The Worst Afakens

The Worst Afakens

Months behind the curve here but I finally watched The Force Awakens–rented not bought from iTunes–on the laptop, while eating fish and chips at my desk. What do you call this? It’s like Star Wars has become an archetype. Now a direct copy––it’s not even a remix––is acceptable. An instance. For a piece of mass (hysteria) media to be so derivative shrinks the collective psyche. In order to subscribe to liking it (a separate thing from actually liking it or not) you have to forget.

Of course, the new copy is aimed at people much younger than me, who would not put up with the archaic SFX of the original. Perhaps it’s just a Generation X thing––jilted overgrowns watching kids movies and feeling left out that the makers haven’t kept them in the loop. Maybe the believe-yourself stuff pumped through Hunger Games etc is as good as any esoteric codex. Maybe kids grow up pumped with the star-seeded hero’s journey narratives of today only to end up aspiring to golf and corporate mafiadom anyway. Everything and nothing changes.

Now the Deathstar is ten times bigger and sucks energy from the sun and we must pretend for the sake of getting our money’s worth that Mark Hamill simply doesn’t and didn’t have the right face for the King of the Jedi. We may as well have had Michael J Fox. We miss Alec Guinness. After LOST I wanted more from Abrams. Only edgy thing he has done here is set the bar even lower for pressing out simulacra. Harrison Ford’s action movements are getting ludicrously ponderous, but maybe he and Chewie kind of rescue things on the nostalgia front. Maybe it’s sort of edgily cool that JJ casts English and Scots people in the Reich-like staff of the Deathstar, until you remember that the original had Peter Cushing. End of day that’s it for Star Wars, as Prometheus was death knell for Alien, as it will be for Matrix and Avatar if the rumoured prequels or sequels ever come out. I probably would collect an Agent Smith plastic figure out a cereal packet.

Which all goes to show that, everything–even (or perhaps especially) allegory about the entrapment of human consciousness–is eventually assimilated into the default post-modern, ‘scientific’, atheistic banality we are continually persuaded is “the truth”.

It’s a war of attrition, if nothing else. A relentless canoning of images at the re-uptake sites in the brain. Which is pretty much the mechanism of Evil itself–iteratively reinforcing the correctness of the ego, which will buy let’s face it pretty much anything. There is then a connection between the machine and the ego and evil.

Machines essentially repeat. Which is something different from natural production–the propagation of plants and animals etc. There is something mechanical about repeating the post-modern consensus that what there is (often delineated by rapping on the solidity of the wall or tabletop) is all there is and that is the way it always was and ever will be. You won’t hear Richard & Judy or Eddie Muir, say, say it in as many words. It is the point of view implicit in what they are saying and not saying. For the most part it is an unexamined point of view–often held by people who do not even know they are holding a point of view. The worse case is when the point of view is known to be a point of view, but is maintained for other, usually selfish, reasons. Worse still is where the point of view is known to be false and is maintained for selfish reasons.

In the Force Awakens we have a very crude awakening. The African-American child-being Fin is awakened by his conscience when he witnesses the ethnic cleansing of a village. Within a few beats he is helping the rebel pilot escape the Death star. And from there, like everyone else, he follows a character arc computed by an app or a widget in Microsoft Word. He might wield the light sabre for a moment, but Fin is basically Driving Ms Daisy. It would have been edgier to have made cast a Syrian or Afghan or Kurd.

But forget edgy. Of course the New Star Wars Movie was never going to be edgy! But ff that’s our point of view we need to urgently examine it! Is there not resignation in this acceptance that the New Star Wars Movie is pure simulacrum, fodder, mechanised distraction, laced with blue pill not red. Is it acceptable for a movie titled The Force Awakens? Is it alright that the movie encapsulates whatever might have been alluded to by “the force awakens” in the algorithms of Normal, in the mechanics of Evil? Is there anything new about the new Jedi in the movie other than that she is female? What force awakens in her and what does it do for her or anyone else? Maybe in the kamikaze X-wing pilots penetrating like sperm to the Deathstar egg we can read spirit’s impregnation of the void. Is Abrams channeling something in having the Deathstar suck energy from the sun or simply repeating what has already become an archetypal instance, a subroutine, a preset in the machine of plot-with-esoteric-reference?

