After 2016 is over I'll probably turn my back on politics for a while, as has been a lifetime trend of mine, feeling that the glimpses of political light that permeated my antipathy towards world affairs throughout my life were enough to point me away in helpless, self-imposed ignorance.
I'm ready to re-assume that position after 2 years of full engagement on my part. I've been sober in every sense of the word, eschewing fun, comedy and mirth in my life in order that I be primed, and of a serious mind, to understand the complexities of geopolitics.
I craved logic, sound, internally consistent arguments; I've read books and consumed media in the same manner as many others have. I've pontificated and tried to pass myself off as someone in possession of the facts. And like many of you who have waded into the murky waters of the body politic, I'm ready to get out, dry off and lay down for a while. I'm exhausted. Who was I kidding? Who was anyone kidding? All this certitude around us. We haven't got a clue.
Thomas Sowell says "politics is the choice between an endless assortment of bad alternatives", so why do I feel so let down? After all, I wanted Brexit and begrudgingly opted for Trump over Hillary as the lesser of two evils. I knew what I was asking for.
There are no heroes in politics, only villains, either awake or dormently waiting to become arseholes.
There are no perfect scenarios where even a majority-backed decision is implemented in such ways it was desired during conception that it could please that same slim majority.
A friend said to me recently..
"Fair enough. I feel the same to be honest. It's tiring work sorting out the bulllshit from the facts. And it's a kind of activity which loses you friends without winning you any new ones."
I'm tired of feeling the shackles of unspoken tribalism in social situations. I'm tired of my own tacit judgement of other people's choices and arguments. I'm tired of trying to convince my mum I haven't gone mad. People can lose their lives to politics, fighting the good fight all to just lose friends and upset those around them.
It's bollocks. So, fuck you politics. Fuck you mainstream media. To a certain extent, fuck you alternative media. I'm taking a break.
Time for some fun.
Here's a video of political pundits talking about 2016 you probably won't watch. It won't do you much good either way.
It's so obvious by now that free speech online is being slowly dismantled piece-by-piece (and sold back to us as somehow 'for our own greater good') that denying it seems self-delusional at this point. The promise of shielding us from awful 'hate speech', harassment' and the 'trolls' of the Internet seems on its face a very desirable option, right?
After all, who wants to hear and read things that are personally offensive or threatening? Well, I do. I like debate. But, for more and more pliable Internet consumers and agenda-driven ideologues, the notion that the Internet can be controlled to weed out the 'undesirables' and purged of all it's ugliness (and complexity) has become the new cause celebre. It seems a small sacrifice for big gains. If only someone would supply this demand.
Just yesterday, the latest multilateral push by a cohort of tech companies to heed consumer unrest was unveiled in the form of 'Hack Harassment'. What is Hack Harassment? Well....
"Hack Harassment is a cooperative initiative among interested companies that want to take a stand against online harassment. While the companies are partners in this initiative, Hack Harassment is not a joint venture or legal partnership. Hack Harassment does not guarantee the world will be free from online harassment, but we hope to bring us all closer to that goal together. If you are interested in joining the initiative, join us to #HackHarassment."
Another white-guilt laden, pro-diversity, anti-free speech, money-burning initiative to promote the virtue of it's architects whilst curtailing the hard-won freedoms of expression intrinsic to Democracy as we know it on the basis of spurious statistics... then.
All you have to do is dig a little deeper to realize that this line of rhetoric is just going to be used to distort the perception of our real best interests again. We all think these people are speaking right at us, caring for us and intuiting our deepest wants and desires. We think government, especially ones found in the freest societies on earth have somehow worked passed the Hobbesian growing pains of old and are now proofed from such vagaries. 'Nineteen Eighty Four' is just a book, right? But, truthfully this is an old bait-and-switch that has surely passed into historical cliché by now, but only to experience a modern resurgence (albeit in another, more modern, form).
