The Sheople (from a speech by David Icke)

The four-letter word that controls the world is....FEAR.

All over the world, millions of sheep are herded every day with virtually no physical contact, using fear. People, on the other hand, don't need to be herded. They have out-sheeped the sheep by policing each other.

Most people around the world are ruled/controlled every day by 2 guiding principles, that of the safety of following all the others and not being different (this generally manifests in school when they are laughed at by the others if they do something 'individual') and the fear of 'what other people will think'. Therefore, he who sets the norms in society, what is considered right and wrong, moral and immoral, possible and impossible, sane and insane, as well as who is knowledgeable based on mainstream qualifications, sets a mental and emotional human sheep pen which the vast majority of people will live in because they are not thinking for themselves but being controlled by the 2 guiding principles. Even those who tend not to follow the first principle and have the tendency to think against the norm will more than likely be hamstrung by the fear principle. If a person gets to the edge of the hassle-free, comfort zones that are enjoyed by the vast majority, they know they will be met by condemnation and ridicule (2 sides of the same coin, just as comedy and tragedy are only slightly separated) for the crime -and that's what it's become- of being different. What is the source of that shall i/shan't i fear? It's not fear of what people in apparent positions of power will do, (as of now, you can't get arrested for thinking differently!). What's going through the minds of people thinking 'shall i be me or shall i be someone else's version of what i should be'? It's 'if i do, what will my family say? What will the neighbours say? What will the people at work say? What will my friends say? Oh my god!' Basically, the people who frighten others into conforming are the ones who are already conforming, giving their minds and their lives away to society's version of what they should be. At the point where the conformers INSIST that everyone else follows the established norms, where the human race are both the sheep and the sheepdogs, it's possible for a small number of people to control billions.

When the herd mentality is established, it's then broken up into warring factions. To do this, you create organisations and belief systems that can be played off against each other, such as religions, political parties and economic systems. Next, you get people to fight other, creating a herd mentality at war with itself. While we're abusing each other, shouting at each other and blaming each other, the few pull the strings of all sides. We never stop, find an area of peace and say to each other that we're very similar. It's always our differences that are highlighted, every day in our apparently ordinary lives, especially if we make ourselves susceptible to advertising and worship of celebrities with more money than us, nicer clothes and all those surface advantages. We start to feel weak through difference rather than strong through similarities. 

The 33rd level of Freemasonry has a motto, 'order out of chaos'. The chaos must be created because people in harmony and unity can't be manipulated. The hassle-free zone is so narrow and limited that it's too small to have opposites. Therefore, oppo-sames are created, with the same state of being but a different name on the door, that appear as opposites. For example, in WWII, the poster boy for far-far-far left politics was Joseph Stalin, who believed in and implemented centralised control, military dictatorships and concentration camps. On the other hand, the poster boy for far-far-far right politics, Adolf Hitler, believed in and implemented.......centralised control, military dictatorships and concentration camps! Is there really a difference between a zealous Muslim imposing his beliefs on his children to the exclusion of other possibilities and a Jew, Christian etc....doing the same? It is because these oppo-sames are so well-disguised, through a daily diet of often-subtle reminders, a stealthy gradual bombardment, that anyone who challenges them is jumped upon so fiercely. As life becomes harder and harder and faster and faster, who's got the time, energy and inclination to step out of their comfort zone for more than a short time, especially when there's easy pleasure and entertainment everywhere, like soap-operas, reality t.v and football?

Hopper (A Bug's Life), when asked why the relatively small band of all-powerful grasshoppers, who have more than enough food to feed themselves in the Winter, need to go back to Ant Island every year to take all the food from the millions of tiny ants who live on the island and spend all year, every year gathering this food, replied:

'One ant stood up to us. If you let one ant stand up to us then they all might stand up to us. Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back.'

This basically explains why rich and powerful people with multiple homes and businesses and enough money for a thousand lifetimes go on gathering more.

We are consciousness, all that is, has been and ever will be. There is nothing to fear because we'll always be just that. The mind fears because it's programmed to fear. We need to step out of that fear not by fighting but by letting go, by non-complying in it. We are holding the pyramid together and we as a race can stop it anytime.

The Rather Strange Last Day In The Life of John Lennon

First, the facts as they are known

John Lennon was born in 1940 and died in 1980, 2 months after his 40th birthday. It's fair to say that he packed a lot of living into his half-a-lifetime, and it's also universally acknowledged that his death in New York on Monday December 8th 1980 came as a huge shock worldwide, prompting a mass outpouring of grief which seemed to be particularly strong in America, more so than in England, the place of Lennon's birth. Inevitably, there have been rumours about whether it really was a 'lone assassin', as seems to be so often the case in high-profile American murder cases, or another hand, but it's fair to say that Lennon and Yoko Ono almost certainly didn't know that anything out of the ordinary was going to happen on that day.

What's also strange about that day is that it seemed to play out as both a microcosm of and epilogue to Lennon's life, as will be seen. It might be expected that on an otherwise ordinary day in the life of a rock superstar, the star himself would not be particularly visible, and we probably wouldn't have photos of him, audio of his voice or a picture of him signing an autograph for a fan, but we have all three and more. Lennon's movements on that day, up to the moment of truth, are now well-known . He started the day with coffee at La Fortuna, a favourite local cafe of his, and the events of the rest of the day make quite eerie reading in retrospect.

The haircut

Fairly innocuous in itself, but Lennon happened to choose this day to have a throwback 50's-style, faux Teddy Boy haircut, as well as wearing a leather jacket throughout the day. The 50's were his years of teenage development, the seminal period of his life, and his love for Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and the rest were some of the main reasons why ultimately The Beatles happened. He had recently taken to wearing his old school tie, and had recorded his comeback single, (Just Like) Starting Over, in a vocal style that he called 'Elvis-Orbison'.

The photoshoot

In the late morning, John and Yoko did a photo session with well-known New York photographer Annie Liebowitz. Easily the most famous shot to emerge from this session was one of a fully-naked John Lennon in a foetal embrace with a fully-clad Yoko Ono. 'That's it!, that's our relationship' said Lennon after the photo had been posed for. 

http://www.jodijonesstudio.com/a-young-annie-leibovitz-shares-her-lighting-technique#.Ur4h6ygnw20

The idea of being a naked 'artist', both literally, artistically and spiritually, had been perhaps the second great theme of his life and work, after rock'n'roll. In the mid-60's, after the thrill of Beatles fame had long since become more of an empty irritation than a glorious thrill, he had gone into a drug-addled period of seclusion, broken only by Beatle commitments, before he started a relationship with Yoko who, like her or hate her, did seem to bring him back to life. From then to the end of his life, he considered himself an artist, open to ideas and willing to lay himself bare, literally or otherwise, before his audience. He had of course been pictured naked before, with Yoko in a similar state, for the cover of their barely-listenable 'concept art' album, 'Two Virgins'. At that time, the picture seemed to be of two people reduced to a child-like state of innocence in the glow of their new love, but 12 years later, with Lennon alone in the virginal state and having dubbed Yoko 'mother' some years back, the balance of power in their relationship seemed clear.

The interview

Between 1-4pm on December 8th 1980, Dave Sholin became the recipient of John Lennon's final interview, held in one of the vast rooms of John and Yoko's many apartments in the Gothic Dakota building, located at West 72nd Street, New York, and formerly the setting for the film 'Rosemary's Baby', made in 1968 by Roman Polanski. One year after the film, Polanski's pregnant wife Sharon Tate was butchered by the Manson family, who wrote in Tate's blood near her body, 'Helter Skelter', the name of a Beatles song from their most-recent album. Lennon was late getting back for the interview, apologising and announcing that Annie Liebowitz had wanted 'one more shot' before he was free to leave. Yoko had taken the floor before his arrival.

