counter culture.
In fact, in cinema, the anti-hero has gone on to become so mainstream that it is now the staple figure of the Hollywood action movie. It has become the upstanding moral citizen of a picture, defined as an ‘anti-hero- merely because (in so many cases) it has a lack of respect for authority. A true anti-hero, and a true counter culture figure, is rarely accepted by the by the numbers studio heads of Hollywood. Someone who criticizes the world around them, or who resorts to violence in a more indiscriminate manner is trodden down in favour of someone that uses violence only on ‘the bad guys’. While that figure has faded in Hollywood, throughout the world of entertainment; in music, comedy, literature, art, debate, to name a few, those characters and real life people are very much at the forefront of their fields, much to the chagrin of the ‘moral masses’ around them.
But why? Why have these figures, that rail so aggressively against the mainstream, that put profanity in their songs, tear down established icons of Government in their routine, or make confrontational comments about respected public figures in their work, why have they become the prominent figures, and the true cutting edge of entertainment? We are told, so very, very frequently by the purveyors of news, opinion and morals, that it is because of the declining standards of society, because of the lack of respect for establishment and order, because of a smutty entertainment industry that pushes sex and violence and rebellion as something that is cool. Wait. Hold on. If the decline of standards is to blame on these counter culture figures and these entertainers that so aggressively flip off your piously held morality, where do they come from? Where do they get their ideas from? It’s not out of a simple desire to shock, no. Nor does it stem from some desire to corrupt society. For they all live within that society. They are part of it. So where does this vicious circle really begin?
Let’s look at a little bit of comparative history. In the ‘20s and ‘30s mainstream cinema was dominated by the classical hero. Coincidently, this was a time of peace, mixed with a little economic turmoil. The public was placid, accepting of its Government’s behaviour and respectful of the pillars of society. Once the Second World War broke out, most mainstream films moved into war territory in support of their nation. Now, as we move into the ‘50s we start to see small hints of the anti-hero in several films, but nothing one would call direct counter culture. The Korean War is acknowledged in the media and is something that the public is aware of, but information is limited. The ‘60s hit, Kennedy is assassinated, the Cold War really gets into full swing and the Vietnam conflict begins proper. Students lead riots in Paris, followed by similar student protests around the world over Western intervention in Asia. The media is heavily involved in the reporting of all of these events. Coverage is occasionally graphic, but all three are things at the forefront of the public’s mind. Later in the decade, ideas that had been germinating for two years (and more in many cases) come to the big screen, New Hollywood is born, helmed by ‘Bonnie and Clyde’, ‘The Graduate’, ‘Easy Rider’ and ‘’Midnight Cowboy’.
Throughout the 1970s the New Hollywood movement goes from strength to strength. Films are openly anti-Government, anti-war and anti-status quo. True anti-heroes helm films. Comedians like Richard Pryor and George Carlin become mainstream, instead of fringe genius’ like Lenny Bruce was in the ‘60s. The devastation of Vietnam, the ongoing, merciless, depressing Cold War, the Watergate Scandal engulfs America. Britain begins to slip into economic turmoil towards the end of the decade. Once again, the media covers and saturates every major event. Coverage grows increasingly graphic and unashamedly uncensored. Governments strive for control over a media that is now free of inhibitions, and broadcasting much truth to the public. We see such masterpieces as the Godfather Parts I & II, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation (all films by Francis Ford Coppola, all of which confirm that period of his life as the greatest streak of unmitigated genius in the history of cinema), The Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Patton, M*A*S*H, Clockwork Orange, French Connection and All The Presidents Men; films which are unashamed in their graphic portrayal of society, civilisation, the nature and hypocrisy of men who claimed to be moral. The brutally critiqued the status quo and their government, while throwing a middle finger into the face of anyone that thought that ‘their side’ was anywhere near a moral high ground. Michael Corleone could be seen as cinema’s greatest anti-hero, a criminal overlord, ruthless, merciless and heartless, that the audience still finds themselves rooting for, because they understand his reasons. The Vietnam War ends in 1975, and is soon followed by blockbusters like Jaws and Star Wars. The Cold War, a lingering fear, subsides somewhat in its ability to terrify, there is relative calm amidst the public and the media. Heavy metal and punk cement a legacy of anti-conformism and confrontation.
The ‘80s see the Falklands Crisis, the American sponsorship of Contra Killers in Nicaragua which results in the deaths of thousands, accompanied by many other regime overthrows sponsored by the CIA throughout Latin America, all of which result in tremendous bloodshed. The media reports and exposes these atrocities, while also reporting on the Afghan and Iran-Iraq Wars in Mesopotamia. Augusto Pinochet cracks down in Chile, resulting in the mass internment, torture and disappearance of thousands. Mass unrest throughout Britain, resulting in the trade union strifes. The media reports all of this, point blank and unashamedly. Films become more gory, more violent, more graphic. Many film heroes have open contempt for authority (John McClane in Die Hard, Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop or Batman), and many icons of the period openly fight against that which is established as ‘good’. (A perfect example being Schwarzenegger’s Terminator). Films like Platoon continue to criticise the American Government’s behaviour over Vietnam, while comedians truly take the gloves off on both sides of the Atlantic and unashamedly lambaste President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. ‘Alternative comedy’ is born; crude, crass, politically charged, aggressive and unafraid. Artists like Run DMC and NWA bring rap into the mainstream, shedding light on a totally unseen section of American life and bringing the true nature of race relations in America into cold reality.
It seems that the point is becoming clear now. In each decade Governments have become more and more eager to spread their power, influence and own brand of death throughout the world. In each decade, the news media has grown larger and larger in confidence and integrity, until it reaches a point where it was unafraid of exposing the true horrors of what our masters in the ivory towers were doing and tolerating worldwide. The coverage of the two Gulf Wars has only taken that level of exposure further, and has become ever more graphic each time. It is this writer’s opinion, based on the evidence I present here, that this is what has led to what many would call ‘declining moral values’, but which I call hypocrisy. Entertainment has only ever reflected the standards of the society around it. There is a reason why much popular entertainment in the most repressed countries is so innocent, naïve and child-like in comparison to our own. Their entertainment is kept totally inoffensive for the masses, because the masses are kept intellectually inoffended. They cannot learn the truth about their government without outside help, so domestic entertainment can only reflect that naivety.
The moral crusaders never seem to take up much objection when the newsmakers show pictures of men and women with their arms and legs blown off, however, they never get outraged when they see piles of dead bodies being unloaded into mass graves. As long as the statement ‘Some may find these graphic images disturbing’ is uttered first, they’re fine. But when they hear swearing, or see violence on television or in a film, or hear it in comedy or music, despite the appropriate warnings being given to them about who the content is suitable for, they get enraged. They are unable to put two and two together, and understand that entertainment only reflects the world around it. It is the nature of the medium. When the news becomes increasingly graphic, so does entertainment. When governments begin treating countries like training grounds, musicians, film makers and comedians start kicking back against the system.
And that is where the ‘moral fabric’ of society has unwound. That is where the anti-heroes of cinema have risen from. The glamorisation of guns and knives has appeared in the media because it appears every night on the news. Such weapons of killing are even advertised and glamorised in advertisements for the army. Perhaps if governments begun to act with some restraint and respect for human life, the entertainment industry would begin to show some more restraint, and greater respect for human life in its canon. One directly influences the other, and if there is a trickle down effect from entertainment onto the public, then there is also one from the highest level of society, down onto its entertainment. Were there less to attack, or were there less exposure of the dishonest workings of our democracy, then maybe there would be more restraint. But the decline of society’s moral are not being bought about by bad language or violence or sex in entertainment, it is bought about by those that commit such acts on a mass scale in real life, and those that report and expose it. Entertainment, even at its most base levels, reflects the nature of the society it is coming from. Entertainment is not killing moral decency in western society, it is merely mirroring the process that we tolerate as it happens.