Or to sum the whole thing up: is it okay to watch something called “The Force Awakens” and then go play golf*?

 

___

* I often use golf as a convenient epithet for all that is Evil.

 

 

 

 

Urbs Not War

Urbs Not War

Just-about Reanimated Stallone as Bread Mafia Boss in Warburton’s Ad

Arriving in (class) war-torn Bethnal Green yesterday afternoon, possibly the warmest on record for April, I was struck in the face by a billboard ad featuring a just-about reanimated Sylvester Stallone and a host of other hand-gun-toting ghouls standing in a Blackwater-style phalanx beneath heavy metal typography. The product? War(burtons) bread.

Global Machine Culture.Wheat

The latest outdoor media instalment from Campaign award-winning agency WRCS would appear to be pitched at ornery inner city folks raised on that peculiar subterranean-yet-mainstream diet of violence–now worked into the degenerate and desecrated grain formerly known as wheat. A bastardisation concocted by Global Machine Culture [GMC], wheat has become the edible monoculture version of Agent Smith, viral shadow of the Matrix.

Whether the “grain” used in Warburton’s “bread” is GM or not is pretty much irrelevant. Fracking, corporate tax evasion, Blairism–take your pick from a plethora of parallels–you can bet your bottom dollar that chemical corners have been cut. GMC is certainly betting its bottom dollar on it. Am I saying Warburtons “bread”–let’s call it “edible product” is harmful to your health? Let’s not go there. GMC already has the “scientific” answers ready to roll on surface-to-media missiles that crop-dust public discussion with enumerated bullshit. Is GMC harmful to the environment? If you can answer no to that, I’d love to see your arguments in the comments box below.

But this is not so much a “green” as a “green psychology” article–if you like, a “deep eco” more than an “eco” piece.

Ecology: The branch of science concerned with the relationships between organisms and their environments.
Oxford Dictionary

Sure, it’s tongue-in-cheek, concocted by “clever”, middle class executives and “creatives” in the rather sexier environs of 60 Great Portland Street, leveraging the already tongue-in-cheek Stallone movie “The Expendables”. But what is the relationship between the residents of Bethnal Green and the award-winning Warburtons “Family” campaign? Or the Britain’s Got Talent-watching, edible-product-toasting masses who lap up the TV commercial in the ad breaks? Does thegame for a laugh messaging not rest on cultural channels of violence? Is “family” not tongue-twisted to mean “mafia”, i.e. glamourised gang culture? Is it only coincidence that WRCS’s other clients include the Army, Navy, Airforce, Artemis (The Profit Hunters) and–on balance–that benign old giant, HMRC?

Respect the Bread Warburtons ad by BBH

Perhaps it’s unfair to piss on WRCS’s award dinner chips. They’re not alone in this war business. How about BBH’s ad on the right?

Of course, it’s all tongue-in-cheek, game for a laugh, simply a reflection of modern, urban society. But whose tongue is in whose cheek? WRCS’s in Stallone’s? The clever folks at WRCS might say I’m patronising the working class, who understand the joke just fine.

Maybe we can go further then, with rape, racism, ISIS beheadings and Israeli F16s worked up in a tongue-in-cheek commercial for underarm spray, say.

Met Police Serious Crime Figures for Tower Hamlets

Met Police Serious Crime Figures for Tower Hamlets

According to the Metropolitan Police, Violence Against the Person in Tower Hamlets has risen 21% in the last 12 months, keeping up with the London-wide trend of nearly 30%.

Grab a free rag off the floor of the tube if you want examples. To be fair, the same rags print articles (juxtapose ads for Warburtons and other edible product) about 10-year old boys frazzled on hardcore porn, teenage girls bullied into anal sex, bartered between local mafias like objects in Grand Theft Auto. (What is this reporting really? Assimilation? Social lip service?)

