Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Was Jimmy Savile A Necrophile?

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

One of the more surreal aspects of the unfolding scandal around media split-personality Jimmy Savile is the way British media reports of the disgraced disc jockey and TV presenter sexually assaulting young kids are finally being run so long after they did the rounds elsewhere (including on various nutjob conspiracy blogs). As soon as Savile died a slew of right-wing commentators felt free to put online stuff they’d have feared being sued about earlier. That said, the stories they tell had gone around the music business and elsewhere for years before they appeared in endless copy and paste jobs on web operations run by loonies who are deranged enough to believe that the Illuminati is something more than a very  minor secret society that was successful suppressed in the eighteenth-century! However just because these sites manage to grab the wrong end of the stick with regard to virtually everything they cover, that doesn’t mean that very occasionally they don’t get things right. And they may be more or less correct on most of what they have to say about Savile and his colleagues.

So this leaves me wondering whether there is more than a grain of truth in the decades old rumours that Savile volunteered as a hospital porter because it provided him with the opportunity to get it on with corpses (as well as to sexually abuse crippled children). The mainstream media hasn’t picked up on the necrophilia allegations to date but they are now repeating so much of what has been widely available on nutjob conspiracy blogs since Savile’s death a year ago that it seems merely a matter of time before they bite the bullet on this one too. It is less likely – but not impossible – that they will eventually repeat the allegations that former British Prime Minister Edward Heath abused kids at the same Jersey children’s home that Savile trawled for young victims.

Another peculiar aspect of the Savile scandal is that many commentators seem unable to understand why paedophilia is unacceptable. Acceptable sex is consensual sex. It should go without saying that consent is only possible when all those partaking in a sexual act enjoy social equality. Given the power differentials between adults and children, paedophilia can never be consensual and thus it should be condemned as an utterly inappropriate form of behaviour. So regardless of whether it is Savile, or his fellow Radio One DJ John Peel (or pop musicians like Gary Glitter and Jimmy Page), adults having sex with kids in their early teens is always abuse. Some John Peel fanboys seem to think he wasn’t a paedophile when he slept with young girls (and married a 15 year-old when he was 26) because he is their hero. Such posturing is absurd and illustrates a generalised inability to grasp the real issues.

Finally, the Savile scandal is yet another manifestation of the destruction of the status quo – and needs to be connected back to the ongoing scandals around banking, phone hacking and MPs expenses. The establishment is in ruins and Savile shouldn’t be treated as a rogue celebrity but rather as one manifestation of a more general malaise. Saville like John Peel and Alan “Fluff” Freeman (another dead former Radio One DJ about whom there are plenty of child abuse allegations floating around the web) were all recognised by the British honours system (with Savile himself also being close to various members of the British royal family during his life). This starts to create the impression that unless you are a kiddie fiddler you’ll never be offered an honour by Queen Elizabeth II. The class system still stinks something rotten and it is high time we not only stripped all royals of their titles and wealth, but did the same to every last member of the superannuated  establishment!

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!

Porno Girl Amina Noir Disappears From The Web

Thursday, September 20th, 2012

One of the interesting effects of the protests against The Innocence of the Muslims film is the way they have led to the removal of data from the web. To take just one example – searches for the adult actress and model Amina Noir who appears in Innocence of the Muslims currently turn up a number of very recently dead links.

If you try to see individual images of Noir on the Model Mayhem site you get a message saying: “This user is not here atm. bye.” And if you try to access her profile at Model Mayhem you get a message saying: “Unable to show profile #1201168  This member is either awaiting approval or has removed their profile from the site.” There clearly was an Amina Noir profile at Model Mayhem because pictures from it currently still come up in image searches; and to me it seems strange that it would have been removed by Noir as she has yet to take down her public figure profile from Facebook. The latter is less interesting than her Model Mayhem profile appears to have been since there is only one photo on her Facebook promo page and little else: when I checked earlier today it only had 42 likes despite having been up for nearly 3 years! I think we can safely conclude Noir was struggling to make it in the adult entertainment industry.