We all know and outwardly express the understanding that those in power always want to consolidate their positions any way they can, right? They go too far sometimes. They need shielding from self-interest. Power corrupts (yawn), absolute power etc etc (double-yawn). But, those cliches are there for a reason. We need checks-and-balances and the constitutional division of power as safeguards against naked ambition and corruption, right? These are not radical notions (yet). They are common sense. We have learned our lessons from our History. But, right now, people are sleepwalking blindly into the trap of forgetting them without even the slightest grip of these realities in tow. How are we forgetting these essential tenets?
Think about it: we are living in a post-Snowden/NSA world. A post-Snoopers Charter world. A UN Women anti-online bullying council on so-called 'Cyber Violence' promising 'safe spaces' (if you just hand over the reigns of control to faceless technocratic elites) is the last thing we need. And so is Hack Harassment. Why do we keep buying this bullshit?
These battles are being waged and won/lost right now. They are really scary viewing. And, it's not just that these people are trading off our freedoms in such a Faustian manner, it's also the political impetus that drives them that should worry you.
These journalists omitting truth are eschewing journalistic vigour in the name of serving the agenda passed down from the top of the pyramid. But the biggest way that cultural embedded behaviour is controlled is through the threat of censorship. Be it self-censorship, soft, censorship, corporate censorship, it all trickles down from those in power.
Yes, it is Political Correctness at play. Yes, it is 'Progressive Media' bias. Yes, it is 'narrative over facts' thinking, time and time again. But, not only is it enforced by the threat of career-shortening accusation, but, also, within the context of a society that has allowed big tech companies the room to dictate and control what we are and aren't allowed to say online.
Even Reddit was shadow-banning posts talking about Cologne before the story fully broke through. I mean, this isn't even novel stuff. The whole #GamerGate ordeal of 2014/15 was spurred on by these kinds of top-down controls. Discussion on open platforms is being chipped away by moderators. But, who is pulling their strings?
Mark Zuckerberg was recently found with his hand in the cookie jar in September promising Angela Merkel (on a 'hot mic') he would acquiesce to dealing with 'online racism' and 'xenophobic comments' criticizing her woeful policies in dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis. The Internet was awash with justifiable outrage at her misstep in handling the crises. Yet, the German version of Facebook was ready and willing to scrub any dissenting opinion found on their platform from History. The higher purpose reasoning and use of thought-terminating buzz-words was on full display:
“We are committed to working closely with the German government on this important issue,”Facebook spokeswoman Debbie Frost told Bloomberg.“We think the best solutions to dealing with people who make racist and xenophobic comments can be found when service providers, government and civil society all work together to address this common challenge.”
"Merkel previously pointed to Zuckerberg's firm in relation to the tension and violence.
She told the Rheinische Post earlier this month, 'When people stir up sedition on social networks using their real name, it's not only the state that has to act, but also Facebook as a company should do something against these paroles'."
This isn't 'nothing'. This is a big 'something'. This is the CEO of Facebook undermining free speech with a direct link to political coercion as its basis. You want a smoking gun? Well, this is it.
This seemingly innocuous exchange may seem like small fry. But, given the context it is huge.
You want the Internet to be like shopping in Waitrose don't you? Breezy aisles? No riff-raff? Polite company? There for your convenience alone? Everything is 'good for you' and helps save the environment (to borrow South Parks analogy with Whole Foods)?
Well, congratulations! The most powerful tool against tyranny (and the power to question it) has been entirely sterilized to suit the constrictive preferences of a private agenda. The Internet isn't Marks And Sparks. It isn't Disney Land. It's where ideas live and die. It's the Wild West, as Mister Metokur (formerly Internet Aristocrat) would say. And, it's why we like it. It's why it's the best thing for our Liberal Democracies health.
But, who really controls it? Well, if you can't speak freely, do you think it's you? "But, what if they only take away the speech I have no use for?" "As long as it's someone else's speech, who cares, right?" - Wrong! By pandering to the lowest common denominator of subjective offence, you give government a blank check to include almost anything it subjectively, self-servingly regards as 'transgressive' or from outside the boundaries of legalised speech. You make them unaccountable for their actions by removing every avenue in which to complain or feedback opinion countervailing their wrongdoing.
