Monday, October 13, 2014

Step One


"On 27th February 1933 the Reichstag was set on fire by an anarchist, Marinus van der Lubbe, also a member of the Dutch Communist Party. 

Hitler, Goebbels, and Goring rushed to the spot and concluded that the arson was the work of Communists, the signal for a general strike and a Communist takeover. 

With the consent of von Hindenburg, Hitler issued the Law for the Protection of State and People, which drastically reduced the civil rights of individuals and parties. 

It abolished the right of assembly, freedom of the press, privacy of communication, habeas corpus, and opened the way for arrest and incarceration without warrant or trial. This was the law that made Germany a police state."

-Fritz Redlich, M.D 

Excerpt from - Hitler, diagnosis of a destructive prophet - Chapter 6, p 94

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Cluster bombs are a much more humane way to kill civilians than beheadings


The humanitarian grounds justification for all wars the west wages on the middle east is a farce.

This should be evident considering that one of the west's closest allies in the region, whom we support unconditionally (Saudi Arabia) is one of the most oppressive and extremist regimes in the world and beheads more people than IS have in it's entire run, on a monthly basis.

Not long ago their religious police forced a bunch of school girls to burn to death because they weren't dressed appropriately enough to leave the burning building. This kind of thing is a regular occurrence there and our elected leaders, whether they are Labor or Liberal, are more than happy to turn a blind eye.

It's quite simple really. Either oppress the needs of your civilian population in favour of the corporate interests of the transnational corporations of the west, or we'll bomb the shit out of your civilian population. In terms of comparing barbaric behaviour, w
hat a cluster bomb does to the human body makes a beheading look downright pleasant.

Under only very limited circumstances (Like if the state can manufacture the consent of the civilian population effectively to support corporate ideology, I.E - Israel) can a true democracy that allows significant social reform be allowed anywhere in the third world. Mainly because most civilians in any remotely free society tend to prefer that their own basic needs are met before the needs of the foreign private sector. This doesn't work for us. 

Next thing some small foreign country might set an example that the placated civilians of the 1st world might actually want to follow. God forbid a financially independent nation who favours citizens over corporations, manages to survive for a few generations investing more in education and social reform than corporate welfare, class propaganda, and war. 

All of this is not to say that militant groups like IS are not just as oppressive as the countless oppressive regimes we do support, what it does mean though, is that IS are not willing to serve or accommodate western corporate interests (yet).

Monday, September 29, 2014

The Fourth Reich


Growing up in Norway, we learnt a lot in school about the Third Reich and the rise of Nazi Germany. We were asked to constantly ask questions about how seemingly kind and good people, no different from anyone else, could turn a blind eye and allow the atrocities the Third Reich committed to occur. We weren't taught that the Nazis were some unmatchable evil. We were taught that they were not that different from us and to never ever stop self monitoring, precisely so we could assure that this kind of thing never happened again.

When I moved to Australia, I noticed a subtle but slight difference in how we were taught about WW2. Ultimately, although the information and facts were roughly the same, the empathy was not there. Here I was taught that the Nazis were just pure evil, pure and simple, and that any normal, just society could never ever hope to achieve the same level of evil. The concept of self monitoring was never part of the curriculum. At least not where I was taught.

Here, the mere suggestion of the Nazis, even the hint of comparison to what most people consider to be the greatest evil of the last hundred years means an instant discrediting of your argument. Here, we have been taught that to consider such a comparison, is and will always be so absurd that to suggest it is to blacklist yourself from having any opinion of note worth listening to.

More and more I find this kind of thinking convenient and beneficial to our politicians (Labor and Liberals alike) who continue to push this great nation further and further to the right, whilst systematically dismantling our capacity for empathy.

But upon studying the rise of the Third Reich in detail I fail to see a significant difference between the early days (early 1930's) and our current period. In many ways I look at the current state of things, and I see something potentially much worse.