Those who attempt to view a series of photos of Noir’s bondage activities in a Californian art gallery on Violet Blue’s Flickr stream are repeatedly told: “This photo is currently unavailable.” That said The Sweet Spot LA haven’t (yet) removed their photo of Noir with Mommy Fiercest and Afrodisiac Lehana Love that was taken on 22 January 2011; when I looked today this had clocked up 173 views. Likewise one of the images that appears to have been removed from Violet Blue’s Flickr stream is still up alongside an article she wrote about an Art Of Restraint ‘art’/bondage show at Femina Potens Gallery for the San Francisco Chronicle of 21 May 2009.

And again, the page for Noir’s 2010 profile on ‘modelling agency’ Chameleon Kittenz on the Blogspot site now gives the following message: “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”

I don’t know whether the removed images and pages were taken down at the request of Amina Noir or because those in control of the ‘disappeared’ material had received (or possibly only feared) threats from those protesting against Innocence of the Muslims. Material is lost from the web all the time and the disappearance of a sizeable proportion of the available data about (and images of) Amina Noir is a timely reminder of this; whether you believe this to be a good or bad thing (or are largely indifferent to it) probably depends on a complex series of factors.

The producer and backers of The Innocence of the Muslims are clearly a bunch of racist far-Right nutjobs. That said, I’m still not at all taken with the slogan “Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet” (popular among some of those protesting against Innocence Of The Muslims – but let’s not forget that the idiots using this slogan are actually only a tiny minority of those who adhere to an Islamic worldview). Stupid formulations such as the one I’ve just cited should, of course, be transmogrified into messages that are much more positive and reasonable, such as: “Praise Those Who Insult The Capitalist God Of Profit!”

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!

From The Sex Life Of Jesus To The Innocence Of The Muslims

Monday, September 17th, 2012

Looking at press coverage of The Innocence of the Muslims (2012) I’m not particularly surprised I’ve yet to find any that compares the reception of this film to the reaction that greeted Jens Jørgen Thorsen’s attempts to make the movie The Sex Life Of Jesus in the 1970s. Before even starting to shoot his flick Thorsen’s found himself vilified in the media and banned from the UK and many other countries. Thorsen had planned to make the film in Britain but was forced to (temporarily) abandon the project under intense opposition from Christian morality campaigners like Mary Whitehouse, Queen Elizabeth II (the fundamentalist head of the Church of England, as well as head of the British state), then British Prime Minister James Callaghan, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan (Elizabeth II’s top Church of England hatchet man of the time).

The racist mainstream media in the Anglo-American world portrays Muslim fundamentalism as a major world problem, while mostly ignoring the fact that Christian fundamentalists are far more of a danger (they are clearly much better armed once you take into account the influence of the Bible belt on American mainstream politics &c., and they’re also yearning for Armageddon). Since ultimately fundamentalism is a global manifestation of an inability to deal with the complexities of the modern world, it is only to be expected that reaction to The Innocence Of The Muslims should mirror earlier reactions to The Sex Life Of Jesus.

Indeed during the 1980s there were ongoing petitions by US Christian fundamentalists arising from rumours that a film portraying Jesus as gay was about to be released. A number of sources suggest these rumours were based on a very partial knowledge of Ed D. Louie’s lost hardcore gay film Him (1974), which Al Goldstein described in the following terms in a review from his magazine Screw dated (29 April 1974): “The plot of HIM theoretically is about a faggot who is preoccupied with Christ and constantly has sexual reveries about balling that great Son of God.” Him was screened at the 55th Street Playhouse in Manhattan from 27th March to 23rd May 1974, and it possibly also played at a few other fleapit film theatres in American cities in the mid-seventies.

I’ve no idea if Jens Jørgen Thorsen was aware of Him, and if so whether it influenced his attempt to make The Sex Life Of Jesus. Due to pressure from reactionary Christian fundamentalists, Thorsen was unable to complete his movie about Jesus until the early 1990s, and when it was finally shot as Jesus vender tilbage (Jesus Returns – 1992) the script appears to have been drastically revised (to the extent that some maintain Thorsen never got to make the movie he’d proposed to shoot in the 1970s).