Ceding all your own autonomy to decide for yourself what does and doesn't constitute 'harassment', 'racism' or even what is best for you, to the entangled self-interests of social media corporations like Google, Apple and Microsoft and government committees in cahoots is tantamount to mass seppuku. But, that's happening. People don't seem to care as long as they have their 'safe space'. This isn't just a metaphor for conformity. It is conformity.
Twitter is censoring. Facebook is censoring. Right now! They may be views you don't agree with. They may be ones you do. But, Voltaire and his philosophies on this issue are not just quotes in memes or RT's any more - they are foundational pillars of our basic freedom. They are in our Democratic DNA. We'd do well to remind ourselves and others just what we lose in prostrating to big companies auctioning convenience for our freedom.
'Hack Harassment' is just the latest one. Whether they know it or not.
So, I read this in a few sittings over Christmas and thoroughly enjoyed it. If you are not familiar with Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz, getting acquainted via this small tome wouldn't hurt you in the long run.
Proof that dialectics can move entrenched sides forward if both sides are willing to put aside transient differences and focus on common desires and goals, this book is all about getting smarter and better informed. The robust, yet conversational style of questions, rebuttal and raising acquisition of knowledge (especially for non-Muslims) above all other concerns is appealingly effective on the page. Uniquely, placing the more Western reader in the vicarious hands of Sam Harris, playing a kind of curious intellectual seeking a deeper understanding of 'Political Islam' (whilst also interjecting and flagging up any concerns to his teacher - Maajid Nawaz), the book rides along with a sense of being in safe hands. Yet, Sam is not backwards about coming forwards and doesn't let anything pass him by unchecked. Interestingly, I expected Sam might overwhelm Maajid, being that I already have a healthy respect for his work. Yet, one thing that quickly becomes apparent is how much Maajid is Sams intellectual equivalent. This is crucial, of course. Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are clearly adept writers and communicators, which only serves to spur the depth to which the mutual knowledge can be gleaned from reading this. Most usefully, the distinctions between 'Cultural Muslims', 'Conservative Muslims', 'Jihadis' and 'Revolutionary Islamists' left even Sam feeling rewarded for his association in talking to Maajid. Maajid clearly knows his stuff. Although some cultural differences are seemingly insurmountable before reading this book, often framed, polarisingly in the phrase, 'The Clash Of Civilizations', this book explains from a very academic, political and cultural angle, possible pathways in to which there is room to expand and reform Islam to fit within a Pluralistic, Liberal Democracy. This isn't to say, after reading this that I'm suddenly relaxed about criticising Islam as an umbrella or set of of precepts and ideas. Some texts in the Quran and Hadith are easily abused by competing agendas as examples of either confirming the 'bronze age barbarism',or, used as incitement to recruit by both critics and Islamist extremist groups alike (simultaneously ignoring the more moderate interpretations), yet other verses are still left objectively and intrinsically in need of reform beyond semantic departures from literalism. These pathways to reform soon reveal a pattern though, that, Islam cannot be solely reformed from within. Sam says: *"The doors leading out of the prison of scriptural literalism simply do not open from the inside".* This quote, perhaps, stood out the most indelibly than any other I read in this book. It's well crafted, sure, but it highlights how reformation of Islam cannot be magicked, or gerrymandered out of the raw material in scripture. The scripture is too prescriptive, descriptive and inflexible that, for instance, one could not fashion a whole new, more Liberal religion out of it that somehow allowed the consumption of pork or alcohol, for instance. No amount of internal reshuffling could overcome the mountain of work that is needed to precipitate Islam's own 'Reformation Of The Church', short of an equivalent 'New Testament', one has to imagine. So, if Islam is to become more complimentary to Liberal Democracy, it has to receive our culture and contradict its own to some greater or lesser extent. It also hints at how little many political commentators in the West actually know of Islam, in all it's myriad permutations, complexity and historical evolution. I myself, though a self-confessed theological novice, suddenly feel (re) struck by the total lack of nuance the MSM proliferates in talking about Islam. It seems to repeat the mantra 'Islam is a religion of peace' without any real depth of substance behind it, repeating it no matter what horror is on the current agenda. As a native UK resident and European, a lot of careful and considered decisions need to be made around certain 'hot button topics' over the next few years. The state of our nation, so to speak, the EU and immigration as a bargaining chip with which to sway our membership in said EU, whether to opt out in a Brexit, (the possible eventual collapse of the EU) are all high on that list. Most of all, how much do we think unfettered cultural change will be tolerated by ourselves as receiving hosts,or, by arriving Islam, ghettoised in huge blocks of diaspora and unable (or unwilling) to integrate into the parent culture? The rise of the Right-Wing in Europe is coming. Any sober projection of the coming decades leaves me worrying how much I myself will be forced to defend my culture and values by the mismanagement of our governing institutions holding us to ransom over our perceived 'racism' and 'bigotry' in the name of 'multiculturalism'. This book definitely grants a feeling of being better equipped and has sparked an urge in myself to learn more about Islam. The 'Future Of Tolerance' as a hopeful concept doesn't look great though, if I'm honest. Maybe, that's cause to read more of Maajid Nawaz. Anyway, it's a short and enlightening read. One I fully recommend. Go get it.