I’m not going to compare Abbot to Hitler. Nor do I think he even comes close. Part of what frightens me though is that this version of... whatever it is we want to call it, doesn't seem to need an Hitler equivalent. Our politicians have far less influence than Hitler did at his peak. It's almost unfair to call them leaders.

Fascism (as defined by Mussolini)


An important thing to understand is that in practice Australia seems to behave like a corporate Oligarchy, so I believe whatever the real reasons behind all of these draconian laws are have to do with corporate interest, which ultimately come down to profit, or loss of projected profit.

I know there is talk of privatising our prison system, if that was to happen that industry would need to increase the prison population in order to maximise that profit. The war on drugs is on the way out, so something else needs to take it's place for privatising the prisons to be profitable in the same way it was in the U.S. Perhaps we’re going to fill these prisons with “terrorists”, but I doubt it.

However, whatever way they do choose to populate these new prisons (If indeed we do end up privatising our prison system), will certainly become much easier when you have laws that we now do.

Historically, laws like the ones we are seeing pushed through today are brought in to curb future dissent from the population at large, often under the guise of protection from a manufactured threat. There's something on the horizon that our leaders and politicians are afraid of, and I find it extremely unlikely that Islamic terrorism is it.

The Pendulum

Doubtless, the political landscape will shift soon, it always does, problem is it goes two steps to the right, one step to the left, three steps to the right, one step to the left, and so it continues. Eventually politicians who in the past may have been considered very right wing, appear almost socialist in comparison to current "left wing" politicians. Or at least that's how it appears to have been moving for the last thirty or so years, at least in the U.S, Australia and the U.K.

Personally, I don't see much difference between either party (Labor or Liberal), since both, in terms of policy are so far to the right now that I find it unfair to countries that have actual centre politics to label any of them "left" or even "Centre".

To be fair to our very ambitious politicians, I find it increasingly hard to believe that they even have the power to do anything but bow to corporate pressure, which is ultimately mainly influenced by the world bank. Nothing in practice indicates that our politicians are capable of much beyond achieving marginal change on domestic social issues, whilst ignoring all aspects of foreign policy except when drumming up baseless threats from far away lands. Its a cliche to mention 1984, I know, but we can't ignore the concept of the endless war or the idea that slavery is freedom, that war is peace. We're living it.

Eyes Wide Shut

What interests me is the continued push to divide the masses based on religion, or sexual orientation, or race, or any other number of discriminatory and bigoted distinctions. Yet class, based on wealth (or lack thereof) is never included in the discussion. It’s almost as if we’re all expected to believe that there is no such thing as class. That the only thing that limits us is persistence and ability. Most of the citizens of the 1st world believe this to be true. 

This seems odd to me. 


Class, clearly is arguably the most important (and limiting) factor, and also the most widely ignored factor. One simply cannot have a complete discussion on this topic without factoring that in, and it hardly ever is. Never on TV. Except when unheard political theorists like Noam Chomsky discuss the topic.

We should really just stop trying to distinguish good and evil based on religion, race, sexuality or any other such obviously discriminatory factor. It's a smoke screen and it only ever leads to more hate. And none of those generalisations make sense when looking at the complete picture, which begins to form when we look at it from a perspective that distinguishes groups of people and their actions, how easily manipulated they are, etc, based on class and wealth.

The Most Destructive Ideology

Ultimately, what the private sector of the corporate world does and continues to do to the third world is much, much worse than anything any of these "extremists" are guilty of, when taken into context. If we were to, we'd need to take into account the fact that basically every major Islamic extremist group we've dealt with in the last fifty years are directly or indirectly a product of the western world's private sectors systematic abuse and exploitation of the third world and our support of that by proxy.

If we're going to generalize based on ideology, the ideology of the billionaire totalitarian transnational corporations who operate with extreme influence over what are meant to be democratic states, and do so without any accountability - Is where we should set our focus.