In this light is there really any defence for depictions of violence, no matter how clever or tongue-in-cheek, in the billboard overhanging your local station, high street, park or playground? Are inner city children really that urbane and ironic? Do we want them to be?

What’s your response? Maybe like the protagonist of Charlie Booker’s Black Mirror: 15 Million Credits, the bit where he stands in front of the Cowell-esque panel and sums up his blistering polemic with the words: FUCK YOU!

It’s tempting to leave it there, to openly encourage that these billboards be defaced, torn down, burnt. I’m supposed to play the game, push my tongue into some clever, Great Portland Street cheek, let it all wash over me. Take the cash and shut the fuck up. For many years I tried to do just that. But I couldn’t, not really.

Increasingly, I don’t think you can either. Not really.

11

Google image search on “911”

Eleven years on from 9/11 I am sitting in a small room on the 26th floor of a 39 floor tower in downtown Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A downpour has suddenly begun, and I am peering, slightly alarmed, out the window, between the air con units, across the 50 meters of airspace to the still under construction Shell Building opposite. The latter tower is – after some tautological marketing calculus – deemed ‘green’. Unpicking how thousands of tons of concrete and steel assembled by low-paid migrant workers from Punjab and Bangladesh into a 50 floor air conditioned blue glass box is ‘green’ is not what I want to do here. I only want to take my place along with the millions of other bloggers and armchair activists out there who will be saying something about the sudden removal of the World Trade Center from the New York skyline eleven years ago.

The Shell Building on fire, KL, 18 Jan 2012

Personally, I was convinced that all was not what it seemed – that an amorphous anti-West phantom called Al Qua’ida had orchestrated the attacks as part of their global Jihad against “Our Way of Life” – the instant a passport bearing the name “Mohammed Atta” and a Qur’an were ‘found’ in the glove compartment of a car in the WTC carpark within the hour of the planes striking the towers. You remember the television pictures. The clouds of dust. The people running away. Ask yourself if it was really possible to have found such a needle – such a convenient needle – in that haystack?

The word CONSPIRACY will be flashing up on your inner screen. That haystack is already oversized, bristling with articles about the ‘TRUTH’ of 9/11, ‘INSIDE JOBS’ and so on. This is not another one of those articles.

One thing strikes me about 9/11 eleven years on. Which is that the majority of people still believe the official story: that Al Qua’ida did it, which was why Afghanistan was bombed, and in turn Iraq invaded.

The latter consequence – which has been logically, legally and factually dismantled by a great many people – should, and I think does give these 9/11 Official Story people pause for thought. Just as Copernicus’s logical and factual account of the Earth orbiting the Sun gave the Vatican pause for thought. Yet the Vatican has yet to officially accept the Copernicus model. This is precisely the sort of cataclysm depicted in that most fearsome of Tarot glyphs, The Tower.

Tarot: The Tower

The Tower as depicted by Pamela Coleman-Smith in the Rider-Waite Tarot Deck

So if you find yourself pausing for thought regards what actually happened re 9/11, ask yourself, what is it you have invested in the Official Story? I am not asking you to believe in any other account. There is, I think, no need to go into the details of melting points of steel, or the demolition patterns of similar buildings and so on. I think it’s enough to take the Invasion of Iraq on false premises (Al Qua’ida hiding there armed with weapons of mass destruction) and to work backwards from there in order to arrive at questions about the Official Story. We needn’t even take into account the published papers of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on the New American Century and the ‘hamletization’ of various parts of the world to observe some sort of strategy at work.

I have heard many people argue that the various US bodies typically pointed at by conspiracy theorists – the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Defence etc etc – are simply not competent enough to handle any such strategy. That may be the case. One could certainly argue that 9/11 wasn’t handled particularly smoothly, hence the many holes in the Official Story.

But the point is simply that there is a question mark. A great big one. The answer to it lies in your own response. What would you like to be the answer and why? And what would you fear the answer to be and why? Somewhere in that spectrum lies ‘THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11’.

