Enlightenmental, or How I learned to stop worrying and love Cynicism as an Art form.

Enlightenmental, or How I learned to stop worrying and love Cynicism as an Art form.

By James Donnelly

To you lot.

Words in Italics – Google them.

Prologue: “I'm writing a book I'm writing a book I'm writing a book.”

It's a mantra I repeat to myself as I mash the keys on this greedy, luminous little box.

“I'm writing a book.”

I love to write, unsure if it's a passion or a skill. Yet, every time I actually settle down to do it, I hate everything that I write. It's an abhorrent, negative ego trip of apparent talentless solipsism. This will be swiftly followed by ridiculous delusions of grandeur.

I'll believe that I'm some kind of approachable Noam Chomksy or accessible Michel Foucault. These are obviously ridiculous statements to make as Chomsky is a big bespectacled Anarchist teddy bear and Foucault is a fairly plain talker, even if he did prefer to speak in French, the francophonic bastard.

Despite this, I felt I had to contribute something, to use my 'skills' to assist people in some way.

How am I going to assist people? By being a cynic, with beliefs.

I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, but hear me out. A cynic casts a wry eye on a narrative, but only because the cynic has a predisposed belief that the wry eye can provide a truer narrative. A cynic will entertain any number of narratives and patchwork together an adaptable narrative, combining those empiricism has allowed to be most believable. Cynicism is constant, it's hungry and it will spit out what it doesn't like.

This little black line blinks at me. It's hungry. Hungry for words. My brain is much like this black line. Blinking and hungry for words. More than a dozen times since I last wrote, I've opened up a new document to write, feeling compelled to write, but something stops me.

Some mind-stone typically lies in the way of the flow of my writing. I'd chalked it up to writer's block, but it seemingly goes much deeper than that. After spilling a lot of personal details in later chapters and talking almost exclusively about myself, I'd become intoxicated by my own perceived ego. I'd been actively trying to disperse my ego, and writing about myself felt like I'd fallen into that trap again.

I try so bloody hard to be objective about things I find important, not realising that finding things important is a subjective act in-and-of itself.

So, what do I do?

Do I just give up?

Do I call it all off and sit motionless in the river of opinions, misdirection and misinformation?

I used to write constantly about the unfair nature of our waking lives. How the elite are cruel and selfish, how we are more powerful than them, about how we should get rid of them, hold the power within our own hands and pull the rug from underneath them.

But, it all felt pointless, angry and at times dangerous. I'm not a naturally angry person.

Don't get me wrong, things make me angry, but I'm a fairly laid back person day-to-day.

So, I took a back seat and just shared articles from newspapers and magazines that highlighted issues. But, then the same people 'liked' my posts, preaching to the converted. I've lost focus and direction.

Fuck.

So, instead, I'm going to become MORE subjective. What is the point of having a subjective view if you're not going to air it? People gain as much from others as they do from direct experience.

Now I've got stuck again. What do I write about? My Facebook is full of politics, my Instagram is full of trees, my Tumblr has trippy gifs and my Soundcloud is weird techno. I began writing about meditation, Buddhism and enlightenment, but once I'd talked about why it was so good for me, I'd gained instant gratification. Where do I go from here?

Where do I go from here?!

It's a question I keep asking myself. I've got a part time job and a degree but do any of these things clear up my confusion? In a word, no.

The real world of Uni, part-time work, post-grad confusion and existential dread have all gotten in the way and focussing on a hypothetical future has obscured my view of the present. University, whilst massively illuminating in a myriad of ways, trained by brain into an institutionalised form of thinking. Part-time work is a depressing quagmire of 'no money, no hours & no agency'. In a world where a degree means next to nothing without 'connections', 'networking' or in plain english nepotism, it's hard to see where I'm supposed to be applying myself. I don't want or need to work for Media companies, my reasoning will become clear in a later chapter. I don't want or need to work for an supermarket that relies on abusing the market, its staff and its country of operation.

So I ask myself what do I need?

'Freedom' is typically the response I gain from my mind. But what is this elusive freedom?

It feels at times like nothing more than a buzzword, or some teenage gripe.

I want to be able to experience life, without structure handed down to me from people who exercise freedom at others expense. I don't want want freedom at others expense.

I just want to be able make the right decisions, without the pressure of doing 'what I should be doing'. I don't want a mortgage, I don't want some house in the suburbs, I don't want a carrot dangled in front of me for some false concept of domestic bliss that doesn't actually fit with the way my mind works or the need to live my life on my terms.