My mother is of similar age to Camille Paglia. She once remarked to a Feminist (who was acting as key worker to her autistic son), "I don't need Feminism. Women have already won". The Feminist looked ashamed. And, rightly so. Her failure to wield her femininity was her own and not the fault of the world, as Feminism would like to reassuringly have her believe. She wasn't a blameless, objectified, agency-less victim. She was complicit in believing the lies her Feminist overseers would have her believe. And, if she couldn't make 'Patriarchy work for her', it wasn't a grand biological conspiracy, it was self-delusion.
Female power is so subtle and pervasive, we look past it, as the old saying goes, 'You can't see the wood for the trees'. It doesn't need to brag and boast like male power, so, we think it doesn't exist. In truth, it's the air we breath. But, like marionettes, men are manipulated by the barely visible strings of female dominance. and, of course, to those who know how to harness it, women hold all the power right between their legs, in their capacity to bring or end life. The honey pot, as Nicki Minaj calls it.
Camille get's it! My mum get's it. And, as Camille rightly points out in an excellent Spiked Online interview, most women get it - because, it benefits them to do so. Most women don't want Feminism.
So, it happened again. Another invited guest speaker to a campus near you was 'disinvited' at the whim of an over sensitive kill-joy hidden somewhere in the seditious halls of a university this week, to the shock and awe of less people than the last time. It really is getting all too familiar.
Julie Bindel, an outspoken, some-say, inflammatory Feminist was 'no-platformed' from speaking at University of Manchester Student Union, due to her views on Transgenderism. The fact that a talk titled “From Liberation to Censorship: does Modern Feminism have a Problem with Free Speech?” could lead itself to quite a rich assortment of irony is not entirely lost on me.
What were these people thinking? Did they think they were the punchline to a bad joke?
But, to add insult to insult, the same unnamed group of malfeasant revolutionaries (I use that term loosely here) that blocked Julie have turned their cross-hairs to another speaker due to be at the same event: Milo Yiannopoulos.
This would not have been surprising had he been the first head to roll, given his right-of-centre politics, irreverent humour and all around dissonance with the Social Justice movement. But, trying to guess the actions of a mind-set that sees things to dissect and pathologise in the most mundane of things would give you very uneasy odds that Julie Bindel would come in first in that particular race. I don't bet, but, don't bet on which turn these people will take next. They eat their own. And they eat indiscriminate of political ideology, so it seems.
It's astonishing that the 'Free Speech Movement', born on a Berkeley, California campus in the 60's, that included cross-partisan support (Rep/Dem) pushing for civil rights and an extension of our right to vocalise criticisms towards social and political establishments of the day, is now being spiritually and literally cast aside in the name of so-called 'Progressivism'.
The political 'Left' won the culture wars in the 20th Century through student activist sacrifice, on campuses just like Manchester's, via the application of 'Free Speech'. The 'student movement' was built upon the foundation of being able to 'speak truth to power' FFS.