Be this guy


Thursday, September 18, 2014

The News of Today


11.05 AM - ASIO raids churches Australia wide to protect children against Christian extremist pedophiles! Reports say the raids were based on actual evidence! Twelve priests beaten senseless without charge. Several church gatherings, praying for leftist peacenik nonsense traumatised for life. One arrest made. Reports from the department of pre-crime suggest the culprit was planning to do some shit. All evidence against culprit is classified, except evidence that proves that he was a Christian and other hysterical rumours. 
Reports suggest that law enforcement are searching for a connection to countless Christian terrorist groups. Anders Breivik suspected as mastermind behind it all, somehow.

UPDATE 12:17 PM : Muslim world outraged at lack of footage covering Christian protests against pedophilia on the evening news, and assume all Christians support Pedophilia.

SECOND UPDATE 13:23 PM : Average Australian shocked to discover that the Jewish holocaust, American Holocaust, Australian holocaust, crusades and countless other atrocities were executed by majority Christian people. Decide to blame Islamic extremists for those things too. Government in support. 

THIRD UPDATE 14:26 PM : Israeli's change national motto from "Never forget" to "Never forget, never forgive", immediately followed by forgiving Germans for holocaust. World confused. Debate continues on another amendment to national motto to "Never forget, never forgive (Muslims)"

Sunday, April 1, 2012

The state of illegal drugs

From what I can tell people take drugs for a number of reasons (Some of them are good ones) but often it's as an escape.

Regardless, addiction is a problem that needs to be culled. But the trick to culling drug use isn't to criminalize it or any such non sensical thing. It's actually to create a fair, equal society that people don't want to escape /from/.

Now, since that is a long way off in the mean time we need a part time solution.

First off, let me say that the criminalization of mind altering substances is an infringement on the freedom of human consciousness. Which happens when the powers that be try to control what the citizen does in his/her private life and puts in place legal barriers that only benefit organised criminals, demonize and punish every day citizens (often victims) as well as limiting the expansion of individual experience for those who make the lifestyle choice of altering their conscious for whatever reason that may be.

The idea that criminalization is for our own "protection' has been widely discounted and frankly, it's stupid.

The criminalization of mind altering substances doesn't under any circumstance protect/help the recreational drug user or the serious drug addict, or any of the different kinds of drug users in between.

How does it help or protect the drug user to imprison them, or mark their criminal record, severely limiting their path in life for what is a non violent crime that hurts nobody but (arguably, based entirely on context) themselves? Either form of punishments have seriously negative consequences for the direction of life in general and on the other side of the law, it creates an unbeatable criminal enterprise that ties up law enforcement in enforcing bullshit crimes that distract from doing actual police work.

Don't get me wrong, drugs can make people do fucked up shit, which we already have laws in place to punish people for. (unless you're rich, then the laws don't apply to you)

Say I have problems sleeping.

It is illegal for me to ingest a substance extracted from a herb that has never killed anyone, that there are specific receptors for in our brain put in place through a process of evolution specifically for the ingestion /of/ the chemical which can basically only be found in this herb.

But it is perfectly legal to buy highly addictive sleeping pills that /have/ killed many people, which put me out to a point so that a fucking tsunami wouldn't wake me from the coma those over the counter death pills put me in. (They are often recommended by the doctor too, soon to your kids as well for "sleep deficiency disorder").

An entire generation of kids are prescribed amphetamines (Dexedrine) to grow up and become the crystal meth generation and we scratch our heads as to why?

We encourage prescribed addiction to anti psychotics and anti depressants and whatever else for whatever the pharmaceutical companies can help define as a new form of mental disease that cause as much (and recent studies suggest maybe more) harm as illegal drugs.

When someone contracts HIV we don't send them off into the street to score medicine cooked up in some garage of some two bit dealer at ridiculous prices under the pretense that "You chose to contract HIV cause you didn't wear a condom"

When someone gets skin cancer we don't send them off to delve into the criminal underworld to fend for themselves under the rationalization that "You chose to get skin cancer by not wearing sunscreen"

Yet with drug addicts as a society we rationalize why they need to to be demonized, go to prison or have opportunity removed from their lives by marking their criminal record or sending them to criminal university for their /own/ good? It's supposed to benefit them?