In the 3-hour Sholin interview, John Lennon, with literally hours to live, ran through a potted history of his whole life, from his troubled family history to the famous meetings with Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono to his hopes for the future of himself and mankind. Towards the end of the interview, John Lennon announced that 'i always consider my work to be one piece, and it won't be finished until i'm dead and buried and i hope that's a long, long time'. Lennon seemed upbeat to all who knew him at this time, while others believe he was actually clinically depressed and addicted to very potent pharmaceuticals. His excessively thin frame was either the result of a healthy diet or heroin. At this very moment in time, a 25-year-old from Georgia, now based in Hawaii, a world away from the superstar John Lennon in terms of status and the love of others, was very close to him, standing outside the Dakota apartment chatting to other fans as well as an amateur photographer of Lennon's acquaintance called Paul Goresh. Mark David Chapman, by his own admission, was holding a gun in his pocket in the crisp December air, waiting for one of the voices in his head, God or Satan, to step forward and help determine the course of his actions and his and Lennon's destinies, just as Lennon spoke those last words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bretv0uRTs (john appears at around 3m30 of part 4)

The autograph

At around 5pm, Lennon's and Chapman's worlds collided for the first time. John Ono Lennon, world superstar and cultural icon, a man prone to depression and mood swings, stepped out of the Dakota apartments with his wife on his way to a recording studio. Mark David Chapman, a nobody who'd previously attempted suicide and was a man prone to depression and mood swings, stood outside the same building. Suddenly, out of nowhere, there he was, the superstar, the icon, and Chapman froze. His first instinct was not to draw his gun. He simply froze, like any awed fan face-to-face with John Lennon. He'd bought Lennon's latest album, Double Fantasy, the day before, and as Lennon approached, he wordlessly thrust the album in front of him. Lennon dutifully signed the album 'John Lennon 1980'. Amateur photographer Goresh, an opportunist who had once posed as a delivery man in order to get into the Dakota, saw his opportunity and snapped the final pictures of John Lennon alive, signing an autograph for the man who would soon end his life. In the picture (below), Chapman's smile/smirk could be equally interpreted as a devilish appreciation of what was to happen later or simply that of a fan, his demons temporarily set aside, happy to get his album signed by the man himself. One source has stated that Chapman asked Lennon for a job during their encounter, but this is unverified. It's also been written that after giving the autograph, Lennon asked Chapman, 'is that all you want?' , and some even go further and have Lennon asking him a second time and there being a moment suspended in time, as if Lennon had some mystical (or at least vibrational) awareness of something 'fated'. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixywWyAhMCXEVU66TiVc1LWhmbfTNpSuE2T4rYvYcAPiJsV3e5n-i7w5OqDu_DNhrfzCg6kh8k7Wvz0Xoto77G1lHNGwKM61waRMhmMX6qCvdbAGzJyovtvaMBtD0Mr-00ks6-UxWqvThj/s1600/john-lennon-mark-chapman.jpg

The recording session

John Lennon went to the Hit Factory to record guitar on Yoko Ono's 'Walking On Thin Ice', his final contribution to the music business. It's never been confirmed whether his comment at the beginning of this version of the song was spoken on this particular night but it seems likely that it was said towards the end of the session, in the last hourof John Lennon's life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAh5x5x2hQY

Chapman waited with Goresh, who eventually left for the night. Many hours later, at 10.50pm, Chapman saw Lennon's limousine approach from the distance and park by the kerb outside the Dakota. Yoko got out first, quite a way ahead of John and passed Chapman. Lennon passed him next and may or may not have acknowledged him, and at this point Chapman fired the shots heard around the world. Lennon's painfully thin frame was no match for the hollow-point bullets of the .38 Charter Arms pistol, which ripped through him and sealed his fate. He had enough left to moan 'i'm shot' but was D.O.A. at nearby Roosevelt Hospital 20 minutes later. As if the day couldn't get any stranger, Chapman, upon shooting the star, simply put the smoking gun down by his feet and started reading 'The Catcher In The Rye' by J.D. Salinger, a book he had become seemingly obsessed with over the previous 2 years. 

So John Lennon, sporting his vintage rock'n'roll haircut and leather jacket, having given the world a final set of pictures and a retrospective interview encompassing most of his life story, and signed an autograph for the worst kind of fan, was gone.

As a final expression of how media-dominated the world had become even then, there was one more John Lennon photo taken that day before his cremation (caution-grisly)

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/l/John%20Lennon/lennon.jpg

The world chose to remember him as a saint, something that Astrid Kirchherr, who'd befriended the young Beatles in Hamburg, thought he would have found quite amusing. 

Chapman has now served 30 years in Attica Prison, mostly in solitary confinement. Such is the nature of his crime and the person he killed, he will probably never be released. Is this right, when others have done similar things to nobodies and served far less time? It is thought that if he was released, one of those misguided Beatles fans, young or old, who really thinks that John Lennon wrote songs for them and them alone, might earn themselves a life sentence for an act of retribution. It should be remembered that in the end, however gifted, John Lennon was just a man, all too human, so perhaps this is above all a story of the power of celebrity.

Postscript

As if the story needed any more bizarre twists, how about this recollection from a rock journalist interviewing David Bowie recently.

'I’ve been rattled more than once by a revelation from a musician for which there had been no previous report , but none more sobering than the one David Bowie gave me when the recording machine was turned off : according to Bowie , New York City police discovered that his name was second on a hitlist of targets of John Lennon’s assassin , Mark David Chapman .

At the time of Lennon’s December 8 , 1980 murder outside of his Manhattan apartment , David Bowie was starring just blocks away on Broadway in the play “The Elephant Man” . “I was second on his list,” Bowie told me in the New York studio we shared near Madison Square Garden . “Chapman had a front-row ticket to ‘The Elephant Man’ the next night . John and Yoko were supposed to sit front-row for that show, too. So the night after John was killed there were three empty seats in the front row . I can’t tell you how difficult that was to go on . I almost didn’t make it through the performance .”

The irony is that David Bowie’s first #1 hit “Fame” , from the Young Americans album , was co-written with Lennon who also played guitar on the track  . And it was indeed their fame as rock stars which drew Mark David Chapman to stalk them, and subsequently, to murder Lennon.'

Song Analysis - 'All In All' by Antony Rotunno

Just across the bridge is the alimony hearing,

A child of 10 attacked in a small deserted clearing,

Her mother's being cushioned from the blow by a man of 20 years

-while the adults are engaged in the formalities relating to a broken marriage, a young child falls victim to a predator. the victim's mother attempts to find solace in the attentions of a much younger man

Sister she stood by and she watched it all happening,

She is sitting next to an old army captain

He is lying face-down wondering what happened to all those years

-the implication is perhaps that of a sibling rivalry that prevents the older sister from helping the victim. the ex-army man metaphorically lies 'face-down', his former power reduced to impotence and wistful thoughts of former glories

The community is woken by a tall, dark accident

He wonders if there's anyone who saw the whole incident

But what he doesn't know is that his phone is being tapped right under his nose

And while it's all been going on, he's been unaware

-an inspector arrives who is physically impressive but hopelessly gullible and perhaps 'an accident' of birth?