The Rise Of Counter Culture, The Anti-Hero & Entertainment’s Hand In The Decline Of Polite Society
By Miles Weaver
This article also fits in as part of my ongoing ‘Saving Planet Earth’ as a critique on the ‘culture war’ and the blame that the entertainment industry is unfairly saddled with by the side that views themselves as the arbiters of moral value and taste.
The late ‘60s and ‘70s in Hollywood saw a very interesting sea change in cinema. Whereas the classic hero, so frequently encapsulated in the mould of John Wayne, had dominated the screen for so long, the late 1960s saw the likes Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper roar into town on choppers, smoking dope, flipping off the man and bucking the system. They rallied against political correctness, they fought back against traditional ‘American values’, they spoke out, stood out and refused to toe the line. These two men, accompanied by the somewhat unhinged Jack Nicholson, in ‘Easy Rider’, helped open the floodgates, ushering in a new generation and mindset in entertainment; they being the anti-heroes and the purveyors of counter culture.
In fact, in cinema, the anti-hero has gone on to become so mainstream that it is now the staple figure of the Hollywood action movie. It has become the upstanding moral citizen of a picture, defined as an ‘anti-hero- merely because (in so many cases) it has a lack of respect for authority. A true anti-hero, and a true counter culture figure, is rarely accepted by the by the numbers studio heads of Hollywood. Someone who criticizes the world around them, or who resorts to violence in a more indiscriminate manner is trodden down in favour of someone that uses violence only on ‘the bad guys’. While that figure has faded in Hollywood, throughout the world of entertainment; in music, comedy, literature, art, debate, to name a few, those characters and real life people are very much at the forefront of their fields, much to the chagrin of the ‘moral masses’ around them.
But why? Why have these figures, that rail so aggressively against the mainstream, that put profanity in their songs, tear down established icons of Government in their routine, or make confrontational comments about respected public figures in their work, why have they become the prominent figures, and the true cutting edge of entertainment? We are told, so very, very frequently by the purveyors of news, opinion and morals, that it is because of the declining standards of society, because of the lack of respect for establishment and order, because of a smutty entertainment industry that pushes sex and violence and rebellion as something that is cool. Wait. Hold on. If the decline of standards is to blame on these counter culture figures and these entertainers that so aggressively flip off your piously held morality, where do they come from? Where do they get their ideas from? It’s not out of a simple desire to shock, no. Nor does it stem from some desire to corrupt society. For they all live within that society. They are part of it. So where does this vicious circle really begin?
Let’s look at a little bit of comparative history. In the ‘20s and ‘30s mainstream cinema was dominated by the classical hero. Coincidently, this was a time of peace, mixed with a little economic turmoil. The public was placid, accepting of its Government’s behaviour and respectful of the pillars of society. Once the Second World War broke out, most mainstream films moved into war territory in support of their nation. Now, as we move into the ‘50s we start to see small hints of the anti-hero in several films, but nothing one would call direct counter culture. The Korean War is acknowledged in the media and is something that the public is aware of, but information is limited. The ‘60s hit, Kennedy is assassinated, the Cold War really gets into full swing and the Vietnam conflict begins proper. Students lead riots in Paris, followed by similar student protests around the world over Western intervention in Asia. The media is heavily involved in the reporting of all of these events. Coverage is occasionally graphic, but all three are things at the forefront of the public’s mind. Later in the decade, ideas that had been germinating for two years (and more in many cases) come to the big screen, New Hollywood is born, helmed by ‘Bonnie and Clyde’, ‘The Graduate’, ‘Easy Rider’ and ‘’Midnight Cowboy’.
Throughout the 1970s the New Hollywood movement goes from strength to strength. Films are openly anti-Government, anti-war and anti-status quo. True anti-heroes helm films. Comedians like Richard Pryor and George Carlin become mainstream, instead of fringe genius’ like Lenny Bruce was in the ‘60s. The devastation of Vietnam, the ongoing, merciless, depressing Cold War, the Watergate Scandal engulfs America. Britain begins to slip into economic turmoil towards the end of the decade. Once again, the media covers and saturates every major event. Coverage grows increasingly graphic and unashamedly uncensored. Governments strive for control over a media that is now free of inhibitions, and broadcasting much truth to the public. We see such masterpieces as the Godfather Parts I & II, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation (all films by Francis Ford Coppola, all of which confirm that period of his life as the greatest streak of unmitigated genius in the history of cinema), The Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Patton, M*A*S*H, Clockwork Orange, French Connection and All The Presidents Men; films which are unashamed in their graphic portrayal of society, civilisation, the nature and hypocrisy of men who claimed to be moral. The brutally critiqued the status quo and their government, while throwing a middle finger into the face of anyone that thought that ‘their side’ was anywhere near a moral high ground. Michael Corleone could be seen as cinema’s greatest anti-hero, a criminal overlord, ruthless, merciless and heartless, that the audience still finds themselves rooting for, because they understand his reasons. The Vietnam War ends in 1975, and is soon followed by blockbusters like Jaws and Star Wars. The Cold War, a lingering fear, subsides somewhat in its ability to terrify, there is relative calm amidst the public and the media. Heavy metal and punk cement a legacy of anti-conformism and confrontation.
The ‘80s see the Falklands Crisis, the American sponsorship of Contra Killers in Nicaragua which results in the deaths of thousands, accompanied by many other regime overthrows sponsored by the CIA throughout Latin America, all of which result in tremendous bloodshed. The media reports and exposes these atrocities, while also reporting on the Afghan and Iran-Iraq Wars in Mesopotamia. Augusto Pinochet cracks down in Chile, resulting in the mass internment, torture and disappearance of thousands. Mass unrest throughout Britain, resulting in the trade union strifes. The media reports all of this, point blank and unashamedly. Films become more gory, more violent, more graphic. Many film heroes have open contempt for authority (John McClane in Die Hard, Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop or Batman), and many icons of the period openly fight against that which is established as ‘good’. (A perfect example being Schwarzenegger’s Terminator). Films like Platoon continue to criticise the American Government’s behaviour over Vietnam, while comedians truly take the gloves off on both sides of the Atlantic and unashamedly lambaste President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. ‘Alternative comedy’ is born; crude, crass, politically charged, aggressive and unafraid. Artists like Run DMC and NWA bring rap into the mainstream, shedding light on a totally unseen section of American life and bringing the true nature of race relations in America into cold reality.
It seems that the point is becoming clear now. In each decade Governments have become more and more eager to spread their power, influence and own brand of death throughout the world. In each decade, the news media has grown larger and larger in confidence and integrity, until it reaches a point where it was unafraid of exposing the true horrors of what our masters in the ivory towers were doing and tolerating worldwide. The coverage of the two Gulf Wars has only taken that level of exposure further, and has become ever more graphic each time. It is this writer’s opinion, based on the evidence I present here, that this is what has led to what many would call ‘declining moral values’, but which I call hypocrisy. Entertainment has only ever reflected the standards of the society around it. There is a reason why much popular entertainment in the most repressed countries is so innocent, naïve and child-like in comparison to our own. Their entertainment is kept totally inoffensive for the masses, because the masses are kept intellectually inoffended. They cannot learn the truth about their government without outside help, so domestic entertainment can only reflect that naivety.
The moral crusaders never seem to take up much objection when the newsmakers show pictures of men and women with their arms and legs blown off, however, they never get outraged when they see piles of dead bodies being unloaded into mass graves. As long as the statement ‘Some may find these graphic images disturbing’ is uttered first, they’re fine. But when they hear swearing, or see violence on television or in a film, or hear it in comedy or music, despite the appropriate warnings being given to them about who the content is suitable for, they get enraged. They are unable to put two and two together, and understand that entertainment only reflects the world around it. It is the nature of the medium. When the news becomes increasingly graphic, so does entertainment. When governments begin treating countries like training grounds, musicians, film makers and comedians start kicking back against the system.