In fact, regardless of all the mayhem and death that began on 9/11, the point of the event is this question. Considering it honestly and answering it truthfully for oneself is the way to honour the thousands of American citizens, hundreds of thousands of Afghan citizens, millions of Iraqi citizens and the thousands of individuals of all nationalities that have been detained without charge, rendered, tortured, and murdered in furtherance of the Official Story.

Do have a think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice for Rachel Corrie

Rachel Corrie death: struggle for justice culminates in Israeli court

Nine years after she was killed protesting in the Gaza Strip, the verdict in a lawsuit brought by her family is about to be heard.

Guardian

This article about the US protester killed by bulldozer in Rafah refugee camp, Gaza, aged 23, in 2003 (esoteric note, 2+3 = 5 = Gevurah, the sephirot of justice on the kabalistic Tree of Life) is heard, on Guardian Comment Is Free-watching site CIFWatch as:

The continued exploitation of Rachel Corrie.

This coming week the verdict will be given in the civil law suit brought by the parents of ISM volunteer Rachel Corrie against the Israeli government. Already the Rachel Corrie Foundation (run by her parents and others) has scheduled a publicity event and is using the occasion to add leverage to its anti-Israel campaigning.

CIFWatch

In other words, the prospect that justice might or could be done is inflammatory to CIFWatch. At least, viz my review of The Dictator, we are here talking definitely about Israel rather than trespassing on a jews-only web of connections between Israel and jews. Which we have to observe, is not a million miles from the connectivity between muslims and various racial groups. General aside: problems ensue when religious and racial groups overlap too neatly. Oh but wait! This bulldozer was bulldozing (refugee housing plus Rachel Corrie plus nine, unsung Palestinians that day) in Rafah refugee camp, which is Gaza, close to the border with Egypt. Disputed territory isn’t it? Someone‘s trespassing.

The young American’s intention was to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in Rafah refugee camp, close to the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Scores of homes had already been crushed; Corrie was one of eight American and British volunteers acting as human shields for local families. [Guardian]

Becomes:

When Rachel Corrie was accidentally killed nine and a half years ago, public awareness of the nature of the organization (also known as the Palestine Solidarity Movement – PSM – in the US) which sent her and many others to endanger their lives in a war zone (and still does) was perhaps limited. The International Solidarity Movement had, after all, only been in existence for a short while at the time, having been founded in 2001 – several months after the second Intifada commenced. [CIFWatch]

 

Paranoia

Paranoia seems to be the mindset around these issues. From a certain point of view the existence of CIFWatch full stop is paranoid. And from such a point of view, it’s possible to view Justice for Rachel is as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish (take your pick). As is the peaceful flotilla sent from Turkey to Gaza, and militarily disabled by Israel, who in their paranoia are immune, or rather thriving on international criticism.

So we shouldn’t criticise Israel or CIFWatch for being paranoid, but to reach out to them with paranoia of our own, specifically the suspicion that, just as the muslims have been hijacked by the wahabi-salafis, the christians by the fundamentalist american agenda, so the jews – and israel – have been hijacked by the Zionists. Perhaps even Zionism has been hijacked.

As Joe Biden said in 2007, “You don’t have to be a jew to be a Zionist.” Now, as then, Biden is Barack Obama’s running mate for the Israeli, sorry, US Presidency. As Peter Bradshaw, Guardian reviewer of The Dictator wrote in his 2006 review of Borat:

One of the first sequences is Borat introducing a TV clip showing one of his community’s oldest folk traditions: the Running of the Jew. It is quite incredible, and conceived on an epic scale to rival the chariot race from Ben-Hur. Obviously, Sacha Baron Cohen is himself Jewish and perhaps we should here quickly rehearse the saloon-bar truisms: only Jewish people are allowed to tell Jewish jokes, if these comedians wanted to be dangerous why don’t they take on Islam – yes, yes, quite … but is Sacha Baron Cohen really allowed to do this? Is anyone? It is a sensational provocation, a 19th-century anti-semitic cartoon gigantically reborn in the 21st century, in which anti-semitism is alive and well all over the world, in places where they have incidentally never heard of the liberal west’s carefully nurtured distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.