People! The war on drugs is a war on our own families and friends!

Drug addicts are sick and in need of medicine made in proper laboratories, ingested in measured doses, under controlled circumstances to gradually be weaned off, under the support and supervision of medical professionals.

I personally am for decriminalization of all drugs coupled with truthful education about drugs (Not the bullshit propaganda currently spinning about which serves mainly the purpose of making people lose trust for the sources of such information). I believe society needs to remove the taboo from addiction and begin to view drug addicts the same way we view sick people.

It's a win win, we help the drug addict get better so they can avoid becoming a drain on society so they can support a hundred dollar a day habit (and avoid turning them into the real life equivalent of Gollum), and we remove the most profitable part of criminal enterprise in one fell swoop (As is evident in countries that have experimented with decriminalization and stuck with it like Portugal)

Drug criminalization and the continued war on drugs is irrational and antagonistic to the progress of human civilization. It exists and continues to exist through organized criminal influence in the American justice system using illegal income laundered through legitimate businesses which is then used for the lobbying, influence and eventual manipulation of the political process into spreading the idea that being "hard on drugs" is going to have the desired effect we all want. less drug addicts and drug dealers.

It isn't. Keeping drugs criminalized /creates/ the illegal market, gives it value, which in turn motivates criminals to export, distribute and advertise to consumers. And you know what? It's fucking working. We cannot beat a hundred and ten billion dollar a year industry. Not in a world of unchecked capitalism. Impossible.

It is time people woke up and began to realize that to support the criminalization of any mind altering substance is to support organised crime, irrespective of the potential damage these substances may or may not cause.

The argument of decriminalising drugs is not one rationalised by the idea that drugs aren't so bad. Because they often are (Especially if using drugs instantly make you an outcast from society and define you as a criminal). The argument for drug decriminalization is rationalized by the fact that the criminalisation is making the problem we are trying to solve, worse.

To criminalize illegal drugs and defend the irrational notion that keeping them criminalized is a good thing is to indirectly support and protect the one hundred and ten billion dollar a year industry and main piggy bank of organized criminals known as the illegal drug trade. Odd that this number rose dramatically since the west invaded Afghanistan (As did heroin use in the 1st world, Afghanistan's most popular export).

In a world of unchecked capitalism the rich rule, and one of the top five most profitable industries in the world (only because it is illegal mind you) is exclusively owned by organized criminals. And we wonder why politicians always lie and our top police officials are constantly going down for corruption.

You know what doesn't lie? Money.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Rationalizations are not justifications

People should begin to learn the difference between rationalization and justification. One can rationalize anything and everything. Every evil act ever committed has a very reasonable and rational lead up of events so they make complete sense to the point where one can empathize. This is fine. Useful. Necessary. But to use rationalizations as justifications for morally or ethically questionable behaviour is a slippery slope that forward thinking people should be careful to avoid. There's a rational reason for everything. Doesn't necessarily make it justifiable.

I can't tell you how often I come across people who rationalize as justifications. As if it's a surprise that there are reasonable explanations for why horrible things happen.

"Sure he hit his girlfriend, but he just caught his girlfriend in bed with his best friend"

"Politicians /have/ to serve the rich or the rich will influence policy to have them kicked out of office"

And so on. It's amazing how often I hear it.

Rational thinking is the road to finding a justification if there is one, and the key to balanced thinking. But one should be careful not to confuse a rational explanation for something with a justification. Not that quite often there can't be one. But too often people create a justification for a horrible deed at the first sign of empathy.

Empathy is a powerful tool, and integral for trying to understand where other people are coming from with their actions. Rationalization is the most useful way to find empathy for actions and movements that are morally and ethically questionable.