And that is where the ‘moral fabric’ of society has unwound. That is where the anti-heroes of cinema have risen from. The glamorisation of guns and knives has appeared in the media because it appears every night on the news. Such weapons of killing are even advertised and glamorised in advertisements for the army. Perhaps if governments begun to act with some restraint and respect for human life, the entertainment industry would begin to show some more restraint, and greater respect for human life in its canon. One directly influences the other, and if there is a trickle down effect from entertainment onto the public, then there is also one from the highest level of society, down onto its entertainment. Were there less to attack, or were there less exposure of the dishonest workings of our democracy, then maybe there would be more restraint. But the decline of society’s moral are not being bought about by bad language or violence or sex in entertainment, it is bought about by those that commit such acts on a mass scale in real life, and those that report and expose it. Entertainment, even at its most base levels, reflects the nature of the society it is coming from. Entertainment is not killing moral decency in western society, it is merely mirroring the process that we tolerate as it happens.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The Rant: The Mail & Morals, Sachs & Sluts, Brand & BULLSHIT.
In the midst of the worst economic crisis in living memory, one where banks are falling like playing cards into the arms of nationalisation, where the values of the international stock markets are dropping like stones, where thousands of people face a hard winter of high energy prices, fuel shortages and possible foreclosure and bankruptcy, where flash floods have trapped people, destroyed several villages in Cornwall and politicians are being investigated for serious breaches of the public trust and corruption, what is the most important phrase in the press at the moment?
‘He fucked your granddaughter.’
That’s right folks, in order to take your mind of the real problems you’re facing at the moment (as well as bolster their own falling sales) the national press – led by that bastion of right wing intolerance and ignorance The Daily Mail – decided to manufacture a controversy so inane, so absurd and yet so far reaching that the Prime Minister of the nation has commented on it, one of the BBC’s most valued and cutting edge stars has quit, the controller of the largest national radio station in the country has resigned in protest and rational people with independent thought around the country are slamming their heads on desks and fists through televisions as we speak.
A little context first. On the October 18th edition of BBC Radio 2 Russell Brand and guest co-presenter Jonathon Ross were meant to interview Fawlty Towers star (and that is the only notable acting credit to his name) Andrew Sachs. While recording the show (which was not aired live) the two were unable to get hold of Sachs, and, upon reaching his voicemail rambled a bit before Ross shouted ‘He fucked your granddaughter!’ Hilarity (allegedly) ensured. They apologised, then added fuel to the fire by calling Mr Sachs back a further two times, in both instances starting with apology, and then descending into playground humour to get cheap laughs. The BBC received two complaints. Sachs contacted the BBC and both Brand and Ross issued apologies.
I listened to the show on the Monday. I didn’t find the skit particularly funny, as it was just essentially two kids saying rude words to an older person. I found the idea of telling all about the sexual exploits of someone to a close relative to be a little tasteless and insensitive, but I can’t say it bothered me (nor am I any one to joke about tasteful humour). The sleeping giant slept, no one was bothered. Brand issued a public apology on his radio show the following week, while also criticizing The Daily Mail, who at the times were attempting to stir the story, for doing just that, as well as being prominent supporters of Oswald Mosely’s fascist Blackshirts and Chancellor Hitler’s exploits in Germany during the ‘30s.
Here things get interesting.
The Mail On Sunday (possibly with a vendetta on its mind now that Brand had once again exposed them for the racist, homophobic, right wing dividers that they are), went to town on the story, blowing it all out of proportion. By Monday morning, 10’000 complaints had been received at the BBC, despite the fact that the show was no longer available on its iPlayer service (shows remain on there for one week, and the 18th October show had been replaced by the 25th October edition). Where were all these people listening to the show, and what was their outrage?
And at this point things descend into farce.
See, none of these complaints, none of this ‘outrage’ came from anyone who had actually listened to the broadcast. They had listened to what the ever so fair and balanced tome that is The Mail On Sunday had to say, and they instantly jumped up to express their outrage. The Mail had manufactured an outrage. By Monday their papers were selling out everywhere, the rest of the Fleet Street tabloid gutter press were getting whiffs that this would be something big, and the sharks started circling. Calls for the sacking of Ross and Brand were made, demands that the BBC spend license payer’s money on tasteful programming, the Prime Minister waded into the mess (as did that ever so eager attention whore David Cameron). By Thursday the party of the opposition was calling for a formal commons debate on the matter. And I, laid back in my chair, roared:
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE IDIOTS IN THIS COUNTRY?
Firstly, ALL these complaints (minus two) came from morons who had never heard the show, never witnessed the whole thing, and would never watch Brand anyway. Oh sure, The Mail and its simpering lapdogs of intolerance have hated Ross for years, finding his humour crass and inappropriate, particularly incensed by his massive pay check of £6million a year to do what they call ‘peddle smut’. Because sure, a paper that ran a glowing obituary column for the Grand Dragon of British bigotry, Bernard Manning has every right to tell other people what’s offensive or not. I had the debate with my mother, who was firmly on side with The Mail, saying it was unpleasant what they had done, and that an investigation needed to be made. I (not so calmly) asked my parent if she had listened to the program, which she said she hadn’t, and had then asked her where she had heard about it. She declined to reply, so I filled in the gap for her (knowing she reads the Mail) and her laughter, combined with the fact that she is a terrible liar, gave away everything I needed to know. She was going on hearsay and reported facts, and having her opinion fed to her rather than calmly stepping back and analysing things by herself.
Secondly, I will address these calls demanding for Brand and Ross to be fired. Well Brand, thankfully, has already seen the writing on the wall, and has quit the BBC, hopefully soon to do a national television interview where he will states ‘Fuck them’ and ‘Fuck the Daily Mail too.’ You may not like your taxpayer money going into the paycheck of arguably the nation’s most cutting edge mainstream comedy figure, someone who has bought millions of young listeners to Radio 2, a station that used to be reserved for the middle aged upward. You may also not like the comedy of Mr Ross, unarguably the BBC’s biggest star, with a Friday night chat show and Saturday morning radio heard by over 5 million people a week. You may find these people crass and unappealing, and you may not like you’re license fee being spent on them. But guess what? I think Eastenders is a steaming pile of crap. I hate the program. I think it’s cheap, badly acted, badly written, melodramatic, crass and insulting. I think it encourages people to spend their lives glued to the FICTIONAL day to day occurrences of other FICTIONAL people, and glamorizes violence and sexual promiscuity while turning sensitive issues such as race tension or paedophilia into cheap cardboard cut-out storylines that are replete with ‘juicy’ false reality that people then take on into their own lives as fact. I don’t like my license fee being spent on that garbage. But when I find an objectionable episode (that would be every one on television), I just change the channel. When I miss an objectionable episode (again, all of them) I don’t bother delving into the internet to try and find out what the fuss is about so I can be appropriately outraged. Nor do I write to the BBC and demand that stars or producers be sacked. I have a condition which prevents me from seeking out things that will enrage me and force me to call for the termination of peoples employment. It’s called common sense. The Brand witch hunters on the other hand have now robbed me and millions of other listeners of a pretty good and amusing radio show for no good reason other than they don’t like his comedy. Thanks for that.