Do you know what I need? I think I do.

I want a little plot of land, some books, some animals, my partner and the ability to look after myself and them with no outside influence. I don't want my money funding wars, I don't want my money paying for 30 bottles of Bollinger for the princes and regents of London. I don't want to be blown up on a train because some selfish people in a remote part of the country have done something 'in my name' defending a ridiculous concept like 'country'. I don't want to pay for an incestual family who do nothing of worth but 'bring in tourists'.

The fetishistic love affair the British Public has with the Royals, aka the Saxe-CoburgGoethe's, and the minutiae of their life is beyond pathetic. It’s Stockholm syndrome on a national level. They are an archaic, anachronistic, embarrassing, undemocratic, conservative & symbolically dangerous institution. We should know better. It's not good enough. It's not right. It's not fair.

Pre-War diseases are on the rise, people are starving, people are over-worked, captains of industry are stacking shelves in their old age. It's not on, and we accept it because the big men at the top say it's so. Fuck what they say. We need to speak more. To each other. Not to those people. We need to solidify as a bloc. We need each other and we need to rely on each other.

Our Benevolent Leader, HRH, PM David Cameron MP, stated that 'non-violent extremists', such as 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorists must be handled in the same way as the Islamic State. I don't believe the official story on 9/11, I don't believe Westminster is innocent in the sexual abuse of children nor do I believe in their Austerity measures or immigration policies. Does this make me a 'non-violent extremist'? Will my house be subjected to air-strikes? The man has essentially declared war on people like me.

I am a vocal opponent of the Austerity measures put in place by his government and supported by the other main parties. I am a vocal opponent of the neo-liberal, profit-led

policies that have rocked the public services, put in place by his government and supported by the other main parties. I am a vocal opponent of him and his party. Not because I want to kill anyone, blow anything up or have anarchy rule over the country, quite the opposite. His policies kill, destroy and encourage a vicious form of anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, in this country. His party have led to the rise of the Right Wing, UKIP and entrenched fear in this country.

So, I will become an even more vocal opponent of this vicious man, the broken system he represents and the inhumane treatment of the people of this country and the countries he attacks. I do this not to massage my ego, or martyr myself to the cause. I do this because I hope you will too. I want to encourage debate, to discuss the wrongs this man and his ilk perpetrate and because I want to RSVP to his invitation to his war “ “Attending + 6 million�.

We hold all the power. The power of the state only works because we allow it to.

There's more of us, we're better than them, we're smarter than them and we can blow down their house of cards merely by closing the door behind us.

I'm not calling for blood, I'm not calling for the guillotine, I'm calling for a little leap of faith into the light. We've hunkered in the dark for too long, thinking it provides comfort & safety. It doesn't, it provides leverage for them.

So, where to start this bloody book?

Chapter One: Ripping of the Band Aid or I Don't like Ebola (Tell me Why) Bob Geldof awakes, sweating into satin sheets. Amongst his fever dreams he has a sudden epiphany.

“I can help raise money for the Ebola crisis! It's so simple!” Bob beams to his inward self.

"You could just give them your own money, Bob" says a voice buried beneath his teabagladen eyes. He sits in his bed, as droplets of once somnambulant sweat wanders between the salt and pepper forest upon his chest.

BG ponders this idea for a moment, before another epiphany slams into his brain box with a more atuned charity clarity "Fuck that, I'll get the plebs to foot the bill, I've done it before and I can do it again".

Sir Bobmas of Geldofia leaps spryly from his bed and wrenches open his laptop like King Kong opens the head of that T-Rex. Furiously, he mashes the keys with his pendulous digits and the words 'I don't like Ebola (Tell me why)' appear on the screen, with a thing black line blinking after them.

He shakes his head and laughs.

"Why rewrite a decent song I did to fit this? I've done an Africa song before".

So, he moves the cursor to Open file and finds the folder marked <'Band Aid'> </'Band Aid 20'> </CTRL+A > </CTRL+C> </New document > </CTRL+V>.

“Replace a few lines “ </saves as 'Band Aid 30'>.

Meanwhile, £34 billion is spent by our government every year on weapons of mass destruction. We again foot the bill for problems created and/or exacerbated by our leaders. They get those who have benefited from the system (celebrities) to ask us to spend our money mopping up a situation they could have sorted out in February, by working together with groups like Medicine Sans Frontiers and healing the African people.