But we live in a world where people are taught that bad things like the Third Reich, or 9/11, or Saddam Hussein, or whatever just happen for irrational reasons committed by or for people with no motive other than:

A - As a result of some form of brain damage.

B - A desire to spread evil and attack "good", whatever that might be.

As a result, when these people who have grown up with this black and white idea of good and evil begin to rationalize they confuse it for a justification because it comes as a surprise that even the most atrocious act has a reasonable, rational, even empathetic explanation. What's worse, is that these same people reserve the ability to rationalize only for people and societies whom for they want to justify actions. If you're going to rationalize, rationalize fucking everything, every side, every person, every action.

Suddenly it's news that every single human being out there is a product of their environment and all of a sudden it's used as an excuse. But only for people and movements our narrow minded black and white society deem worthy of it.

As an example: If an Afghan kills himself and takes some Americans with him, they are god damn Satan reborn. When an American soldier goes on a killing spree murdering in cold blood women and children everyone is falling over themselves to turn him into a victim.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The subjective nature of quality

Some people (myself included) would argue that only taste in art is subjective, and that quality in art isn't. If quality in art was one hundred percent subjective there would never be any consensus as to what constitutes great art.

What is quality? Probably the most debated idea in the history of creative philosophy.

One idea in defining quality however can not be disputed. Quality is experienced.

It amazes me that creative quality is often found in work that mainstream viewers or intellectual viewers describe as "boring".

Now, "Boring" is hardly ever a valid critique of creative work. Most of the time, to find a critically acclaimed or commercially succesful work "boring" means the viewer was not in the right head space to experience the quality of the work or the viewer did not fall into the target audience for the work. One can criticize many things about creative work, but "boring" is a sign of the viewer's lack of viewing ability, not in lack of creative quality of the work.

There is nothing wrong with not being in the right head space to experience something, but not being able to recognize it will eventually prohibit the viewer from experiencing as much quality as possible.

Advice: If you find a creative work boring, but can't really critique its value on any other levels, watch it again at some other time in a different head space. It works.

It may surprise people that viewing is an ability. It takes serious focus to be a good viewer/experiencer of creative work.

Knowledge isn't really a prerequisite at all, despite what academics may believe. To be a good viewer, one must rid themselves of ego when viewing/experiencing. One must focus.

The aim of the viewer should not be to find flaws, it should be to experience quality.

I have found when I spend time with people who consider themselves film buffs we fall into a competition where the person who hates the most creative work wins. Especially if you hate work that a majority of critics or mainstream audiences see quality in.

As if your lack of being able to recognize quality is some kind of skill. It isn't.

I feel sorry for people who can't recognize quality anywhere and everywhere it exists. My goal, as an artist is to put myself in the right headspace to experience quality in every creative work it can be found.

If I can't see quality in a film that receives critical acclaim or commercial success I like to consider that a flaw in my /own/ viewing ability. I find this enhances my viewing ability and motivates me to expand on my taste and eventually one day puts me in the right headspace to experience what I was missing.

I think all film appreciators, or appreciators of /any/ creative works would do well to remember this.

Too often does the viewer disregard their own state of mind when experiencing creative work. This is arrogance.

Sometimes the viewer must accept that perhaps it is not the work that is lacking in creative quality, or the viewing ability in the people who can see its creative quality, but ones /own/ ability to recognize the creative quality which is evident to the others who do see it. In simpler terms, what could be lacking, is your own eye for this level of creative quality. A frightening concept to those who consider themselves film experts.

But fear not. Acknowledge it, and take it as a challenge to expand your taste. Because although taste may be subjective, creative quality, in my humble opinion, is not. So often, when a portion of the audience can recognize quality somewhere you cannot, and that recognition is honest and truthful. You should take it as a challenge to expand your own taste, because life should be about experiencing quality, not turning away from it.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

The current state of human reason

As an Atheist, I have to say that the zealot atheism I see in so many fine thinkers today, in my own humble opinion is doing society harm because the emotional consequences of such behaviour is not considered.