Thirdly, I want to point out the rank hypocrisy at the heart of the Daily Mail’s coverage, and at the heart of the people that feel outraged by it. What do Joan Rivers and Jonathon Ross have in common? They both said ‘fuck’ on national television. My how people gasped! Joan Rivers said it on Loose Women of all places (and if you were outraged at that, think of what the title means. What do you think the ‘loose’ is referring to?) Jonathan Ross says ‘fuck’ regularly on Friday nights, and then said it on the radio as well! The horror. Grow up. You’re quite happy to roll out the complaints for these two naughty words (or if someone refers to those ever so unspeakable wee-wee and hoo-hoo parts) but I don’t see any of The Mail’s readers banging down the door whenever a Christian or Muslim preacher is given a national platform espouse homophobia or sexism. Or when bigots like Ricahrd Littlejohn are allowed to stoke the fires of racism and ethnic hatred that bubbles beneath the surface of many people in this country that claim tolerance. Nor did I find anyone complaining when an afternoon host on Radio 2 (I forget which one) uttered the ethnic slur ‘dago’ (an offensive term for Italians and Hispanics), and neither apologised or received more than 10 complaints. Where was The Daily Mail’s moral fucking outrage brigade then? Maybe they were too busy complaining about the number of immigrants in this country, or were trying to cook up hatred against gay friendly bars in their area, or were starting lawsuits to try and get buses banned that promote atheism as an equal belief system to any of the other popular desert myths.
Fourthly, I would like to address one person, Georgina Bailie. This ‘Satanic Slut’, who did ‘fuck’ Russell Brand, went from being someone who okayed the broadcast of the show, to being someone dismayed by it, wanting to protect her poor grandfather (who, by the way hasn’t been seen by or cared about by the British public ever since he stopped playing a racially offensive Spanish stereotype for 12 weeks 30 years ago) from prying eyes and further harm, to hiring everyone’s favourite garbage vulture Max Clifford, posing semi naked for The Sun and selling her ‘story’. Giving oh such classy interviews about how bad Mr Brand was in bed (which is far worse than merely stating she slept with him and will hopefully open her up to libel from the star), or how he was obsessed with her grandfather and his Manuel character (which I think says something about how unappealing she was in some way to the star, who – while have sex with her – could find the only interesting thing to do throughout the ordeal was to thing of Fawlty Towers sketches). Yes, what a classy, un-hypocritical human being she is. She’ll make pleas for calm, but as soon as the media bandwagon comes rolling around she leaps straight aboard with both tits out. Well Georgina my dear, don’t worry, you may be on the bandwagon now, but you’ll be evicted in about fifteen minutes.
I am outraged (in case you couldn’t tell) about everything that has been orchestrated by the out of control media. Meanwhile, as the simpering morons (that would be the wider British public) have screamed and shouted, Andrew Sachs has handled himself with class and dignity, asking only for an apology from Ross, Brand and the BBC, and that they apologise to his granddaughter for embarrassing her on national radio. That was all. No calls for anyone’s heads, no turning into an ugly, raging monstrosity demanding for a re-evaluation of the license fee, just calm, collective thoughtfulness. Isn’t that how a real British gentleman would act; with restraint and thought instead of throwing the rattles out of the pram and screaming about how society has lost its way?
And that is the final thing that is on trial here; society. This furore is entirely generational. The young people of this country (and those with half a brain) really don’t seem to be bothered by this. They may or may not have found the jokes to be humorous (I didn’t (though I found the sketch Brand created (that was cut from the show), about breaking into Mr Sach’s house to apologise, finding him and being so overcome with grief and wanting to give him some semblance of pleasure that he ends up sexually molesting him by accident to be hilarious), but they are not bothered by them. They haven’t turned into a seething mob. Meanwhile, the middle aged and elderly members of the nation are positively aghast at the whole thing (ask them why, they won’t be able to tell you (because they haven’t been told why)) and feel that the only way to deal with it is with strongly worded letters, official complaints, and pages and pages of rantings and ramblings about how low the BBC has sunk, how ‘in my day comedy was funny’ and how society is plumbing the depths of crassness for cheap laughs is the only way to deal with it. (Because people that found white men blacking up in order to talk in ‘Yes’uh masser’ voices really have every right to complain about taste). Indeed, The Mail itself seemed most angry that no one else was angry, and in turn had to rally its base of intellectually incontinent ignoramuses to shout and scream about it and to try and protect the values of Great Britain (that and the editor wanted to burn Brand for bringing up their documented support of fascism and National Socialism).
So there’s my two cents on the whole thing. I think it’s puerile, pathetic and pitiful. It deserves to be treated with critical thinking, which will expose it for the witch hunt that it is, aimed at distracting us from the big issues at hand in order to have something juicy to talk about. Economic misery isn’t as fun as Madeline McCan going missing, or public figures saying naughty words. Entirely manufactured, entirely intellectually bankrupt, entirely appealing to the worst common denominators amongst the ignorant in society and entirely full of bullshit.
The Daily Mail: ‘They fucked your country!’
‘He fucked your granddaughter.’
That’s right folks, in order to take your mind of the real problems you’re facing at the moment (as well as bolster their own falling sales) the national press – led by that bastion of right wing intolerance and ignorance The Daily Mail – decided to manufacture a controversy so inane, so absurd and yet so far reaching that the Prime Minister of the nation has commented on it, one of the BBC’s most valued and cutting edge stars has quit, the controller of the largest national radio station in the country has resigned in protest and rational people with independent thought around the country are slamming their heads on desks and fists through televisions as we speak.
A little context first. On the October 18th edition of BBC Radio 2 Russell Brand and guest co-presenter Jonathon Ross were meant to interview Fawlty Towers star (and that is the only notable acting credit to his name) Andrew Sachs. While recording the show (which was not aired live) the two were unable to get hold of Sachs, and, upon reaching his voicemail rambled a bit before Ross shouted ‘He fucked your granddaughter!’ Hilarity (allegedly) ensured. They apologised, then added fuel to the fire by calling Mr Sachs back a further two times, in both instances starting with apology, and then descending into playground humour to get cheap laughs. The BBC received two complaints. Sachs contacted the BBC and both Brand and Ross issued apologies.
I listened to the show on the Monday. I didn’t find the skit particularly funny, as it was just essentially two kids saying rude words to an older person. I found the idea of telling all about the sexual exploits of someone to a close relative to be a little tasteless and insensitive, but I can’t say it bothered me (nor am I any one to joke about tasteful humour). The sleeping giant slept, no one was bothered. Brand issued a public apology on his radio show the following week, while also criticizing The Daily Mail, who at the times were attempting to stir the story, for doing just that, as well as being prominent supporters of Oswald Mosely’s fascist Blackshirts and Chancellor Hitler’s exploits in Germany during the ‘30s.
Here things get interesting.
The Mail On Sunday (possibly with a vendetta on its mind now that Brand had once again exposed them for the racist, homophobic, right wing dividers that they are), went to town on the story, blowing it all out of proportion. By Monday morning, 10’000 complaints had been received at the BBC, despite the fact that the show was no longer available on its iPlayer service (shows remain on there for one week, and the 18th October show had been replaced by the 25th October edition). Where were all these people listening to the show, and what was their outrage?
And at this point things descend into farce.
See, none of these complaints, none of this ‘outrage’ came from anyone who had actually listened to the broadcast. They had listened to what the ever so fair and balanced tome that is The Mail On Sunday had to say, and they instantly jumped up to express their outrage. The Mail had manufactured an outrage. By Monday their papers were selling out everywhere, the rest of the Fleet Street tabloid gutter press were getting whiffs that this would be something big, and the sharks started circling. Calls for the sacking of Ross and Brand were made, demands that the BBC spend license payer’s money on tasteful programming, the Prime Minister waded into the mess (as did that ever so eager attention whore David Cameron). By Thursday the party of the opposition was calling for a formal commons debate on the matter. And I, laid back in my chair, roared:
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE IDIOTS IN THIS COUNTRY?