So it grates me hard to see now, campuses everywhere in the English speaking world, especially, are eroding this liberty at the edges to silence 'wrong think', to destroy debate and to coddle themselves in the warm blankets of an elitist echo chamber. Fuck this shit! I stand with Julie, Milo, Bahar Mustafa and anyone else who is given the 'Disinvitation' treatment or out-right censored, just to preserve the obscure vanities of a small group of child-like, pampered little babies.
How is it fair that a screeching minority get to dictate the buffet options at the market place of ideas with mere nit-picking and pedantic umbrage taking? How is it okay that lives are re-arranged into fantasies dreamed up between the wet-ears of coward-like invertebrates on Social Studies degrees?
Social Justice Warriors have learned that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. That's how. And in the age of outrage, the currency for gaining favour is to uncover every rock, stone or debris for any last remaining remnants of gold the civil rights movement of the 60's may have left behind.
A generation without a war, if ever there was one.
Here is a link to an online petition to reinstate Milo Yiannopoulos which is also a hyperlink to Julie Bindel's one too.
Twenty one years ago
the world and myself watched in paralysed awe as the body of 27
year-old rock star Kurt Cobain was wheeled into an ambulance on
national news media. Seemingly dead from self-termination, the victim
of a self-inflicted gun shot wound, Kurt Cobain was the cliché to
end all clichés - Dead at 27, inducted into the heroin and
drug-abuse laden halls of rock star fatality and placed upon a
pedestal as the 'voice of a generation' forever. We all know the
story by now. Fans held public eulogies, the media went into
overdrive and the mythology of a tortured rock star 'overwhelmed by
fame and depression' was solidified forever. Or so we thought.
Books, documentaries
and films were made in the aftermath of the devastation, all prying
and probing to fill collumn inches and find answers to the private motivations and
meditations of this enigmatic genius, chief among them Nick
Bloomfields fascinating and revealing documentary 'Kurt and Courtney (1998) that showed a man by the name of El Duce claiming to have been offered $50,000 to murder Kurt Cobain (which almost single-handedly
created the 'Courtney killed Kurt' sub-culture found on the Internet
to this day). And though those that proselytize 'foul play' have been
hand waved away as 'conspiracy nuts' by the mainstream media ever
since, a new film has emerged that may change their tune.
The docudrama film 'Soaked In Bleach' was released two weeks ago in a bid to
shed new light and add urgency to the ongoing debate over the, some say,
shady circumstances of Kurt Cobains death.The film attempts to showcase new
evidence and testimonials from 'police chiefs' and 'forensic
pathologists' giving growing credence to the, once thought of, 'tin
foil hat', obsessive fan speculations on Courtney Love, and her
possible involvement in his death.
You may be asking these
questions about now...
“But, isn't this just
the latest in a long line of cynical, rehashed Kurt Cobain cash-in movies trying to milk the last remnants of milk from a dying media 'cash
cow' ?”
“Is this defamation
by a vocal, fanatical minority looking for someone to blame after a
tragedy?”
“Why do I even give a
fuck about a dead, self-loathing beta man and his gorgon-esque junkie
wife?”
Or, as I would tempt you...
..is it a genuine and
thought provoking documentary, spurred by the unrelenting vigilance
of a private investigators obsession with justice, buoyed by the surprisingly overwhelming body of
evidence that he found which cannot help but cast real doubt over the official account?
After watching this revealing film, it's pretty damn hard to refute.
Well, let's just say
this - Courtney feels moved enough - nay, threatened enough - to have
issued a cease and desist order to every theatre attempting to show
this film, no doubt in an effort to intimidate and silence this
narrative from re-emerging in the media.
Evidence of a guilty
conscience? Let's see.
The film has some
pretty good game to back up it's claims and most of those claims are
centered around the work of one Tom Grant, a former county sheriff
turned PI (Private Investigator) hired by Courtney Love, in the
preceding days leading up to Kurts death to track him down and expose
his whereabouts (after Kurt fled a rehab facility and went off the
radar). Only things didn't pan out how he expected a typical
track-down to pan out.