With all this jews but not Israel, Israel but not jews, jews but not Zion stuff, the phrase that comes to mind is having your cake and eating it. The other observation to make is that Bradshaw seems to have missed one of Baron Cohen’s ironic turns. For a jew to feel pricked by  the spoofed anti-semitism of the Running of the Jew scene in Borat is something like me feeling racially offended by Bernard Manning ranting “cheese wog” re [round, yellow cheese like] spoof drug “cake” in Chris Morris’s Brass Eye. Pricked enough that he must resort, reflexively to a swipe at Islam.

 

Pain and healing

The more I think about it, the more the whole dynamic around the jews and Israel and so on seems childish. It’s a game of sticks and stones (except, in their case, nuclear ones). It’s Eckhart Tolle’s pain body at work – a nexus of negative energies with a will to survive of its own.

Here’s what I want to say on a shamanic blog about the Zionist agenda: Something deeply pained, paranoid and unhealed lies at the centre of it, heavily protected by memetic smokescreens and, as everyone knows, armed with nuclear weapons. It has the power to draw in other pain bodies by mere mention (mine included). Primarily it draws to itself the other ‘god’ pain bodies: Iran, the ‘christian’ fundamentalist right and so on. I will go a stage further and say that, The Devil lies at the heart of the God World. Which, from an esoteric point of view is hardly news, but for those arriving at this from a political background, may sound like madness.

If you think about it, preferably via symbols, the idea that Devil lies at the heart of God is “simply” (!) yin yang philosophy. The true Light lies at the heart of the heart of darkness, Shakti awakes Shiva, spontaneous Creation from the fertile Void.

Another way of talking about this pained and paranoid Devil is to talk about – a la Final Fantasy, the Spirits Within – the Spirit of the Lizards, a la Carlos Casteneda’s Active Side of Infinity the “predator from the depths of the cosmos” who conquered humanity by giving us their minds. And that mind is pained and paranoid as it is the mind of a race which has destroyed its world. In Avatar, the protagonist Sully mentions of the Sky People (human military industrial complex) that “they killed their mother.”

This pain is in all of us, even if it is not directly ours. It is part of the inheritance of being human in this era. It is what is being healed in this era.

Political will, wars, bombings and invasions have not liberated the Palestinians – nor have the jews, Israelis or Zionists been liberated from the matter – in more than 60 years. The definition of insanity is to go on doing the same and expecting a different result.

Am I saying that nothing should be done about Israel Palestine? Am I suggesting that we all go out and hug a bulldozer? No. I’m not saying whether anything should be done or not done. But that whatever you do or do not do – or think or say – watch your pain body. Departure from peace on the inside only feeds that Great Pain Body at the centre of this world issue. Inflammation, anger, unease, indignation – these are the energies that Body thrives on.

Funny dictated

The 911 scene

The 911 scene from The Dictator

I sat down to write a simple review of The Dictator and found myself hesitating and thinking twice, thrice before writing anything at all. It’s difficult to comment on the film without being drawn into the highly complex territory of ‘Anti-semitism’.

I sat through the 90 mins of toilet humour (including rape jokes) trying to work out the film’s agenda. Conclusion? The film is a mashup, memetically all over the place by accident, on purpose, or accidentally on purpose. Probably the third option.

The sense of non-plussed bemusement rather than challenging confusion or outrage I experienced I put down to the film’s use of triplespeak: pretend to pretend that the ‘pretend’ agenda blasted all over it is just a joke.

Which, once you cancel out the pretending-not-tos, winds down to a fairly simple proposition: that the Middle East’s Only Democracy is streets ahead in terms of the politics of memes. Which, of course it is. I may be oversimplifying. I may have missed an ironic turn in the equations here.