To value mathematical reason above all else is folly and part of what brings about the key destructive idea of "It's not personal, it's business".

Emotion and reason are equal at the very minimum and to value either above the other leads to an unbalanced society, like the one we currently call "The world"

Emotional rationale and mathematical rationale both need equal measure before any decision is made.

Currently this is not the way in the major decision making circles of human civilization, hence the continued cycle of violence and destruction through emotional consequences that are never considered or given any real value.

Emotional individuals (Irrespective of mathematical intellect) are often considered weak within the status quo of general human civilization. As if we are unable to be make difficult decisions or some such nonsense. As if emotional beings are not "hard" enough.

The truth is that to make decisions dispassionate of emotional rationale is easy and intellectually lazy. It is only when considering emotional consequence whilst using mathematical rationale that finding the right course of action becomes a real challenge.

To value mathematical rationale above emotional rationale, or vice versa, is lazy and history will look back and acknowledge it as the dominant form of ignorance rampant in our era (Especially in the 1st world).

Both emotional and mathematical intellect are equal and deserve equal consideration. Both form the sum total of the human intellect.

Ignoring one in favour of the other, and to think that the process of evolution would imbue us with such ability so we would or should not use it is itself highly irrational, emotionally as well as mathematically.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

KONY and the complacency of the 1st world citizen.

Hey, online activists. Good to see you find a conscience when a popular manipulative video pops up. Once you click "Like" enough and maybe even donate some money to an organization you know nothing about and feel like you've done your part and feel nice and warm and fuzzy about yourself and your conscience is nice and clear, let's hope your activism continues.

Let's hope you stay as interested in world affairs like the atrocities, terror and fascist foreign policy our own leaders have been carrying out in the third world for the last eleven years in /our/ name, spouting the words "Freedom" and "Democracy" whilst replacing one oppressive regime for another. Seizing a regions natural resources for the sake of monopoly, in the interest of the oligarchy we all support as a direct result of the 1st world citizens complacent, catatonic, zombie like hypocrisy on display to the rest of the world when we don't reign our "Elected" leaders in.

Before we get on our feel good high horse about sharing knowledge and not being complacent think about this;

Complacency is allowing our chosen leaders to support imperialism and continuing to endorse a highly irresponsible and inhumane foreign policy in the third world.

Complacency is sitting idle while our leaders bang war drums for yet another war in the middle east which will end in one oppressive regime replacing another.

Complacency is sitting idle in a one party nation with two fractions that campaign on marginally different policies but regardless of promises made turn their back on their voting base and gradually move the leading nations of the 1st world more to the right.

Complacency is allowing our chosen leaders to indefinitely imprison and condemn citizen whistleblowers, without charges for uncovering and revealing war crimes.

Complacency is allowing ourselves to be conned into this idea of supposed democracy when the politician is not held accountable for campaigning on lies and the citizen gets no say in what our leaders actually do that affects the rest of the world and probably indirectly supports people like KONY to begin with.

KONY is a bad man. But perhaps before we get on our high horse about complacency, we should take a look at what the empire we support, of which we are a part of is actually doing in the third world.

This is just another side of this issue, and it bothers me a little that everyone is all up in arms about KONY, an issue that's largely been dealt with, by essentially supporting a cause that is going to benefit arms dealers. But nobody seems to give a shit about the terror we are bringing and continue to bring to the middle east and the rest of the world, directly or indirectly as a cause of /our/ complacency and our refusal to hold our leaders accountable.

Just a thought.

P.S - I haven't looked into this, but I'd put money on the possibility that Uganda has oil. Anyone?

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

There is no such thing as human nature.

Lately I've kept coming back to the question of human nature. Intelligent, moral, ethical people continue to use the term as a rationalisation device as to why human beings in repetitive patterns, continue to commit atrocious acts of genocide and destruction. "It's human nature."