Firstly, ALL these complaints (minus two) came from morons who had never heard the show, never witnessed the whole thing, and would never watch Brand anyway. Oh sure, The Mail and its simpering lapdogs of intolerance have hated Ross for years, finding his humour crass and inappropriate, particularly incensed by his massive pay check of £6million a year to do what they call ‘peddle smut’. Because sure, a paper that ran a glowing obituary column for the Grand Dragon of British bigotry, Bernard Manning has every right to tell other people what’s offensive or not. I had the debate with my mother, who was firmly on side with The Mail, saying it was unpleasant what they had done, and that an investigation needed to be made. I (not so calmly) asked my parent if she had listened to the program, which she said she hadn’t, and had then asked her where she had heard about it. She declined to reply, so I filled in the gap for her (knowing she reads the Mail) and her laughter, combined with the fact that she is a terrible liar, gave away everything I needed to know. She was going on hearsay and reported facts, and having her opinion fed to her rather than calmly stepping back and analysing things by herself.
Secondly, I will address these calls demanding for Brand and Ross to be fired. Well Brand, thankfully, has already seen the writing on the wall, and has quit the BBC, hopefully soon to do a national television interview where he will states ‘Fuck them’ and ‘Fuck the Daily Mail too.’ You may not like your taxpayer money going into the paycheck of arguably the nation’s most cutting edge mainstream comedy figure, someone who has bought millions of young listeners to Radio 2, a station that used to be reserved for the middle aged upward. You may also not like the comedy of Mr Ross, unarguably the BBC’s biggest star, with a Friday night chat show and Saturday morning radio heard by over 5 million people a week. You may find these people crass and unappealing, and you may not like you’re license fee being spent on them. But guess what? I think Eastenders is a steaming pile of crap. I hate the program. I think it’s cheap, badly acted, badly written, melodramatic, crass and insulting. I think it encourages people to spend their lives glued to the FICTIONAL day to day occurrences of other FICTIONAL people, and glamorizes violence and sexual promiscuity while turning sensitive issues such as race tension or paedophilia into cheap cardboard cut-out storylines that are replete with ‘juicy’ false reality that people then take on into their own lives as fact. I don’t like my license fee being spent on that garbage. But when I find an objectionable episode (that would be every one on television), I just change the channel. When I miss an objectionable episode (again, all of them) I don’t bother delving into the internet to try and find out what the fuss is about so I can be appropriately outraged. Nor do I write to the BBC and demand that stars or producers be sacked. I have a condition which prevents me from seeking out things that will enrage me and force me to call for the termination of peoples employment. It’s called common sense. The Brand witch hunters on the other hand have now robbed me and millions of other listeners of a pretty good and amusing radio show for no good reason other than they don’t like his comedy. Thanks for that.
Thirdly, I want to point out the rank hypocrisy at the heart of the Daily Mail’s coverage, and at the heart of the people that feel outraged by it. What do Joan Rivers and Jonathon Ross have in common? They both said ‘fuck’ on national television. My how people gasped! Joan Rivers said it on Loose Women of all places (and if you were outraged at that, think of what the title means. What do you think the ‘loose’ is referring to?) Jonathan Ross says ‘fuck’ regularly on Friday nights, and then said it on the radio as well! The horror. Grow up. You’re quite happy to roll out the complaints for these two naughty words (or if someone refers to those ever so unspeakable wee-wee and hoo-hoo parts) but I don’t see any of The Mail’s readers banging down the door whenever a Christian or Muslim preacher is given a national platform espouse homophobia or sexism. Or when bigots like Ricahrd Littlejohn are allowed to stoke the fires of racism and ethnic hatred that bubbles beneath the surface of many people in this country that claim tolerance. Nor did I find anyone complaining when an afternoon host on Radio 2 (I forget which one) uttered the ethnic slur ‘dago’ (an offensive term for Italians and Hispanics), and neither apologised or received more than 10 complaints. Where was The Daily Mail’s moral fucking outrage brigade then? Maybe they were too busy complaining about the number of immigrants in this country, or were trying to cook up hatred against gay friendly bars in their area, or were starting lawsuits to try and get buses banned that promote atheism as an equal belief system to any of the other popular desert myths.
Fourthly, I would like to address one person, Georgina Bailie. This ‘Satanic Slut’, who did ‘fuck’ Russell Brand, went from being someone who okayed the broadcast of the show, to being someone dismayed by it, wanting to protect her poor grandfather (who, by the way hasn’t been seen by or cared about by the British public ever since he stopped playing a racially offensive Spanish stereotype for 12 weeks 30 years ago) from prying eyes and further harm, to hiring everyone’s favourite garbage vulture Max Clifford, posing semi naked for The Sun and selling her ‘story’. Giving oh such classy interviews about how bad Mr Brand was in bed (which is far worse than merely stating she slept with him and will hopefully open her up to libel from the star), or how he was obsessed with her grandfather and his Manuel character (which I think says something about how unappealing she was in some way to the star, who – while have sex with her – could find the only interesting thing to do throughout the ordeal was to thing of Fawlty Towers sketches). Yes, what a classy, un-hypocritical human being she is. She’ll make pleas for calm, but as soon as the media bandwagon comes rolling around she leaps straight aboard with both tits out. Well Georgina my dear, don’t worry, you may be on the bandwagon now, but you’ll be evicted in about fifteen minutes.
I am outraged (in case you couldn’t tell) about everything that has been orchestrated by the out of control media. Meanwhile, as the simpering morons (that would be the wider British public) have screamed and shouted, Andrew Sachs has handled himself with class and dignity, asking only for an apology from Ross, Brand and the BBC, and that they apologise to his granddaughter for embarrassing her on national radio. That was all. No calls for anyone’s heads, no turning into an ugly, raging monstrosity demanding for a re-evaluation of the license fee, just calm, collective thoughtfulness. Isn’t that how a real British gentleman would act; with restraint and thought instead of throwing the rattles out of the pram and screaming about how society has lost its way?
And that is the final thing that is on trial here; society. This furore is entirely generational. The young people of this country (and those with half a brain) really don’t seem to be bothered by this. They may or may not have found the jokes to be humorous (I didn’t (though I found the sketch Brand created (that was cut from the show), about breaking into Mr Sach’s house to apologise, finding him and being so overcome with grief and wanting to give him some semblance of pleasure that he ends up sexually molesting him by accident to be hilarious), but they are not bothered by them. They haven’t turned into a seething mob. Meanwhile, the middle aged and elderly members of the nation are positively aghast at the whole thing (ask them why, they won’t be able to tell you (because they haven’t been told why)) and feel that the only way to deal with it is with strongly worded letters, official complaints, and pages and pages of rantings and ramblings about how low the BBC has sunk, how ‘in my day comedy was funny’ and how society is plumbing the depths of crassness for cheap laughs is the only way to deal with it. (Because people that found white men blacking up in order to talk in ‘Yes’uh masser’ voices really have every right to complain about taste). Indeed, The Mail itself seemed most angry that no one else was angry, and in turn had to rally its base of intellectually incontinent ignoramuses to shout and scream about it and to try and protect the values of Great Britain (that and the editor wanted to burn Brand for bringing up their documented support of fascism and National Socialism).
So there’s my two cents on the whole thing. I think it’s puerile, pathetic and pitiful. It deserves to be treated with critical thinking, which will expose it for the witch hunt that it is, aimed at distracting us from the big issues at hand in order to have something juicy to talk about. Economic misery isn’t as fun as Madeline McCan going missing, or public figures saying naughty words. Entirely manufactured, entirely intellectually bankrupt, entirely appealing to the worst common denominators amongst the ignorant in society and entirely full of bullshit.
The Daily Mail: ‘They fucked your country!’