And all in all, they play their part

-when it comes down to it, they (we) are all playing our roles and only a special few ever contemplate stepping out of character and into something real

While deceit is happening, the priest is still talking

Mother's got her toyboy but they're only still courting

While the girl is staying home and wondering whether life is worth it anymore

-the adults congregate in the local church to say their prayers and take confession while the young victim is alone considering her future and perhaps she has been left

And while the characters they play their roles to perfection

The reality is different if you look at their reflection

You'll see they've got 2 faces and the girl, she has none

And all in all, they play their part

-one imagines that mirrors would reveal inconvenient truths to the characters in this tale, and which of their faces would they see? the victim is ashamed and hidden

Well, i'm standing at the back with a camera in my hand

And all the people they are posing, putting life in my own hands

But whether they know what they're doing

If they're keeping what they're keeping to themselves

-the singer/narrator is at the back of the church collecting character studies with his chosen creative device. perhaps the pictures will answer the central question.

songlink - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eyzc2xOow

Emails re: 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays and other topics

The following are some of my email responses to episodes of the excellent podcast 'Smells Like Human Spirit', produced by a lecturer and former professional sportsman from Wales, now based in New York, called Guy Evans. 

http://smellslikehumanspirit.com/

In particular, I have given considerable feedback regarding Guy's series profiling the 1928 book 'Propaganda', written by Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays. Bernays is in my opinion one of the most significant figures of the 20th century when you consider his role as 'the father of public relations' (i.e. the father of propaganda) and hence his ability to influence the thoughts and actions of millions of people. To give a couple of small examples, the main reason why women smoke far more than in the past and many people consider bacon and eggs to be a breakfast staple is the work of Bernays. 

is war inevitable?

As things stand now, war is inevitable. But, if there is somehow a dramatic shift in public awareness then this could change. I really believe that Iran would have already been invaded if there hadn't been a feeling amongst the big boys that the public outcry might have finally tipped this issue over the edge. If there is an invasion, particularly if it follows a 'terrorist attack' and the usual propaganda, the public at large may all suddenly 'get it' (the truth, that is) and a real sustained outcry may ensue.

on propaganda

-The key to analysing 'Propaganda' is linking it to today, in this case the Blair and Alistair Campbell clips, because it shows people that even in seemingly primitive days, which the 1920s certainly seem like compared to now, there was sophisticated engineering of the masses going on. I hope that some of your listeners are coming from a naive standpoint because they are the ones who will learn what most of us have discovered, namely that we are being fed an entire view of the world dressed up as our 'free will' in the 'free world' and that there is a huge operation, dare i call it a conspiracy, (another word heavily propagandised), designed to progressively shape this as time goes on. It's getting very obvious now in my opinion but most still don't see it. I also liken it to putting on a play for an audience who see what's shown to them but never see, or probably even think about, the multiple shenanigans of drama happening backstage. The play 'Noises Off' is a good example of this. 

-Another good episode and well-linked to the present again with the scrutinising of Obama's smooth but ultimately shallow rhetoric. I found it interesting that Graham Wallace, co-founder of the L.S.E., talked and wrote many years ago about 'an unending stream of information and stimuli to prevent people being able to grasp reality', something which has undoubtedly been accelerated in recent times. Making the presumption that inventions are not simply allowed to pass automatically into the public domain but are vetted in some way by the people who run society, is this perhaps revealing the true purpose, or one of them, of the Internet?? The 'bewildered herd', as Walter Lippman called them, now have an incredible wealth of information with which to fry their brains and prevent critical thought rather than encourage it. If this sounds cynical, consider that statistics regarding Internet use appear to show that 4 or 5 websites -you can probably guess which ones- represent a significant proportion of overall Internet traffic, and it's fair to say from experience that the majority of information shared via the Web is largely inane and inconsequential. Regarding consumerism, one interesting development is that like alcohol there seems to be a natural tendency to turn to it both for celebration and commiseration, i.e every time that the natural ups and downs of life occur. Finally, one of the biggest barriers to trying to discuss the group mind with adults is that they generally don't want to be told or to consider that they are malleable and not quite in control of their actions, so there is an element of pride at stake too. 

-Some more thoughts on 'Propaganda'

Another great podcast, the best so far i think, and you got the mix of Bernais quotes and other material just right. Following on from my comments and your response last week, this theme of realising and admitting that we've been duped seems to be the key to global enlightenment and quite a test of character at the same time. I think the simple tagging of the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' on anyone with non-mainstream views is one of the defence mechanisms you mentioned last time. This particular labelling has been thoroughly debunked by 2 presentations in particular: James Corbett's podcast 'The C Word' and Ian R Crane's presentation entitled 'Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics'. The latter was part of a 'Conspiracy Theory Conference' which inexplicably presented a host of academics all explaining to us why in psychological terms certain people seem to like and pursue conspiracies while omitting one possible reason like....hmmm....they've uncovered lots of clear evidence in the public domain and put two and two together. I highly recommend people watch this and show it to anyone calling them the C Word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Efkhd-XF4 (the C word)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mpGY7aR1oo (Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics

Another thing that came to mind while listening to the podcast was a quote that i picked up from a speech given by Australia's doyen of journalistic integrity, John  Pilger. Pilger quotes a journalist living in Communist Russia who came to the West for a few days and exclaimed (paraphrasing) 'It's amazing. In Russia they have to point a gun at people to get them to do what they want, but here your people do it willingly'. What a fitting tribute to the esteemed Mr Bernais!!

-So much to say about another great podcast but i've just made a few observations.

Right at the start you made the very accurate observation that our leaders are supposed to be our servants, rather then being people that we feel are esteemed in comparison to the humble ordinary folk. The fact that they are portrayed as celebrities, or a kind of rock star in Obama's case, helps to obscure the reality of what should be their role. Regarding politicians' incentives to lead, perhaps the high level of compensation and the affluent lifestyle awarded to them is a good incentive to climb the greasy pole but obviously not much incentive to change things once they are there. I highly recommend the 1980s BBC sitcom 'Yes Minister' for an insight into 'the politics of politics', essentially the big game that it all is.

Interesting to hear again the frankly horrible clip of Bush joking about WMDs, but Obama did a similar thing at a similar event when he made a crack about his daughters liking the Jonas Brothers. 'Boys, don't get any ideas. I've got 2 words for you. Predator drones, you'll never see them coming!' Cue huge laughter. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

What was perhaps just as disturbing was watching this being analysed the next day on mainstream TV and the joke being described as 'badly-judged' in a strategic sense. All about appearance and public perception!! His cringeworthy dry-eyed crying and timed wiping of the eyes when making his Sandy Hook speech was hard to watch as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VWTEj-L7c (watch from 1.00)

Obama is a perfect person to study in terms of this whole phenomenon of the difference between presentation and reality. The distortion created by trying to project his personality to attract voters is that in people's minds, his genuine personality is linked to his presidential personality while in fact he is clearly wearing 2 hats, for example admonishing and disassociating himself from Wall Street on one hand while giving them bailouts and employing ex-Wall Street executives in his administration in order to sort out the mess that in his own words they caused. It is useful however to listen to what politicians say on the campaign trail because it actually reflects the real situation and what should be done about it, a one-stop guide to what actually needs to happen. Incredible, and you really have to laugh at the administration keeping secret documents outlining their transparency! Orwell lives!! 

I always say to Obama supporters that i'm not attacking him personally because i don't know him personally and as i said earlier i don't think his personal beliefs really have a great deal to do with what President Obama actually does. He probably is a man of peace rather than a psychopath but i think the Bill Hicks joke is pretty accurate, namely that when a new president is sworn in having made all his promises, he's taken into a smoky basement room with all the top military generals and industrialists (a.k.a 'the military-industrial complex) and shown a clip of the JFK Zapruder film on a projector screen from an angle never seen by the public, showing beyond doubt that he was killed from the grassy knoll. The projector is turned off and the new President is asked 'Any Questions??'

-re: Propaganda part 12

An interesting entry to the series on one of my favourite subjects, namely 'What Is Art'?? I once gave my language students the task of writing a definition of the word to see if we could reach a consensus, and the most common responses were that it was something that was crafted and something which expressed an idea. 