Thorsen was a leftist prankster and leading light of the Second Situationist International – and in many ways the reaction to his proposed film is more important than what he eventually made. I haven’t seen Jesus vender tilbage (and I’m not sure whether there is a version dubbed or subtitled into English), but I’ve been told by Danish speakers who have sat through it that it is awful. The films I have seen by Thorsen I’ve liked – his celluloid adaptation of Herny Miller’s Quiet Days In Clichy (1970) is a truly explosive marriage of avant-garde and exploitation cinema.

The producer of The Innocence Of The Muslims (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) and his backers are exactly the type of right-wing extremist Christian nutjobs Thorsen exposed as reactionaries when his attempt to film The Sex Life Of Jesus was shut down by uptight scumbags ranging from Queen Elizabeth II on down. That said Nakoula’s project was in many ways subverted by those employed to carry it through. Director Alan Roberts is a competent low-budget exploitation film-maker. His work is lent a particularly surreal quality by the overdubbing of anti-Islamic elements not included in the original script and added after the end of his involvement in the production. The many commentators who say the film is bad or poorly made are simply bourgeois hacks whose judgements are based on the false ‘standards’ of high budget Hollywood ‘realism’. The Innocence Of The Muslims (or at least the nearly 14 minute long trailer for it available on the internet) shares many tropes found in the output of artists such as Mike Kelly or Paul McCarthy. Visually and in terms of acting this is not a bad film (if one judges it on terms other than those of Hollywood realism), what sucks about this production is the attempt to transform it into a racist rant via detournement through overdubbing.

The best element of The Innocence Of The Muslims is the manner in which its lack of realism destabilises meaning and forces the viewer to confront the issue of representation. The portrayal of Muhammad is so generic that he might as well be Jesus or Buddha or any other quasi-historical figure. This is not what the producer and his backers intended but then the real ‘meaning’ of the film no doubt escapes them. Likewise the prurience of the production clearly appeals to emotions the right-wing fundamentalist Christians who produced and support it probably wouldn’t care to admit they possess, but these are nonetheless integral parts of their personalities. This is what makes the bourgeois denunciations of The Innocence Of The Muslims as a bad piece of film-making all the more telling. It seems the privileged of the overdeveloped world would have preferred it if this production had succeeded as a piece of ‘realism’ and faithfully put across the message its producer hoped to convey – rather than undermining that message!

The Innocence Of The Muslims has a dialectical relationship to Thorsen’s Sex Life Of Jesus. As Marx observed in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, history repeats itself: “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Marx also famously noted in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.” In other words we won’t get rid of fundamentalism until we get rid of capitalism. The process of disalienation will render any and all belief in ‘God’ absurd!

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!

Turn, Turn, Turn – Spinning Away from the Mysticism of the Dervishes

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012

When I was a toddler I used to like spinning around and around for long periods of time. Sometimes I’d fall down, while on other occasions I’d stop still standing up and marvel at the room still spinning around me despite my movements having ceased. When I first tried acid as a teenager it took me right back to these early childhood experiences of spinning. And although those first LSD experiences are a few decades behind me I can still dig whirling around and around.

I was spinning around this morning for the first time in several months and it really grooved me as a trippy experience. There’s nothing mystical or new age about such activity – it is simply playful fun. After spinning this morning I wondered if other adults liked to spin in this way without resorting to mystical justifications. Putting spinning into a search engine I was disappointed to discover the top results were all for the fixed bicycle exercise of that name. With whirling the lead results were for Sufi dervishes. Turning took me even further off-subject to items such as lathes.

For me spinning is just turn, turn, turn – but from there we can go on to overturn, overturn, overturn! Constituting yourself as a bourgeois subject is all about decorum and there is no decorum frolicking around in a spin. Whirling without mystical delusions is fundamental anti-bourgeois! Marx famously described religion as ‘the opium of the people’ and the ‘heart of a heartless world’, and so Marx would have understood the necessity of stripping the mysticism out of spinning and instead linking it to the states of radical subjectivity that accompany revolutionary activity. Disalienation entails reforging all our connections to our species being – and living up to our status as homo ludens! Turn, turn, turn to overturn, overturn, overturn!

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!