Let me explain something. There is no such thing. The idea that we have to destroy each other as if that is some kind of inbuilt instinct is ridiculous. The only things we /have/ to do, as human beings, is to eat, to drink, to shit, to piss, to breathe and to fuck (Sometimes not even that). That's it. Everything is else societal and environmental pressure.

I call it 1st world exceptionalism.

The 1st world exceptionalist will use phrases like "People will always X. People have always Y. People will never X and/or Y"

We will notice that when the 1st world exceptionalist use these phrases, they seem to consider themselves outside of what they define as "People". The 1st world exceptionalist believe themselves exempt. Which is not unreasonable as long as we acknowledge the truth as to why. The why being societal and environmental pressures.

To acknowledge this truth however, comes with the realization that every other human being in any society can be produced to be exempt too. Which cancels the idea that "people" are naturally anything.

We are products of our environment.

To think that human beings have some inbuilt psychological pattern that forces us to destroy each other, and at the same time to suggest that we are exempt from this rule we claim resides in our "natural" psychology is arrogant and closely linked to a superiority complex usually adopted by racists.

If this was true we'd all be constantly fighting down some natural urge to murder each other. Do we, and have we done horrible things as a civilisation time and time again? Sure. But to use that as some kind of justification for why change in human psychology is impossible is just plain wrong. If human psychology could not change we would all still be living in caves.

To suggest that it is human nature to commit these horrible acts and that societal and environmental pressure is not the cause, is to suggest that we (The 1st world exceptionalists) are somehow above the rest by some kind of divine magic.

Let me define it. If one person, or a community of people are able to become moral, ethical people who try and do the right thing by each other, every single other human being on the planet carries this same potential.

If you happen to be a person who does not carry what some claim to be a natural human instinct to be greedy and murdering pigs, this is not because you are special, it is because you are lucky. You are lucky to be born into a certain community, part of a certain society, at a certain time, with certain people to take care of you, and that you have gone through life relatively unscathed of experiences that might turn you into a more destructive kind of individual to yourself and society as whole.

That's it. "Good" individuals, are lucky. "Bad" individuals are unlucky, and in some cases insane.

"Good" individuals come about because of environmental and societal pressures in the same way "Bad" individuals come about. This is psychological and scientific fact.

In other words, the pattern of human evil and destruction that realists and ignorant fools claim to be part of human nature, is not. It is a symptom of societal and environmental pressure, which is perpetuated as an indirect result of "Good" people clinging onto this arrogant, superiority complex that the only reason we, as individuals don't carry the urge to destroy each other is because we just happen to be "better".

As an eight year old I went from knowing not a word of English to speaking fluently with a flawless accent in a period of eight weeks. This was not because I was some kind of genius, this was because of the societal pressure placed on me by my environment (Moving to London from Norway) and the natural learning ability of being a child (Which is not considered or utilised by any educational system anywhere in the world).

We all carry the same potential within us as human beings and to suggest otherwise is to suggest some kind of divine chosen superiority over the rest of the human race.

Fuck. That. Shit.

There is no such thing as human nature, and our potential as human beings is infinite.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

A response to all the open letters to the Banksy letter (Especially that guy Craig Ward).

Some of you may have seen the open letter from Banksy to the advertising world floating around the net. Some of you may also have noticed quite a few advertisers trying to defend their place as modern products of a machine most recently pioneered by Joseph Goebbels.

It blew my mind how good the human mind is at rationalizing itself out of guilt for fucking shit up. I wonder if the blonde haired blue eyed Germans in the third Reich did the same thing. I thought I'd just post a response to all the responses cutting Banksy down for using the same techniques the advertisers do to get his word out.

I am not hugely familiar with his work (Banksy) But I've seen some of it. I like his ability to hone in on truth in a simplistic way that I define as the feeling in the reaction to seeing his work. Generally I feel he manages to reflect on what many of us have grown up feeling but lack the intellectual or creative ability to define.