On the subject of modern art, I remember going to the Tate Modern as a teenager and watching with some amusement a group of people all looking at a 'sculpture' which was simply a blue square, and they were engaged in deep discussion and even taking notes! However, one critic made the salient point that Andy Warhol and Tracey Emin, and probably most conceptual artists, were/are talented conventional artists and painters, and the fact that they express themselves in an unusual and non-traditional way is a creative choice rather than laziness or lack of talent.

I have always been quite a fan of performance art as it does seem to galvanise the audience into a reaction and give them a reflection of themselves whether they are aware of it or not. Those living in England in 2003 will no doubt remember illusionist David Blaine's endurance stunt which involved being confined to a clear perspex box suspended from a crane next to Tower Bridge in London for 44 days without eating. Leaving aside the moral questions of whether this was making a mockery of genuine hunger strikes and whether he was in fact starving or performing an illusion, there is no doubt that essential aspects of the English character were revealed by reactions to his 'performance piece'. The initial reaction was one of anger from many people, reflecting the British mistrust of those with overly lofty ambitions which don't appear to make tangible sense, but as he appeared to be weakening from lack of food, the British sympathy for the underdog revealed itself and the crowd were largely supportive towards the end of his ordeal.

on the separation of the mainstream and alternative camps

I've been pondering something recently. Have you ever noticed that a lot of people with mainstream credibility who don't blindly toe the mainstream line and generally get dismissed as 'lefties', whatever the f*** that means (e.g Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, Amy Goodman and possibly Michael Moore) never commit themselves to discussing the 9/11 anomalies at all, and in Chomsky's case dismiss them entirely. Do you think this is an understandable tactical move not to lose credibility and thus invalidate everything else they say? Michael Parenti was on Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad Radio show and expressed this opinion.

I've just read 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein and what she claims there is pretty extreme and controversial to many. Fisk has said publically that Iraq was about oil, but he got slightly defensive when asked about WTC Building 7 at a conference i watched. As well as disregarding 9/11 anomalies, Chomsky also never mentions fractional reserve banking and the ludicrous and unfair banking system in general, which irks many including myself.

A lot of activist groups and friends of mine call these people gatekeepers but i think that's a bit  unfair because these groups often just have a repulsion of mainstream media, so by that rationale they would then reject 9/11 alternative theories if they somehow got onto prime-time TV or the front pages. It's a subconscious way of keeping themselves separate and unfortunately ensuring that things don't really change.

In a nutshell, the mainstream and alternative media groups innately distrust one another, which is a shame because the ultimate loser is truth.

Circular Conversation

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

A- I'm going now. Are you coming?

B- No, I don't feel like it. I've got a lot of things to do

A- Ok, no problem. Bye

B- (pausing for thought) Well, I can come if you want

A- No, that's fine

B- So you don't want me to come? I'll stay then

A- Come if you want, it'll be nice.

B- Well, if you really want me to, I will

A- It's up to you. I know you've got things to do

B- Yes, I have. I think I'll stay if you don't mind

A- I understand. I'll be ok on my own

B- Are you sure?

A- Yes, it's ok

B- Maybe I should come. You might get bored on your own.

A- (sternly) I think I can make that decision for myself. I'll be fine.

B- Hmm, you sound a bit angry that I'm not coming.

A- (exasperated) No, that's not it

B- Final decision. I'm coming!

A- Ok great, let's go

B- Ok 

B- (moment of thought) Can I just finish what I was doing?

A- How long will you be?

B- I don't know, it depends how long it takes

A- Well, I'd like to get going really

B- Ok, I'd better stay then

A- (tersely) Bye then

B- (feeling guilty) Go on then, I'll come. I'll bring my work with me

A- On second thoughts, STAY!

(both feel disgruntled)

Of course the shorter version, which saves breath, time and feelings, is:

A- I'm going now. Are you coming?

B- No, I don't feel like it. I've got a lot of things to do

A- Ok, no problem. Bye

You could perhaps generalise and say that the longer conversation is the British version and the shorter one the American version. I think excessive politeness and assumptions about another's feelings tend to waste time and cause unnecessary aggravation. Directness, once it is established, is the path to truth and action.

Reflections on the 'Smells Like Human Spirit' podcast

In the information age, there are enough podcasts around now to spend an entire lifetime listening to people talking about the things that interest you, but this particular podcast, hereafter referred to as 'SLHS', has found an ever-growing niche and struck a nerve in the podcast community. It started in May 2012 though i didn't personally become aware of it until February 2013 so had plenty of episodes to catch up on and enjoy. The podcast, and the accompanying website, are primarily run by Guy Evans, with appearances by James Wilson and contributions from 7/7 author and researcher Tom Secker.

In its infancy, SLHS featured Guy and James simply talking about current issues with no particular introductions, theme music or pretence of prior preparation. Rather than being a problem, this was one of the strengths of the early episodes as they gave them an immediacy and spontaneity that people could, and still can, relate to. So, interesting topics like the public obsession with Facebook, the role of advertising in our lives and the use of language as a tool of deception were discussed in a manner reminiscent of a chat at the pub with 2 intelligent, down-to-earth, open-minded guys who happened to be from Wales and also happened to have an interest in Ekhart Tolle and spiritual issues, hence the podcast name which most of a certain age would recognise as a pun on the famous Nirvana song. Aside from a touch of early self-consciousness about talking about things that are 'deep, man!', the boys were very natural and the conversations flowed well from the start. Episode 5 saw the first guest, James Corbett of 'The Corbett Report', a well-known figure in the alternative community but not a 'famous' person with baggage and expectation. Other early guests, some of whom have made multiple appearances, included author and historian Michael Parenti, 7/7 researchers Keelan Balderson and the aforementioned Tom Secker, and the CIA whistleblower Susan Lindauer. The format of the podcast changed to a mixture of interviews with guests and episodes with Guy and James discussing topics as they originally had, reviewing recent episodes and reading out listener feedback. Episode 16 was a discussion of the phenomenon that is David Icke, and in this episode like many others, Guy and James seemed to be able to express what myself and surely other listeners were thinking, which created a lot of what are called 'a-ha moments', or simply the warm feeling that you are not alone and not a freak or a 'conspiracy theorist' but one of a growing community.

SLHS went up a notch in Episode 30 with Guy interviewing no less than Noam Chomsky, the first famous name and a mainstream legend as well as alternative thinker. This interview took place at the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and from here SLHS became largely a solo effort from Guy Evans due to his relocation to New York. This year the podcast has seen Guy continue with his interviews, including the returns of previous guests and also appearances from 9/11 whisteblower Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 activist Ian Henshall and former LAPD officer Michael Ruppert among many others, but also tackle particular issues such as the Obama administration's drone attack policy and alarming NDAA legislation. James has made occasional appearances and despite a slightly more polished production, the podcast has retained a down-home flavour and an easily-digestable style.

One more thing to note about the podcast's content is that since Episode 60 Guy has been reviewing, generally on a weekly basis, the very significant but not widely-known book, 'Propaganda', authored in the 1920's by 'the father of public relations' Edward Bernays (himself also very significant but not widely-known!, which should raise eyebrows once his work is read). Guy started by simply reading the book and commenting on each paragraph, but acting on listener feedback he has expanded this podcast series to include clips linking the book to the present day. This is one of the impressive things about Guy's attitude, that he genuinely appreciates his audience and realises that they are essentially the point of the podcast and the people he is serving, something that many in positions of power would do well to note.

In summary, this highly-engaging podcast, which has now passes Episode 110, should be heard from the start to see its development and appreciate its wide range of thought-provoking content and interesting ideas for greater awareness and, in the end, a better world.

Slaves To The Song

Something of a different type of review, this time of the band 'Paradox Lost', a minimalist rock combo heavily influenced by the Plastic Ono Band, The Doors and the likes of John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen.