The scene near the beginning – you will recognise it from the trailer at least – where The Dictator runs the 100m in his own Olympics, which he must win at pain of death to other competitors, is quite funny. As is the comic refrain of Aladeen making throat-cutting gestures to order so and so’s  execution – for such ludicrous disagreements as getting in his way on the stairs. And other slapstickiness that other commentators have commented echoes Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy.

But Baron Cohen lives in a different era. The Dictator’s name is Aladeen, i.e. Allah deen, ‘faith in God’. Muslims will have to suck that one up or be seen as humourless anti-semites. Haha! Arabs will have to take leaves from Kazakhstan’s book on how to see the funny side of being portrayed as rapists and goat-fuckers. Women will have to schlerp it on being portrayed as bed fodder. Sexy Beast fans will observe Sir Ben’s Kingsley’s now irrefutable status as Prize Arsehole.

And anyone attuned to more intelligent (and more funny) humour a la Chris Morris, Stephen Merchant, Ricky Gervais etc etc will I think wonder who finds cock and jizz/ hotdog and mustard jokes funny. There is a weird, low-brow broadside to the film. As if it’s begging for someone to, Irvine Welsh style, haul up the sash window and shout out ‘THAT’S FUCKING SHITE!’

But it’s more complicated than that.

What are we to make of the “911 Scene” (pictured), where Aladeen (Baron Cohen) and Nadal (Jason Mantzoukas), take a tourist helicopter ride, and pretend (i.e. pretend to pretend to pretend) to discuss a 911-style hijack in mock-Arabic that neither actor can quite keep from sliding into mock-Hebrew. The two languages are semitic after all. All those ‘kh’ sounds.

We could complain that Baron Cohen and Mantzoukas are openly mocking Arabs. Sure, there is much to be mocked about Arabs; there is much to be mocked about anyone and everyone. We could say the whole film mocks Arabs. Borat body-swerved being anti-Kazakh by ‘in fact mocking American midwestern anti-semitism.’ Does the same body-swerve work here? Is the mockery of Arabs in fact only pretend – the real mockery being of American paranoia about 9/11, as represented by the two American tourists in the helicopter? I can’t work it out.

I was also bemused the film’s climax, where Aladeen decries the film’s treaty to democratise the fictional dictatorship Wadiya as a smokescreen for corporate grab of its oil and other natural resources. There then follows a remarkable excursion into ‘leftist’ politics, viz:

  • Imagining America as a dictatorship (Dick Cheney has been mentioned earlier among Khadaffi and Kim Jong Il as one of the world’s great dictators), and then
  • Keeping 99% of wealth to the richest 1%
  • Taxing the poor
  • Filling prisons with “one particular racial group” [camera closes on an African man]
  • Using the media to scare people into support for policies against their interests…

And at that point The Girl enters, allowing the device of Aladeen looking at her and declaring his love for Democracy, with all its imperfections.

Leftist credentials established via apparent criticism of the Invasion of Iraq, we rewind to the early scenes of the film, where we see Aladeen making his first public speech, announcing that Wadiya have enriched ‘weapons grade uranium’, and sniggering that it ‘is for peaceful purposes’. This scene can only be seen as a step firmly in favour of the current hardline stance towards Iran – most vociferously put by Israel, which, it says is entirely justified given Iran’s hardline towards it. The complexities are nutshelled by Aladeen’s line at the end of this speech: “…will be used only for purposes of medical research…and will certainly never be used to attack Is…Is…Oh boy.”

Here Baron Cohen pretends to body-swerve the furore that follows mention of  Is****. Why did he have Aladeen ‘almost’ say it? (Why daren’t I mention it now?) Struggling a little with Peter Bradshaw’s uncritical review of the film, I arrived at one of the comments at the bottom of the page…

…actually I was only pretending to have done that.