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
War
Fixing Planet Earth
WAR
Monday 20th October 2008, marked a grim anniversary. That was the 2’000th day that had passed since President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the U.S.S Abraham Lincoln and declared
“…My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Indeed, it was on May 1st 2003, 2001 days ago, that President Bush triumphantly declared to the world ‘Mission Accomplished.’ Hindsight is a powerful tool, and in contrast with what President Bush thought were victorious words, one can only imagine that to this day he is thinking the same phrase that was quoted in Ridley Scott’s 2000 movie ‘Gladiator’. “People need to learn when they’re conquered.”
Today marks a more hopeful countdown, that being that President Bush only has 90 days left in office, and on that day America looks likely to be swearing in the first African American President in its history. But what of the legacy he will inherit? What of Americas dual wars in the Persian Gulf?
The United States seems, in all its own conflicts, to have a major misunderstanding regarding the nature of war itself. While they proved to be useful and courageous allies in the First and Second World Wars, they have since bungled and botched the management and intentions of every war they have been involved in. In the Korean War America lost 390’000 soldiers between 1950 and 1953, and the conflict ended in stalemate. The Vietnam War saw 8’744’000 US soldiers die between 1965 and 1975. While they seemed to accomplish many of their objectives during the first Gulf War (a war managed by many European nations instead of the US alone), America left Iraq in ruin, and its people at the mercy of an enraged Saddam Hussein, who went on to commit mass genocide of the people that the US had told it would support in a revolution. The War on Terrorism (including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts) have so far cost the United States somewhere in the region of about 5000 soldiers, with a total 1’150’000 civilian casualties in the above nations and Somalia.
What is it that the United States doesn’t seem to get? It is, one could argue, that very few men will ever understand, something that can only be truly comprehended by the men and women that experience it. For George Bush, Tony Blair or Saddam Hussein to send their troops into the theatre of battle it is comparatively easy. For they have never known and experienced the true horror of war. They have sat behind desks and commanded others, while brave men go off to fight, die or be killed in a haze of misery, bloodlust and brutality. War is humanity’s darkest response, the mass movement of soldiers and the mass enslavement of a population in order to assault, free, defend, overthrow or destroy an enemy.
It is a fundamental necessity to understand why war is fought. Truthfully, honestly, it must be understood. Rarely are wars every fought for the true freedom of people. There have only been two major instances in the past century that such occurrence have taken place, that being the Great War of 1914 – 1918 and the Second World War of 1937 – 1945. Those wars were truly fought for freedom. The current conflict in the Persian Gulf, named Operation Enduring Freedom, is being waged for political and economic reasons. The genius of terrorism is that the few can assault the many, David can attack Goliath, but the US’ response of bringing a bazooka to kill a fly is wrong. Wrong, that is, if it were actually fighting the terrorists alone. Regime change was what was sought, replacing hostile, anti-western, hardline Islamic dictatorships with ‘democratically’ elected leaders who would be supportive of the needs of the rest, supplying them with – and allowing them to control - land, energy (oil specifically), business contracts and political influence. War is an incredibly lucrative venture financially, stimulating economic growth, as vast sections of a nations infrastructure are put to work to produce supplies for the war effort. It also – in many cases – creates great support for the Government waging the battle, as few people ever want to see their nation on the losing side of a conflict. If it were a simple endeavour, it would produce a compliant, hard working, supportive domestic population, while allowing a nation to expand its sphere of political influence, gain territory, new energy reserves, major business contracts and produce subservient foreign Governments that will always put the interests of another country before their own.
But war is not a simple endeavour. It runs at a huge human cost. Disregarding the incredible damaging effects it has on the surrounding environment, and putting aside the inevitable civilian casualties (the focus of this essay is on the fighters of war, not its collateral damage), it is the men involved in battle that suffer some of the most irreparable damage. Outside of the tremendous physical cost that war extols on the pawns that get strewn across its board, tens of thousands already having been maimed for life in the current conflict in the Persian Gulf (compared to the 5000 dead), there is an arguably even greater threat to the personal health of a soldier that is posed; that of psychological damage.
There is a certain state that soldiers are often thrust into before battle, a mindset that is encouraged by captains, admirals and generals. It is a psychological state that passes our upper human and mammalian brain and sinks to the very depths of our lower – reptilian – brain. Yet this state goes beyond the mere base instinct of ‘kill or be killed’, it mixes that most primordial of senses with a most human construct; hate. Soldiers are sent into the fields of battle in a bloodlust, encouraged not to show mercy, but kill, maim and destroy every single one of the enemy until none remain. Soldiers are whipped into a fervour in order to serve the strategic needs of others, and in this fervour they have been known to commit the most depraved, indecent and inhumane acts imaginable. They question not their urge to hate and take pleasure in the slaughter of their fellow man, but merely embrace it. And if they return from the battle, many find themselves left in a state we all post traumatic stress disorder. Milder forms of this disorder, usually known as battle fatigue or shell shock leave the sufferer fatigued, with slower reactions and thoughts, finding it hard to prioritise tasks, exhausted and unable to maintain initiative. It also can cause headaches, backaches, shaking, incontinence, heart palpitations, dizziness, nightmares, irritability, elevated anxiety, depression, substance abuse confusion and even suicidal feelings. This, bear in mind, is merely a lighter, less intense and debilitating version of post traumatic stress disorder, which is a full blown anxiety disorder that develops after exposure to terrifying events that threatened or caused grave physical harm. Sufferers not only experience similar effects to those above, but they find themselves in need of serious medical counselling in order to cope with the emotional and psychological consequences of the body being able to cope. Should soldiers find themselves lucky enough to avoid this state, they may find themselves addicted to the thrill and lawlessness of battle, and while many men and women eventually leave the armed forces of their nation and go on to lead normal lives (though the vast majority admit to frequent nightmares about their experiences), there are many that find themselves so dependent on the structure of military life and the psychological state of battle and training, that they are unable to leave.
But soldiers on the ground are only the pawns of any war effort, they can fight as hard and as valiantly as they want to (and they usually do), but they’re patriotism and determination to win will not grasp victory in any conflict. If there is no sound battle plan put in place, they lose. And when nations lose wars, the effects are devastating. One only needs to look at Germany to understand this, for it is a nation that has come to terms with what it did in the two Great Wars of the 20th century in the very recent years. The generation that was born a decade after the war are the ones finally running the country, and Germany is finally getting over its dark past. The same cannot be said for America, a nation that is still not fully able to get over defeat in Vietnam thirty years ago. When war fails, the damage to a national psyche – especially one such as America’s; built on overwhelming military might – can be massive. People become disillusioned with their Government, their military and most of all, the message and intentions of their country; for how good can democracy be against the red menace when you cannot even defeat tiny little North Vietnam?
Aside from the devastating effect on the populace, defeat in war leads to often grave consequences for anyone allied with the defeated, and the total destruction of the ideology they were fighting for. The dream of National Socialism and Fascism was crushed and has never recovered since World War 2, as was imperialism and colonialism. Communism suffered a crushing blow at the end of the Cold War, though its image was irreparably damaged as a political movement of evil long before then. Partners of the defeated suffer dreadful fates as well, Italy was stigmatised for years about its involvement with Hitler, the Eastern Bloc states fell into practical disrepair after the USSR broke up and only in the last five years have seen any kind of resurgence. Indeed, the price paid for losing a war falls not only on the head of the generals and politicians that lost, but on allies, neighbours and the populace as well.