'As the singer stepped up to the mic, the crowd fell silent. On the drummer's count, the bass and drums started up a slow groove, accompanied by clean, shimmering notes from the lead guitar, all coming in at the same precise moment, so the music moved from silence to a beautiful vibration of sound. The beat was relaxed but with constant embellishments, as if the drummer never wanted to leave it alone. The bass player complimented his master with a deft mixture of well-held, well-timed single notes, runs and occasional 2 or 3-note chords, which added a surprise element to the swampy tone and feel. The lead guitar had a similar alternation of ideas, and the main feature of this combo was their wondrous ability to fill the sound with points of interest at different times without ever treading on each other's musical toes. The effect on the small audience was that they were never short-changed or overwhelmed in any single moment. The singer/rhythm guitarist first expressed himself with well-timed full and partial guitar chords, aware that he too had a (six-string) master. However, when he started to sing, he was clearly out on his own. The notes were technically well-delivered, without this ever seeming a hindrance, and what came across was the commitment to deliver the passion of the song above the delivery of the singer himself. In this band, the song was what they all deferred to. From this template, they seemed to all lose themselves in their own part of the glorious whole. They liked to let the grooves continue on sometimes for several minutes, getting deeper and deeper, building in intensity before an explosion of melody and that chiming guitar and its partial chording. What kept the audience interested was the promise of release from tension, but it was a release of melodic pop music, not angry metal. The 5th member of 'Paradox' is a Japanese folk singer, who preceded the band's appearance with a solo set of her own. She embodies all that is weird, avant-garde, experimental and strange about Japanese artists and their reaction to the restrictions of their traditional culture. As the band played, she struck random percussive 'instruments', seemingly not caring what sound was produced but actually managing to fit it all into the framework of the groove. This band are experimentalists but with a keen, cohesive ear for what is pleasing to the ear'

Traditional Story- What is the 4-letter word that rules the world??

In a remote mountain village, the head of the village died and leadership was passed onto his son. Now the people had lived for many years under the control of a huge monster who loomed like a huge shadow over the village. Whenever anyone tried to find freedom, this large shadow appeared with a loud voice echoing through the mountain. The villagers always retreated at the sight of the dark image.

The young man who was was now the leader realised the time had come to confront this monster. He went out with a group of villagers and as soon as they appeared at the edge of the village, the huge shadow appeared. They stepped back in fright. 

The young man observed how the shadow became bigger and the voice louder as they retreated. He paused and then bravely took a step towards the shadow. It seemed to become slightly smaller. He stepped again and his view was confirmed as the shadow became less and the voice less powerful.

He continued moving towards it until the source of the shadow was at his feet. He plucked up this small ephemeral object in his hand and asked 'Who are you?'

'Fear' was the weak, feeble reply. He closed his hand and it disappeared entirely. 

How Far Could Persuasion Go?

In my twisted mind, I wonder how much the general public could be persuaded to buy things that they don't need. Following on from my post about advertising, I''m reminded of an experiment I saw conducted by a local shopkeeper, who was a rather eccentric chap and clearly a free thinker.

We've all seen the special offers in shops, such as 50p each or 3 for 1.40. A quick add-up of course reveals a 10p discount for buying the extra items that you may or may not actually want. The shopkkeeper unveiled his own special offer of 80p each or 3 for 2.40. Of course elementary mathematics will tell you that there's no discount here at all, but he took it one stage further and came up with 60p each, 4 for ONLY 2.50. Yep, this was a new revolutionary use of the 'anti-discount', and people actually went for it! I suppose this reveals a combination of the public's deplorable adding skills, their blind faith in the potential of getting something for nothing and the power of the word 'only' in a shopping context.

On this general theme, my friends and I were outside a pub in Italy on St Patrick's Day this year enjoying a Guinness and musing on the whole idea of paying exorbitant prices for a celebration that has essentially been invented for marketing purposes and bears minimal relation to the actual source of it. We wondered whether it would be possible to invent our own celebration, St Brian's Day for example, and actually convince people that the man had actually existed and so persuade them to part with their hard-earned cash so as to not be left out of the festivities and branded a 'killjoy' or 'non-believer'. If the local media championed the idea without a trace of irony and a certain number believed it, I think we could pull it off. Or would we even need to pretend it was true?

The previous paragraph seeks to highlight the idea of how the belief of a majority can effectively distort even the most obvious of realities. I read about another interesting experiment done in a school. First of all, would you agree that the school system doesn't exactly encourage individualism? Basically they did an experiment with a bunch of around thirty 10-11 year olds where they had them at one end in a sports hall and told them that they would be asked a simple question and had to run to the left corner if the answer was A and to the right for B. They were then asked a very simple question such as 'What's the capital of England? Is it A) London or B) Moscow, so no chance that they wouldn't know it. Well, 29 had been told previously to run to the right and only one hadn't. The one kid started running to the left and then out of embarrassment and fear of being left alone to possible ridicule changed his mind quickly and ran with the others. Afterwards, the experimenter made no reference to which was the right answer and didn't tell the boy about the experiment, which must have confused him greatly. This may seem quite innocuous but the psychologist writing about it believed that these and other similar kind of experiences train people not to stand out, and people can be easily made to question a very obvious reality and do things they wouldn't believe were possible, through coercion and fear of ridicule and being left-out. In my humble opinion, this never leaves us and is not something that we simply disregard as we move into this mythical new world of  'adulthood'. I urge you to think about that for a moment and how it might play a role in how much or little we question some of the insane things perpetrated in our collective name.

Reflections on 'Down And Out In Paris And London'

This is not a formal review as such but just a few thoughts on a valuable book which makes telling observations on the underclass (and sometimes merely the unlucky) of society. This book was published in 1933 and is apparently based on Orwell's real experiences living on the edge of poverty in Paris and London. Taking the narrator of a book as a character based on Orwell, we don't find out a lot about whether he has a family who could act as an escape route from the life he finds himself in but we know that he has done some journalistic work and been an English tutor. The impression given is of a man of some means who is experiencing the discomforts of the life for real but is perhaps also a voyeur of sorts. Knowing Orwell now as a writer and not just the protagonist of the story, the book could be read with the impression of one gathering experiences as possible material for a book. Orwell had not been published up to that point, however, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt on that score. Interesting to fast forward 60 years to the 1990s and the rise of the backpacking culture. Many backpackers are middle-class and of means but willingly plunge themselves into a period of survival on a limited budget and some degree of spontaneity when compared to the 2-week holidaymaker. Some make genuine changes to their life both in circumstance and general values while knowing that there is a safety net to catch them if it all becomes too much.

The 'plot' as it is finds Orwell working as a 'plongeur' (essentially a dishwasher in a hotel kitchen) in Paris and then doing the rounds of doss houses in London for around 2 months while waiting for a promised job to become available. In Paris, he writes of incredibly long hours of work in hot, cramped and stressful kitchen situations, where workers seem to be in character and take out their frustrations on each other as a means to survive and preserve their sanity. He meets all manner of characters with all manner of life stories and writes largely without judgement, one of the common themes of the book. The tramps who dominate the London segment of the book have their own hierarchy and values while seeming to naturally think as one in certain situations, not surprising due to their sharing of a rather extra-ordinary (in the literal sense of the word) station in life.