In actual fact I arrived via google on ‘Peter Bradshaw’ at the CIFWatch web page. CIFWatch, for those who don’t know (I didn’t until now) is a website dedicated to monitoring the Guardian’s Comment Is Free pages. Its mission is stated on its masthead:

The particular page I arrived at singles out one particular response to Peter Bradshaw’s review:

Screen Shot of CIFWatch's screenshot of Guardian

Screen Shot of CIFWatch’s screenshot of Guardian

Which CIFWatch dissect as follows:

Unpacking this comment (which has thus far garnered 39 ‘Recommends’):

  • Conflating of Jews with Israelis: Cohen, a British Jew, is immediately tied to Israel. (Also, see this CW post about a similarly bigoted attack on Cohen by the Guardian’s Michael White.)
  • Classic projection: The suggestion that Israel is an extreme anti-Arab, anti-Islamic country is a perfect moral inversion in light of the Arab world’s malign obsession with Jews and Israel, and endemic culture of antisemitism. It takes a lot of ideological conditioning to see the last 64 years as the Israeli/Jewish war against the Arab/Islamic world.
  • Thinly veiled Nazi analogy: The reader sees a Jew mocking Arab dictators as somehow analogous to Germans mocking Jews in the years leading up to the Holocaust.

This off-topic, gratuitously anti-Zionist (and ad hominem) attack on Cohen has not been deleted by CiF moderators.

If you visit the Peter Bradshaw review and click through the comments to page 4 you now find:

Screen Shot of Guardian Comment page

Screen Shot of Guardian Comment page

So the comment has been removed. Why?

Perhaps the Nazi analogy was the straw that broke the camels back (Haha – joke, guys!) The ‘Classic Projection’ accusation – the absurd and abhorrent suggestion that Israel is anti-Arab (where in Gaza did ATTW get that idea?) is a piece of simple Doublethink not worthy of our attention here. Nor is the tacit admission of CIFWatch’s gratuitously Zionist stance in their final comment on the comment.

The first point is the interesting one: Conflating of Jews with Is****is. Baron Cohen is British and Jewish, and therefore tracing a route to Is…Is…Oh boy! Is an illegal move. We shan’t delve into Google search results to discover the countless rebuttals of criticism of Israeli policies – esp with regards the Palestinians – as “anti-semitic” – including by CIFWatchers.

No, we shall simply return to that masthead:

  

“…and the assault on Is****’s legitimacy…” I think makes the site’s connection from Jews to Is**** quite clear.

The quote from CP Scott simply baffles me. Is it another ironic twist? Who was CP Scott anyway? Wikipedia:

Charles Prestwich Scott (26 October 1846 – 1 January 1932) was a British journalist, publisher and politician. Born in Bath, Somerset,[1] he was the editor of the Manchester Guardian (now the Guardian) from 1872 until 1929 and its owner from 1907 until his death. He was also a Liberal Member of Parliament and pursued a progressive liberal agenda in the pages of the newspaper.

Hmmm… So a quote from a former editor of the Guardian, viz the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard” appears in the masthead of a website dedicated to monitoring the Guardian’s Comment is Free pages. Whether CIFWatch had anything to do with the comment shown above being removed or not is of course speculation.

 

Conclusion

I hesitate to come to a conclusion.

The Is****i-P****tinian “issue” is well documented elsewhere.

Rather than appearing (or pretending) to outline any “agenda” on behalf of Is…Is… (any such thing is therefore Classic Projection on the reader’s part) I hope to have induced in the reader a certain confusion. A stumbling from proposition to proposition, from pro this to anti that and back again. This is the feeling that accompanied my viewing of The Dictator. I am tempted to say that the film is smokescreen, blurring vision of the complex terrain of the Middle East. But that would only be Classic Projection on my part. I am finally tempted to say that, whatever agenda the film simulates, dissimulates or simply doesn’t have (Ha!), attempting to progress a politics of memes by attrition, by spinning doubly and trebly around them, is surely a hiding to nothing. But that would only be thinly veiled analogy.

The author disclaims knowledge, inference, deduction or any other form of cognitive production of any connection between the members of the movie industry mentioned above and the Middle East’s Only Democracy.

More on Triplespeak in my article on Rachel Corrie.