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'