This is what they do, but what impression does Orwell give of the life itself and the people who populate it? Among few positives, Orwell writes that 'poverty annihilates the future', written in the sense that it eradicates the worries that burden those with the financial means to have a discernible future of choices and possibilities. He writes of 'relief of being at last genuinely down and out. You have talked often of 'going to the dogs' and, well, here are the dogs and you have reached them and you can stand it.' Personally, i think there is something to say for living on your wits and having few possessions, which are actually precious to you and worth defending. Disposable income so often means filling your house with useless trinkets and objects saved for the proverbial 'rainy day' which never seems to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4

We buy 100 books, CDs, DVDs etc…, always meaning to read/listen to/watch them, but inevitably find ourselves falling back on the few we really like and relate to and which give us genuine pleasure. We also have a tendency to glamorise poverty to some extent, perhaps sensing that we would like to own less and have less to defend.

Having said that, this is just a short paragraph of the book and simply serves to show that almost any situation can have good and bad aspects in comparison to another. Nothing is black-and-white. This solitary paragraph is to life on the edge of poverty what Trainspotting was to heroin. There's a glimmer of relief in an otherwise desperate and often frightening existence. The difference of course between life as a tramp, or a virtual slave doing a job of back-breaking, badly-rewarded toil, and a heroin addict is that the latter at least has a recognisable high which can generally be relied upon to deliver. Other than the afore-mentioned calming effect of no burdensome decisions to make about the future, there is no high in the life that Orwell lives and observes in Paris and London. There is release of pressure of course, and this comes out for the majority in generally rude behaviour and verbiage towards those around them and for some in violence.

What might be surprising to some is the importance given to the role of boredom in this life. Before the modern world of endless possibility for distraction, boredom must have been a fact of life for those in all sections of society, but for the down-and-outs it is all-consuming and debilitating. As a 'plongeur' in Paris, it is not such a problem as his/her life consists of time-pressured marathon shifts, so most downtime is taken up by catching a few hours of precious sleep. In the various levels of lodging houses, tramps' hostels and Salvation Army shelters of London, however, there is intolerable idleness to be suffered, without even one's personal space for comfort.

Above boredom though, the two biggest 'great evils' in a tramps's life are hunger and its accompanying malnutrition, and the lack of contact with the opposite sex. So, in essence the tramp is deprived of food, sex and usefulness, and Orwell attempts to use this deprivation to explain away certain myths about tramps somehow being characters disposed to nomadism, drunkenness and criminality. Orwell argues well that the first of these traits is entirely caused by the laws of the time not allowing tramps to stay in the same place. Of the latter two, Orwell doesn't find these to be essential parts of the tramp's makeup at all. The author sees the tramp as a person forced by his circumstances to play out an essential role for survival and to find relative comfort whenever he can. It is alarming to read of the laws of the time, and how society seems almost to want to make the tramp's life as hard as possible and keep him down. Orwell often wrote of this need to keep the underclass down, which by the time of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' was apparently 99% of the population, in order to stop them having time and space to think about the realities of the system they live in and are brought up to accept. It's interesting at this point to compare Orwell's later vision in '1984' with that of Aldous Huxley in 'Brave New World'. In the former view of dystopia, people are kept down by intimidation and the ever-present threat of violence while in the latter they are subject to prolonged suggestion by 'sleep teaching' and then dumbed-down by simple pleasurable distractions. In any case, as a first novel 'Down And Out In Paris And London' sets the scene for many of the themes and general outlook of Orwell's later, perhaps more polished, books. 

In conclusion…instead of my own, I'll simply quote the final short chapter of Orwell's book, which needs to be read in its entirety to understand the main things that the author gathered from his experiences. 'I can point to one or two things i have definitely learned from being hard up. I shall never again think that tramps are drunken scoundrels, nor expect a beggar to be grateful when i give him a penny, nor be surprised if men out of work lack energy, nor subscribe to the Salvation Army, nor pawn my clothes, nor refuse a handbill, nor enjoy a meal at a smart restaurant. That is a beginning.' 

Travelling Light

Sometimes our goals are achieved in spite of ourselves and our actions.

When i was in my mid-20s, i went backpacking round the world for a year. The core differences between backpacking and holidaymaking are basically that you use a backpack instead of suitcases, you live on a modest budget which enables you to travel for sometimes far longer than the requisite two weeks, you try to be spontaneous and integrate with the local culture rather than experiencing a comfortable 'home-away-from-home', and you travel light with the bare minimum of 'stuff' to weigh you down. I certainly satisfied some of these criteria but in my preparation i failed miserably on the final point mentioned. I had read a 'Before You Go' book, which was very informative in a lot of areas but seemed to have been written with the presumption that every backpacker was travelling to very remote areas. The upshot was that i arrived in my first stop in South-East Asia with a backpack so crammed full of 'vital objects' that my fragile back could scarcely support it. It had a handle on the side so i ended up, rather ironically, carrying it in the manner of a suitcase. When i arrived in Thailand, my first destination, and discovered that i could easily buy most of what i needed, i managed to 'lose' a few items out of my pack. I mean, did i really need 8 pairs of socks in a country where the temperature is virtually guaranteed to be 30 degrees every day and, believe it or not, the shops actually sell socks? Deep down, the Englishman brought up on a history of colonisation can never quite believe that those in the Third World can supply him with what he needs in as efficient a manner as back home in the mother country. It's not genuine racism, just a conditioned sense of superiority hard to shake off. I embarked on an overland circular tour starting and finishing in Bangkok and taking in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos in that order. The trip was wonderful, and the moments of discomfort which were anticipated and in fact encouraged did indeed increase my tolerance and resourcefulness. Highlights included an 8-hour journey in Cambodia on the back of a pick-up truck without benches. Next to me was a large tyre, presumably being transported from one place to another, and as we hit a large crater in the uneven dirt road at speed, the tyre was jolted directly into my ribs. With something between a smile and a grimace, i continued the journey without complaint. Later, i pulled out my guitar and an American friend and

i serenaded the locals in the truck with a smorgasbord of 90s rock hits, including our speciality, 'Aeroplane' by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. In Vietnam, i gritted my teeth through a 14-hour overnight bus trip, bolt upright on hard seats with little chance of substantial sleep, on sometimes treacherous mountain roads. I'd like to mention at this point that these kind of conditions were not always the norm and this story is not presented in a spirit detrimental to the locals. This was their land and i accepted my humble status of temporary visitor with appropriate respect. Having said all that, the main event of this tale involves a trip along the Mekong Delta in southwestern Vietnam. The tour involved a combination of bus and boat travel, and to cut a long story short some of the bags somehow got loaded onto the wrong boat belonging to a completely different company. We didn't find out until the boats were long gone, the chances of their recovery being almost nil and involving a potential wait of many hours or even days. My large backpack and smaller daypack were gone, and all i was left with was my bumbag, which mercifully still contained my money, passport, travellers' cheques and copies of important documentation. My immediate reaction was desolation at the loss of all my travel possessions, which included clothes, books, fake CDs, a music player, all manner of trinkets and also my as-yet-unused water purification tablets. My head fell into my hands at the loss of these items and the subsequent stress, hassle and inconvenience that would be involved in replacing them. I had been lucky to have met a very nice group of backpackers, with whom i'd had a lot of fun and some great conversations, including one about our huge and densely-loaded backpacks. From the group came the helpful remark, 'Well, you DID want to travel light, Antony.' And it hit me. I was travelling light, lighter than i ever could have imagined or would have dared!. I was free! I had nothing to carry and nothing to defend. My new friends immediately offered to lend me clothes and let me borrow their music equipment, and all manner of consolation and friendly offers came in my direction. What's more, i was finally 'in the moment', thinking on my feet instead of making provisions for every eventuality. From memory, i think i rebought some of the items but generally travelled light from there on in. The moral of this story? Ah, f*** the moral and enjoy the story!

The Way Of The Nervous Official

subtitle- : A Tragi-Comedy About Table Tennis. 
The following story requires no particular knowledge or love of the sport of Table Tennis, but a general sense of humour is advisable...