A population is often most directly affected by a loss in war because they have been conditioned to think, not only are they morally right in what they do, but they are superior to their enemy in every way. Propaganda is one of the most important weapons a government can use in war, it encourages support among the public for the troops and their mission, and also – usually – bolsters the support for the Government itself, as well as allowing it to get away with more than usual (look no further than the Bush Administration and things like FISA and The Patriot Act here). Propaganda also often ensures a usually docile and compliant media, as the men and women involved in the supposedly bi-partisan machine often want to support their government and their nation before putting true journalistic neutrality to the test. The way the American media acted in the march towards the current conflict in the Persian Gulf is a textbook example of this, their eagerness to support their government and better their nation proved to be their undoing. For when the supply of information is so keenly controlled, and the information that the man in the street receives is controlled so very tightly, it is easy to control what people think, want and do, and thus gain support for your war, even if it is not something that is truly necessary for the nation.
Indeed, very few wars are necessary. In the last century there have only been two that the free world has needed to fight; World War I and World War II. These were wars of necessity and wars of protection, conflicts that ensured people would be free, able to live as they wanted and not fear persecution or death for their lifestyles or opinions. In these wars, the unfortunate toll that fighting takes on a soldier was an unfortunate by product. It was not something that shouldn’t be happening, it was something that would happen, because countless free men from Britain, America, France, Russia, China and a myriad of other nations threw themselves into the horror of battle in order to maintain the freedoms that we take for granted. Aside from the two wars though, we see very few that have been waged for truly honourable means. We have seen wars of politics (Vietnam), wars of pre-emption (a word that disguises the true intent of invasion (the current Iraq conflict)), wars of retaliation (the Argentine War) and wars for business (the Suez Canal debacle). These are manufactured skirmishes that serve the needs of a group of people or a government. They are conflicts that rarely operate separate from one another, but all tie into the central philosophy of creating gains for one or a few nations at the unnecessary expense of another.
Which brings us to the great conflict of our time: The War On Terror. The War On Terror is not actually a war at all. It has created wars - mainly because the countries that have been invaded refuse to roll over and submit to their invaders – but it is not, in itself, a war; for how does one fight ‘terror’? No, the War On Terror is a political tool; a finely crafted, cleverly worded disguise that allows a nation to remain at war indefinitely. The genius of the War On Terror is that its success cannot be measured. If the United States had called this global battle “The War on al Qaeda” the world would be able to assess its progress and say whether or not its objectives were being achieved. al Qaeda succeeding? Bad. al Qaeda disintegrating? Good. That would have been the smart thing to call this conflict. The psychopaths in al Qaeda were the ones that claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, so they are the ones that vengeance should be sought upon (though one could hardly have said that the US – through their foreign policies - did nothing provoke such retaliation against them). By calling it the War On Terror, it allows the US Government to wage war on anybody it claims is a terrorist, a definition as vague as any out there, for what constitutes a terrorist? Would it be a true stretch to call a terrorist someone who hates the United States and wouldn’t mind seeing it knocked down a peg or two? With the right propaganda and training, probably not, thus allowing conflicts against anyone that refused to toe the line that the US requires.
This is the true face of war. All war, any war. It is a political tool. The Second World War was started by Nazis with a political agenda, we free nations only fought because we had to. It was a war because we fought back, because we refused to let the forces of intolerance and – dare one say it – evil reign freely and unchecked. The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, The Zulu War, The Napoleonic Wars, all of them became wars instead of conquests because the natives fought back. They fought for their land, their heritage and what they thought was right. Other countries invaded them, seeking to enhance their political clout in the area, get their public to fall into line and give them an easy ride, to increase their economic prospects, fuel their business and create money and new land for them to exploit. Every war since humans began waging it has started this way. All of them. From the wars in ancient history between Egyptians or Kushiites, or between Persians and Greeks, to the conflicts between the Nazis and the Allies or America and Iraq, they have all come to pass because someone at the top of the tree wanted to take something someone else had. It is the true face of war; the ultimate end result of human greed. Unfortunately, it is the one thing that appears we cannot ever solve. Something that we have done since time immemorial, and something we seem destined to continue to do. For all our monetary, social and energy problems, for all the havoc we cause on planet earth, it may be the war that we and we alone create that will finally be the downfall of mankind.
Fixing it is something we will never do.
WAR
Monday 20th October 2008, marked a grim anniversary. That was the 2’000th day that had passed since President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the U.S.S Abraham Lincoln and declared
“…My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Indeed, it was on May 1st 2003, 2001 days ago, that President Bush triumphantly declared to the world ‘Mission Accomplished.’ Hindsight is a powerful tool, and in contrast with what President Bush thought were victorious words, one can only imagine that to this day he is thinking the same phrase that was quoted in Ridley Scott’s 2000 movie ‘Gladiator’. “People need to learn when they’re conquered.”
Today marks a more hopeful countdown, that being that President Bush only has 90 days left in office, and on that day America looks likely to be swearing in the first African American President in its history. But what of the legacy he will inherit? What of Americas dual wars in the Persian Gulf?
The United States seems, in all its own conflicts, to have a major misunderstanding regarding the nature of war itself. While they proved to be useful and courageous allies in the First and Second World Wars, they have since bungled and botched the management and intentions of every war they have been involved in. In the Korean War America lost 390’000 soldiers between 1950 and 1953, and the conflict ended in stalemate. The Vietnam War saw 8’744’000 US soldiers die between 1965 and 1975. While they seemed to accomplish many of their objectives during the first Gulf War (a war managed by many European nations instead of the US alone), America left Iraq in ruin, and its people at the mercy of an enraged Saddam Hussein, who went on to commit mass genocide of the people that the US had told it would support in a revolution. The War on Terrorism (including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts) have so far cost the United States somewhere in the region of about 5000 soldiers, with a total 1’150’000 civilian casualties in the above nations and Somalia.
What is it that the United States doesn’t seem to get? It is, one could argue, that very few men will ever understand, something that can only be truly comprehended by the men and women that experience it. For George Bush, Tony Blair or Saddam Hussein to send their troops into the theatre of battle it is comparatively easy. For they have never known and experienced the true horror of war. They have sat behind desks and commanded others, while brave men go off to fight, die or be killed in a haze of misery, bloodlust and brutality. War is humanity’s darkest response, the mass movement of soldiers and the mass enslavement of a population in order to assault, free, defend, overthrow or destroy an enemy.
It is a fundamental necessity to understand why war is fought. Truthfully, honestly, it must be understood. Rarely are wars every fought for the true freedom of people. There have only been two major instances in the past century that such occurrence have taken place, that being the Great War of 1914 – 1918 and the Second World War of 1937 – 1945. Those wars were truly fought for freedom. The current conflict in the Persian Gulf, named Operation Enduring Freedom, is being waged for political and economic reasons. The genius of terrorism is that the few can assault the many, David can attack Goliath, but the US’ response of bringing a bazooka to kill a fly is wrong. Wrong, that is, if it were actually fighting the terrorists alone. Regime change was what was sought, replacing hostile, anti-western, hardline Islamic dictatorships with ‘democratically’ elected leaders who would be supportive of the needs of the rest, supplying them with – and allowing them to control - land, energy (oil specifically), business contracts and political influence. War is an incredibly lucrative venture financially, stimulating economic growth, as vast sections of a nations infrastructure are put to work to produce supplies for the war effort. It also – in many cases – creates great support for the Government waging the battle, as few people ever want to see their nation on the losing side of a conflict. If it were a simple endeavour, it would produce a compliant, hard working, supportive domestic population, while allowing a nation to expand its sphere of political influence, gain territory, new energy reserves, major business contracts and produce subservient foreign Governments that will always put the interests of another country before their own.
But war is not a simple endeavour. It runs at a huge human cost. Disregarding the incredible damaging effects it has on the surrounding environment, and putting aside the inevitable civilian casualties (the focus of this essay is on the fighters of war, not its collateral damage), it is the men involved in battle that suffer some of the most irreparable damage. Outside of the tremendous physical cost that war extols on the pawns that get strewn across its board, tens of thousands already having been maimed for life in the current conflict in the Persian Gulf (compared to the 5000 dead), there is an arguably even greater threat to the personal health of a soldier that is posed; that of psychological damage.