Tom Grant, as he appears in 'Soaked In Bleach'.
Sent on a trail of
misdirection and incongruous, sometimes bizarre red herrings, Tom
soon realised that Courtney was not being quite as open and honest as a
wife looking for her 'suicidal' husband might be. It seemed like he
was deliberately being sent on a wild goose chase, to locations
counter-intuitive to logic, and in his vacillation decided to
document every single minute of conversation he had with Courtney,
over the phone, to tape. Those conversations are the backbone of the
film, with talking heads, dramatisation, hired actors and actresses
to flesh out those telephone liaisons and private meetings for the
viewer. It has to be said, the direction, acting and cinematography
really hold this film together as a compelling piece of cinema in its
own right.
The film soon delves
deep into the twisted, seedy noir-esque minutiae of the case from the
outset, tying together the complexities and inconsistencies (and
there are a lot) of the crime scene, the accounts of Seattle Police
Department members and the chronology of events leading up to the
bodies discovery by an electrician on 8th April 1994, and
after.
It also challenges the
media disseminated perception of Kurt’s mental state and
psychological profile, as a manic depressive man-child, walking
around in a perpetual state of self-loathing, a general malaise
brought about by chronic stomach ailments and constantly balancing on
the verge of suicide.
Childhood friends
testimonial, close friends who knew him best at the time, interviews
from TV archives showing Kurt express how happy he was with his new
medication (to quell his stomach pain) and his recent fatherhood, all
contradict this media generated tragic personae. It even goes deep
enough to question myths surrounding the, oft repeated, Cobain
familial history of suicide (Courtney called the 'suicide gene') in
bolstering this claim of a man tied to a biological pre-destiny to
kill himself.
It turns out his three
uncles that died were better candidates for the Darwin Awards, dying
from drunken mishaps and freak accidents involving dropping a loaded
gun in a public bar rather than being the victims of a natural
proclivity to end their own lives (unless you count a combination of
stupidity and bad luck as being pre-determining factors). But, none the less, Courtney perpetuated this myth in interviews ceaselessly in
interviews following the tragedy.
Here are 10 questions I'd like answered after watching this film:
1) Was she involved in some way?
2) Did she hire someone to kill her husband and stage it as suicide?
3) Did she have motive in killing Kurt due to his filing for divorce (which, due to a less than favourable pre-nuptial, would have cost Courtney potential millions)?
4) Why were there no legible fingerprints on the weapon and why did it take 4 weeks for the murder weapons prints to come back and be examined?
5) How could he have lifted the shotgun when toxicology says he was 3-4 times over the overdose limit of a hardened heroin user (and therefore would have been too incapacitated to pull the trigger)?
6) Why was the verdict of 'suicide' given on the day of discovery (only 54 minutes after they found him)?
8) Does it even read like a suicide note or was he just quitting the music business for a while, as supporting accounts suggest?
9) Why did she consistently send Tom Grant in the opposite direction to Kurt, conceal information, lie and fail to mention the room above the garage during the search to find him?
10) Why is the case not being re-opened with an independent enquiry in place of and in light of possible police corruption?
The questions this case offers are ceaseless and the circumstantial evidence seems to never end. So much so, that, it all feels like the makings of a sensational true 'Hollywood Murder Mystery' (add more drugs and less glamour) spliced with the tailor made headlines of The National Inquirer and mixed in with the 'Cluster-B' character profiles and deception of 'Gone Girl'. You couldn't make it up if you were Elmore Leonard. And though there is no direct evidence to implicate anyone in a conspiracy, the official, lacklustre account of what transpired in April 1994 has lead enough people to draw other, more nefarious conclusions about what transpired.
You've probably guessed by now, it's a really deep complicated rabbit hole of artefacts to smoosh into one post. All I can say is, go watch the film, go to Tom Grants website or read Tom Grants PDF 138 page case file. Ultimately, decide for yourself.
It's up to you how crazy you are for detail, but if the growing number of people on social media are availed for their efforts, the Seattle Police Department will be pushed to re-opening this case a third time (or ceded by an independent enquiry) and, eventually, get their day in court.