'Ladies and gentlemen, we just wanted to let you know that some of tonight's finals will be umpired by Mr Peter Goatly, who is being assessed as part of his Level 1 umpiring certification. We would like to wish Mr Goatly luck.' 

We're at the Maidenhead Closed Table Tennis Championship (ok, i mean tournament!) on a Sunday night in February and it's the final stages, encompassing - in this order- the Girls and Boys Singles Finals, the Mixed, Women's and Men's Doubles and the Women's and Men's Singles finals. The event is being staged at that hotbed of total Table Tennis, Altwood School, and the atmosphere is electric (as are the lights, despite the suspect wiring!). Mr Goatly is a locally-known league player and one of those curious oddballs that seem to inhabit the world of Table Tennis. He tends to say strange things, but as far as anyone knows is not prone to handling pressure particularly badly. He is observed to have not eaten or drunk anything for a few hours before the match and he fidgets slightly as he sits in the chair waiting for the first event. So, the Girls Singles Final starts, contested by Anna Graham and Emma Thomas. As well as having by far the most generically-named competitors, this final is also one of the most spectator-friendly, both players having fast attacking styles and with no need to employ the between-points delaying tactics of other players. The warm-up goes well for Mr Goatly and after the correct amount of time he calls them to start the match. The coin is tossed and called and away we go. Now, one of the rules of Table Tennis is that the ball must rise 6 inches during a player's service. Miss Graham has a slightly suspect action in this regard, though not as obvious as some non-competitive 'ping-pong' players who serve almost directly off the hand. She raises the ball but it is often debatable whether the throw reaches the requisite height. Most umpires in the pre-finals don't pick up on this or take any action, but the esteemed and impressively-bearded umpire Robin Lockwood, who is assessing Mr Goatly, is something of a stickler for rules and has been known to call fouls on services in the past. Anyway, Miss Thomas is serving first so the first 5 points shouldn't cause any problems, time enough for Mr Goatly to get in the swing of things.

The first point is an exciting one and a taste of things to come. Miss Thomas wins it. 1-0. Second point to Miss Graham. 1-1. Miss Thomas's ball-toss is higher than most and clearly adheres to the six-inch rule but Mr Goatly, perhaps with this general issue on his mind, inexplicably calls 'foul' on her third serve. There's a moment of puzzlement and a feeling of slight unease at this inappropriate call which reverberates around the room, rather like that which would happen if someone had suddenly let out a loud burp. The assessor Mr Lockwood, despite his officious tendencies, decides to give the assessed the benefit of the doubt and the call is not reversed. 1-2. On the 4th point, Miss Thomas tosses the ball higher than normal, no foul is called and a collective sigh of relief is heaved. Miss Thomas wins this point and the next with impressive forehand drives to the backhand of Miss Graham, clearly her weak spot. The service changes to Miss Graham but unfortunately Mr Goatly calls the score as 4-1 instead of changing the order of the scoring to server first, which would make it 1-4. Mr Lockwood graciously declines to make a correctional call himself but whispers to the by-now-clearly-flustered Mr Goatly the correct score. The umpire calls 'err sorry, 1-4'. Was the apology appropriate? I know for a fact that train announcers, when doing their training, are instructed never to say sorry when they announce stations incorrectly as it seems to show vulnerability and lack of confidence, qualities which shouldn't be displayed by a person in authority to those he is serving. The next point goes to Miss Thomas. 2-4. Oh dear!, it should be 1-5, and this time Mr Lockwood does intervene. The next 2 points go to Miss Graham and are scored correctly. 3-5. Miss Thomas wins the next point against the serve with a quite stunning backhand winner which draws applause from the 60 or so spectators, who sit rather like an audience in a small theatre, occasionally reacting to moments of interest but mainly sitting attentively. This theatre metaphor is quite appropriate as the match, or more specifically the scoring, begins to take on the qualities of a tragicomedy. After the applause for Miss Thomas's fine winning stroke dies down, Mr Goatly calls it 4-5. Mr Lockwood corrects it to 3-6, professionally refraining from any show of exasperation in his voice. If this were a comedic play, it would be written in such a way that Mr Lockwood's voice would gradually show a build-up of annoyance with each bad call, the scene probably ending with an uncharacteristic explosion of emotion and perhaps even a punch directed at the nose of Mr Goatly. But in reality, Mr Lockwood's experience and professionalism prevents anything of this nature. It is easy to tell from his poker-faced demeanour and his impressive beard with its Father Christmas fuzz that he won't be letting emotion take over. It should also be noted that the Maidenhead Table Tennis fraternity, in common with many other small-town sporting communities, takes itself rather seriously. In the eyes of many stalwarts of the local leagues, the finals of this tournament are a big deal, the showpiece of the season. The match goes on and unfortunately so do the bad calls. At 8-6, Miss Thomas produces a clever serve short to her opponent's forehand and punishes the high return with another sweetly delivered winner, this time on the forehand. The point is called for Miss Graham! Lest these bad calls be considered some kind of conspiracy against Miss Thomas rather than a result of the pressure of the big occasion, Mr Goatly later makes 2 outrageous judgements against Miss Graham, almost as if to balance things out. Without going through the painful details, suffice it to say that the umpire continues to flounder but not enough to make his removal from the umpire's chair a serious consideration. He tends to call the shorter points correctly but becomes nervous if the points go to more than about 10 strokes, and seems to forget where he was before the point started. There is a flipchart being used so that the spectators can follow the score visually, but Mr Goatly's attention is squarely focused straight ahead at the match so he doesn't think to utilise it.

The spectators by this point do not know whether to laugh or cry. On the one hand, they feel genuine embarrassment for both the umpire and players and the need to restrain themselves from overly emoting, while they are also gripped by the rather heartless human tendency to laugh at others' misfortune, probably fuelled by too many British sitcoms and the national tradition of the celebration of failure. Gradually some sniggering and giggling intrudes into proceedings, and the atmosphere becomes rather like that of a school classroom where all the pupils have suddenly realised that the teacher has his flies open. At this point, i am reminded of an incident that happened when i worked in a nondescript office in Reading some years ago. One of the newly-appointed executives of the company, Mr Roberto Pozzi, came to the office to do a slideshow presentation and 'meet his people'. He was young and very personable with soft features and a pleasant, non-intimidating smile. He was genuinely liked by all but also respected and slightly feared due to his position of power. His English was excellent, but in common with non-native speakers who have never lived in an English-speaking country, he made occasional common mistakes and was not in full awareness of the subtle nuances of the language. His presentation was the usual mixture of business cliche and relevant information, but the big finale came when he told us that the final slide outlined his entire philosophy, that of openness and transparency. He pushed a button and on the screen came the words, TO SUCCEED AS A COMPANY AND A TEAM, WE MUST EXPOSE OURSELVES!! A quiet but palpable gasp came upon those in the room as their minds involuntarily conjured images of long raincoats, boiled sweets and inappropriate behaviour. This was followed by a peal of childish laughter, not callous but obvious. Mr Pozzi looked rather bewildered but perhaps told himself that the underlings were laughing at what a wonderfully fresh approach he had.

The Girls Singles Final comes to a conclusion with some of the most free-flowing rallies of the match, with Emma Thomas triumphing in 2 close sets, 21-17, 21-16. For the last part of the match, Mr Lockwood is observed slipping a piece of paper and a pencil to Mr Goatly, presumably for the umpire to write the scores down as he calls them. He looks relieved but forlorn at the end of the match, his hands wet with sweat as he shakes those of the competitors. However, a lesson has been learned and the spectators smile with amusement and their own sense of relief that no real damage has been done. It is not clear how many matches Mr Goatly is required to officiate as part of his assessment, but for the next match he is mercifully relegated to the flip-board, and Mr Lockwood takes the chair for the Boys Singles Final.