There is a certain state that soldiers are often thrust into before battle, a mindset that is encouraged by captains, admirals and generals. It is a psychological state that passes our upper human and mammalian brain and sinks to the very depths of our lower – reptilian – brain. Yet this state goes beyond the mere base instinct of ‘kill or be killed’, it mixes that most primordial of senses with a most human construct; hate. Soldiers are sent into the fields of battle in a bloodlust, encouraged not to show mercy, but kill, maim and destroy every single one of the enemy until none remain. Soldiers are whipped into a fervour in order to serve the strategic needs of others, and in this fervour they have been known to commit the most depraved, indecent and inhumane acts imaginable. They question not their urge to hate and take pleasure in the slaughter of their fellow man, but merely embrace it. And if they return from the battle, many find themselves left in a state we all post traumatic stress disorder. Milder forms of this disorder, usually known as battle fatigue or shell shock leave the sufferer fatigued, with slower reactions and thoughts, finding it hard to prioritise tasks, exhausted and unable to maintain initiative. It also can cause headaches, backaches, shaking, incontinence, heart palpitations, dizziness, nightmares, irritability, elevated anxiety, depression, substance abuse confusion and even suicidal feelings. This, bear in mind, is merely a lighter, less intense and debilitating version of post traumatic stress disorder, which is a full blown anxiety disorder that develops after exposure to terrifying events that threatened or caused grave physical harm. Sufferers not only experience similar effects to those above, but they find themselves in need of serious medical counselling in order to cope with the emotional and psychological consequences of the body being able to cope. Should soldiers find themselves lucky enough to avoid this state, they may find themselves addicted to the thrill and lawlessness of battle, and while many men and women eventually leave the armed forces of their nation and go on to lead normal lives (though the vast majority admit to frequent nightmares about their experiences), there are many that find themselves so dependent on the structure of military life and the psychological state of battle and training, that they are unable to leave.
But soldiers on the ground are only the pawns of any war effort, they can fight as hard and as valiantly as they want to (and they usually do), but they’re patriotism and determination to win will not grasp victory in any conflict. If there is no sound battle plan put in place, they lose. And when nations lose wars, the effects are devastating. One only needs to look at Germany to understand this, for it is a nation that has come to terms with what it did in the two Great Wars of the 20th century in the very recent years. The generation that was born a decade after the war are the ones finally running the country, and Germany is finally getting over its dark past. The same cannot be said for America, a nation that is still not fully able to get over defeat in Vietnam thirty years ago. When war fails, the damage to a national psyche – especially one such as America’s; built on overwhelming military might – can be massive. People become disillusioned with their Government, their military and most of all, the message and intentions of their country; for how good can democracy be against the red menace when you cannot even defeat tiny little North Vietnam?
Aside from the devastating effect on the populace, defeat in war leads to often grave consequences for anyone allied with the defeated, and the total destruction of the ideology they were fighting for. The dream of National Socialism and Fascism was crushed and has never recovered since World War 2, as was imperialism and colonialism. Communism suffered a crushing blow at the end of the Cold War, though its image was irreparably damaged as a political movement of evil long before then. Partners of the defeated suffer dreadful fates as well, Italy was stigmatised for years about its involvement with Hitler, the Eastern Bloc states fell into practical disrepair after the USSR broke up and only in the last five years have seen any kind of resurgence. Indeed, the price paid for losing a war falls not only on the head of the generals and politicians that lost, but on allies, neighbours and the populace as well.
A population is often most directly affected by a loss in war because they have been conditioned to think, not only are they morally right in what they do, but they are superior to their enemy in every way. Propaganda is one of the most important weapons a government can use in war, it encourages support among the public for the troops and their mission, and also – usually – bolsters the support for the Government itself, as well as allowing it to get away with more than usual (look no further than the Bush Administration and things like FISA and The Patriot Act here). Propaganda also often ensures a usually docile and compliant media, as the men and women involved in the supposedly bi-partisan machine often want to support their government and their nation before putting true journalistic neutrality to the test. The way the American media acted in the march towards the current conflict in the Persian Gulf is a textbook example of this, their eagerness to support their government and better their nation proved to be their undoing. For when the supply of information is so keenly controlled, and the information that the man in the street receives is controlled so very tightly, it is easy to control what people think, want and do, and thus gain support for your war, even if it is not something that is truly necessary for the nation.
Indeed, very few wars are necessary. In the last century there have only been two that the free world has needed to fight; World War I and World War II. These were wars of necessity and wars of protection, conflicts that ensured people would be free, able to live as they wanted and not fear persecution or death for their lifestyles or opinions. In these wars, the unfortunate toll that fighting takes on a soldier was an unfortunate by product. It was not something that shouldn’t be happening, it was something that would happen, because countless free men from Britain, America, France, Russia, China and a myriad of other nations threw themselves into the horror of battle in order to maintain the freedoms that we take for granted. Aside from the two wars though, we see very few that have been waged for truly honourable means. We have seen wars of politics (Vietnam), wars of pre-emption (a word that disguises the true intent of invasion (the current Iraq conflict)), wars of retaliation (the Argentine War) and wars for business (the Suez Canal debacle). These are manufactured skirmishes that serve the needs of a group of people or a government. They are conflicts that rarely operate separate from one another, but all tie into the central philosophy of creating gains for one or a few nations at the unnecessary expense of another.
Which brings us to the great conflict of our time: The War On Terror. The War On Terror is not actually a war at all. It has created wars - mainly because the countries that have been invaded refuse to roll over and submit to their invaders – but it is not, in itself, a war; for how does one fight ‘terror’? No, the War On Terror is a political tool; a finely crafted, cleverly worded disguise that allows a nation to remain at war indefinitely. The genius of the War On Terror is that its success cannot be measured. If the United States had called this global battle “The War on al Qaeda” the world would be able to assess its progress and say whether or not its objectives were being achieved. al Qaeda succeeding? Bad. al Qaeda disintegrating? Good. That would have been the smart thing to call this conflict. The psychopaths in al Qaeda were the ones that claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, so they are the ones that vengeance should be sought upon (though one could hardly have said that the US – through their foreign policies - did nothing provoke such retaliation against them). By calling it the War On Terror, it allows the US Government to wage war on anybody it claims is a terrorist, a definition as vague as any out there, for what constitutes a terrorist? Would it be a true stretch to call a terrorist someone who hates the United States and wouldn’t mind seeing it knocked down a peg or two? With the right propaganda and training, probably not, thus allowing conflicts against anyone that refused to toe the line that the US requires.
This is the true face of war. All war, any war. It is a political tool. The Second World War was started by Nazis with a political agenda, we free nations only fought because we had to. It was a war because we fought back, because we refused to let the forces of intolerance and – dare one say it – evil reign freely and unchecked. The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, The Zulu War, The Napoleonic Wars, all of them became wars instead of conquests because the natives fought back. They fought for their land, their heritage and what they thought was right. Other countries invaded them, seeking to enhance their political clout in the area, get their public to fall into line and give them an easy ride, to increase their economic prospects, fuel their business and create money and new land for them to exploit. Every war since humans began waging it has started this way. All of them. From the wars in ancient history between Egyptians or Kushiites, or between Persians and Greeks, to the conflicts between the Nazis and the Allies or America and Iraq, they have all come to pass because someone at the top of the tree wanted to take something someone else had. It is the true face of war; the ultimate end result of human greed. Unfortunately, it is the one thing that appears we cannot ever solve. Something that we have done since time immemorial, and something we seem destined to continue to do. For all our monetary, social and energy problems, for all the havoc we cause on planet earth, it may be the war that we and we alone create that will finally be the downfall of mankind.
Fixing it is something we will never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