I also saw his documentary (The oscar nominated one) and I had a very similar reaction.

I like his work, sure. He's a great artist, and he has something to say, and he respects his creative integrity. As an artist myself, I can respect that.

Now, Banksy may use the same techniques as traditional advertisers in some way, but the difference is the content and the idea. Where the "advertisers" use the highly effective method of distribution to essentially promote greed and consumerism which is precisely where the worlds current crises of capitalism comes from. (Growth and greed is the same thing)

Banksy, and other real artists who retain their creative integrity seem to try and use the process to perpetuate ideas that actually make a positive difference to the people who see it rather than making you feel insecure about how much money you have, or what things you own, or what you look like.

Some people may argue that people are intelligent enough not to be brainwashed by a commercial. True. Does one commercial brainwash people? No. Do a million of the same commercial, spouting the same superficial idea, in different forms, over a lifetime brainwash people? Yes.

To pretend this is not the case is like pretending that human beings are not biological computers with a sense of self, programmed through input, that input being reactions to experience which sum totals in this thing we call personality. We are products, and society produces us, wether you like it or not. This is science.

Some people will argue that advertising, good or bad, makes the world go round and that we should accept it as a necessary evil. Well, human slavery used to make the world go around too. (Some argue it still does) Should we bring that back?

Some will argue humans have "always" been greedy and wanted more of what the other person has, and to feed this instinct is only natural. Well, human civilization came about roughly eight thousand five hundred years ago and I believe it was the greeks who first realized the power and influence of the artist and decided to harness that influence for the use of social conditioning. To call that small period of time "always" is stupid. We have existed anatomically identical to now for barely two hundred thousand years and nobody knows what we were doing for most of that time so please open a dictionary and look up the definition of the word "Always".

Existence does not start and stop with your own individual sense of self, or the start of the current ruling empire, the world goes on, and things get better, or worse, and yes, believe it or not people have existed who did not value personal possession above all else. It's just that they got wiped out, by people who wanted all their shit, because they were god damn greedy.

To think that human beings cannot be better than what we are, is antagonistic to the progress of human civilization. To pretend that forwarding a corporate agenda designed for one purpose and one purpose only; to make billionaires richer, to make the average person dumber, and to think that is anything but unethical and just plain wrong, is naive and makes the people who rationalize themselves into thinking this is okay, part of a much larger problem.

Advertising could be a good thing. Like the getup ads for example, and that recent Guardian "Three little pigs" ad. But doing good is not what the advertising industry is primarily used for. Any industry the marketing/advertising world gets their hands on, is eventually dumbed down and sold with product quality and creative integrity becoming a last priority. Artists and creators becoming slaves to middle men who are slaves to the irrational idea of never ending growth.

The film industry is a prime example. Dominated by middle men who are willing to go to great lengths to remove freedom of the internet to protect obscene profits they had no right to be making in the first place, especially if those profits come at the expense of quality.

As for the difference between what McDonalds do and what Banksy does, It's pretty easy to spot the difference, and if you can't, well, then you're a prime example of what is wrong with the current model of corporate advertising.

I myself used to bring in a nice living selling vanity and insecurity to people so they would buy useless stuff they didn't need. It's difficult not to take part in that machine, especially as an artist wanting to make a living. I would rationalize it in just the same way that people like Craig Ward do. But then I woke up, and quit, and now I barely make any money, but fuck all that. My creative integrity is worth more and I'd rather be a prostitute than go back to that world and help make the future a worse place. A prostitute is much more useful to society anyway.

Honestly. Nobody cares if you make most your living doing it, nobody cares if you depend on it. Slave traders made a living too. Great. Good. You're still part of the problem, and although individuals may forget, and maybe not even care, history remembers, and history god damn well does care.

Does Banksy, or anyone else for that matter seem to have the solution? No. Probably not. Does a cancer patient know how to cure cancer? No. But before the cure, comes the diagnosis.