Now, let's look at the phenomenon of nerves. I remember hearing about a drummer from a Welsh rock band who was talking about his experience playing at a Summer music festival. His band had previously played to a maximum audience of around 500 but were now given the opportunity to play to over 20,000. They weren't headliners so no huge focus of attention was on them, and they would enjoy all the benefits of the collective energy of thousands of music fans. The band were all geared up, sounding better than ever and totally ready to take this wonderful opportunity. The soundcheck went fine and backstage they were all geared up when suddenly, in the drummer's own words, 'we started to approach the stage and i heard the roar of the audience, and the enormity of the occasion suddenly hit me. I hit adrenaline overload and suddenly felt tired, very tired. My arms, so vital for a drummer, lost strength and at that moment i remember thinking that i just wanted this to be over and i wanted to be at home resting in a comfortable chair watching the festival on the telly. The flood of chemicals to my head made my mind fuzzy and i couldn't remember the parts for the first song or any of the others. Thank god our singer and frontman was a calm sort of guy and we changed the order of the songs so we could do the slowest and easiest first until my nerves settled. Luckily, i recovered my composure and the gig went off ok. I've never really suffered from nerves since but that's still a sharp memory and i suppose a nice reminder in case i ever get too complacent and over-confident.' Anyone having to make speeches, teach classes or give presentations will recognise this feeling, and tennis fans will probably remember Jana Novotna's famous 'choke' in the 1993 Wimbledon Final, when she surrendered a 4-1 lead in the final set to lose 4-6. Although she didn't fall apart completely and was still hitting some nice strokes, when it came down to the big shots she started hitting the ball directly into the net or sometimes hitting wild shots way past the baseline and sidelines. In 1985, Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor played the most famous World Snooker final ever. The 35th and final frame of their match was undoubtedly great television and high drama, but the snooker itself was comically bad, the frame taking over an hour to complete. Both players later admitted that 'my mind had gone', and only instinct and sense memory was telling their bodies what they had to do. As Steve Davis got out of his chair to try to pot what would normally be a routine black ball to win the championship, 'i realised that my legs didn't seem like my legs, and my arms the same, and it wasn't even my cue, i was playing with a different cue and a different body and i cracked up and missed the pot and then sat stunned in my chair as Dennis potted an even easier black to win.'

Back to The Maidenhead Closed. It's the Boys Singles Final and Peter Goatly has a fairly simple task operating a flip score board while Robin Lockwood does the umpiring. All goes well until the score reaches 13-11 in the first set. The next 5 or 6 points go by but some of the spectators start to notice that the flip board hasn't changed and still reads 13-11. This continues until someone makes a gesture to Mr Goatly, who appears to be in some kind of trance, perhaps dwelling on his previous troubles. The sniggers of some of the spectators start again but thankfully Mr Goatly manages to refocus himself on the fairly simple task in hand and after that match is over his work for the evening is done. 

Why exactly did Mr Goatly's misfortune happen? Why do the pressure situations cause our head to flood with chemicals and our pores to open up, allowing sweat to engulf our body and our formerly lucid thoughts to fall into confusion? Basically, it comes down to the fight-or-flight mechanism honed in the hunter-gatherer days of perpetual danger from wild animals and other potential threats. When we get nervous or scared, our central nervous system goes into high response. Our heart starts beating faster as well as our breathing and the sweat glands secrete more fluids in order to cool our body. This of course affects performance, but another thing which happens is that the performer of whatever task it is, if he is normally skilled at it, actually has to switch to a different brain system, and often the greater the expertise the bigger the switch, hence the greater the potential for disaster. If you have practised a skill for hundreds of hours, it becomes effortless and becomes encoded in your implicit memory, causing what is called 'expert amnesia'. In pressure situations, the performer often seems to forget what normally comes naturally so he/she suddenly has to switch to their explicit memory and relearn the highly sophisticated skills encoded in the subconscious, using neural pathways last used as a novice. In the most basic terms, we have to suddenly start learning again what we haven't had to for years, including how to construct sentences when we speak! It is quite rare however that these implicit skills are totally forgotten, so most top sportspeople, for example, will still know how to do the basics. However, at the top level where margins are so small, it only takes a small performance drop to completely lose a gained advantage.

You may be wondering what became of Peter Goatly after this evening? Did he give it all up and run away to the circus? Throw himself off Beachy Head? In fact, the truth was nothing as exciting as that. He took some time off to regroup and then successfully completed his umpiring certification, always remembering that February night in Maidenhead.

JFK 50th Anniversary

Today is 50 years since arguably the last free-thinking President was removed from office. I could go on and on about this and detail all my evidence, but i wonder how much difference it would make to those who don't want to hear it. Instead i've copied my ironic and rather sarcastic response to an article about 'Protesters at Dealey Plaza'.

'Keep those dirty protesters away from our view of history. I wonder if they include:
-the more than half of the American population who in the most recent survey said that they don't believe that Oswald acted alone.
-at least 50 eyewitnesses who testified to hearing a shot coming from the Grassy Knoll
-James Teague, who tried to tell the Warren Commission that he was injured by a fragment from a bullet coming from the G.N.
-the book researcher who somehow managed to get onto the floor of the Book Depository and swore that you couldn't even get a shot through the trees. (Interesting that they have an assassination museum that the public has to pay to enter but they're not allowed to see where the shot actually came from)

Of course we all know about the single bullet that made 7 wounds and emerged pristine, the fact that JFK was trying to pull the U.S. out of Vietnam and that Johnson signed a declaration of their involvement the day after the funeral, his head going back and to the left from a shot apparently coming from the back, the hole in the back of his head which was found to be an exit wound, various suspicious deaths of people trying to give alternative evidence, the fact that a New Zealand paper printed a biography and article on Oswald at almost the same time he was arrested, Oswald himself stating that he was a patsy, that fact that Oswald's killer Jack Ruby knew his victim, worked for the C.I.A. and died prematurely in prison...
But, who needs facts, eh??? Apparently the people need to be protected at all costs.'

Interesting that the only coverage given to any explanation of the killing other than the official one is some crazy story about an agent killing him by accident from the car behind. Since every alternative explanation is lumped together as 'conspiracy theory', this theory serves to discredit other credible research and obvious research. Obvious and cheap. 

Further Thoughts

In the wider context, it's a myth that the President actually has much power. Powerful lobbies such as the Israeli lobby, which covers both sides of the political spectrum, and Wall Street are already firmly in place when the new guy, who is there due in large part to massive campaign funds from corporations, steps in. He can't dictate to them because he is in debt to them for getting him there in the first place. Obama has done none of the things he promised because those promises were part of a very slick marketing campaign (which won an award as 'Marketing Campaign of The Year 2008', i might add) and he didn't and doesn't have the power to implement them. Whether he knew that when he came in or realised subsequently is debatable. Mind you, Obama's first job was working for war criminal Henry Kissinger, so he must have known that he wasn't getting into a clean business. My personal theory about JFK is that the 'military industrial complex' knew his weakness for the ladies and figured that they'd give him a cushy life with plenty of females on tap in exchange for compromising his instincts. He rebelled and as i wrote earlier tried to change the Vietnam agenda and curb the CIA (he fired the director Alan Dulles) and so he was taken out. Ask anyone why they think it was Lee Harvey Oswald on his own, or Bin Laden for 9/11. Other than 'i heard it on the news so it must be correct', they won't have an answer, i guarantee. Corporate media is a business, clear and simple, and those who try to speak out generally get gagged, discredited or sometimes killed. There are hundreds of examples that don't get on the news so they may as well not exist. Do you think the media would ever give airtime on prime time to a researcher who really knows his stuff without resorting to ad hominem verbal attacks? No way because the world would change overnight.