Instead our leaders and press exploited it to drive home their flawed, untrue immigration policies and hysteria. Fuck Band Aid. We should be united in common brotherhood with our fellow humans, not buy the same shit song we've bought every Christmas for 30 years, because we've been made to feel guilty. Donate directly to those who are already there, helping. Don't massage a bunch of X-Factor winners egos, so they can sleep at night on their beds of cash because they sang a song for the ickle dying afwicans.

What a crock of shit.

We (in the west) created the need for charities. We exploited the third world, as where there is growth, there must be deficit somewhere. We use it as a release valve for our crass consumerism. A couple of nights a year we allow ourselves to give a shit, a cynical reversal of Orwell's Two Minutes Hate, the Two Minutes Care.

While those charities invest in dodgy companies, sit on admin fees and parade people with lots of money looking sad onto the gogglebox, whilst the structures that have created these inequalities continue to benefit them. This can be seen when celebrities like Gryff Rhys Jones, Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr & Myleene Klaas claim the 'mansion tax' a humanitarian crisis (ignoring the bedroom tax) and avoid Tax as much as possible to keep the money the system they're avoiding gave them for being okay at comedy/music, with minimal criminal proceedings.

Chapter Two: Can a Marxist be Buddhist?

As I hit my twenties two big narratives, or ways of thinking, entered my life. Marxism and Buddhism. Through teenage rebel icon Che Guevara, I'd encountered Marxism, it's basic tenet of “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen“, which neatly translates to : 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'

This very basic idea means that everyone does what they can, and gets what they need. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a beautiful concept. From that basis stems an entire political philosophy of sharing, communal sharing. Or for brevitiy's sake Commune-ism (read Communism). This word was dirtied by dictatorial elites that slid in during all the mayhem of change and reinstated a much worse version of inequality of what had previously existed. Socialism for the rich. Much in the same the free, international market (aka capitalism) has. We entrusted leaders, when we really need to trust ourselves.

The other big narrative of worldview that slipped into my worldview was buddhism. I wondered if I could be both a Marxist and a Buddhist.

The Dalai Lama characterised himself a few years ago as 'half-Buddhist' and 'half Marxist'. I began to wonder whether Marxism (or even Socialism), was a modernist version of Buddhism and if not, how I could reconcile the two, as a fan of both. I was mixing and matching the two philosophies where they can be reconciled, but the basic understanding of reality within them, and how drastically different they are just sparked my curiosity. I'll admit that my journey into studying Buddhism is at it's earliest form and I'm still trying to find a teacher to guide me, but this is what I came up with.

One of the key elements of practising Buddhism is to confront the fear of death. Fear of death is the fear of non-existence. This fear of non-existence is the fear of loss of ego, the self, the ‘I’. Marxism arguably follows similar lines, it admonishes selfishness in favour of selfless solidarity. The I should be lost, to facilitate the We. The consumerist "I want" attitude is guiding our social decisions, rather than the common compassion for all living creatures. However, Buddhism also admonishes materialism, as it prevents understanding of the world as an evolving, transient thing. Materialism provides a false concept of concreteness or permanence, which doesn’t match up to the chaotic, impermanent world we live in. Materialism postulates that security can be maintained, but that is a falsehood.

Perhaps by so many demanding they get what they feel the "deserve", they cause more suffering to themselves, because life doesn't work based on what they want. Life is chaos, and the more you cling to permanence, the more you suffer. Marxism demands security for the Proletariat, and through them, all peoples. Materialism also solidifies the construction of time as a linear thing. Buddhism argues that time exists as a

constant. The past no longer exists, you simply remember it in the ‘now’. Likewise the future does not exist, you merely imagine it in the ‘now’. Thinking in terms of future & past frames our perception in a way that obfuscates the true, current nature of reality.

That is not to say that the past is unimportant. The concept of Karma, is essentially a form of causality. Every action has a latent causal reaction within it. Selfishness harms other and responsible compassion helps others. This is a form of socialism, understanding the ‘social’ as important to the evolution of our species. However, socialism creates antagonisms as much as it fights against them, it’s compassion is aggressive and pious. Buddhism seems to state that compassion should be spontaneous, or ‘crazy’. I remember Marx himself stating that revolutions are difficult because the ruling class inevitably slips in under the guise of solidarity.

This reminds me of Samsara, or the cylical appearance of suffering in life. Buddhist compassion is spread to cover all living things. Everything with a life should be respected and deserves compassion. This seems to go against Marxism, as they actively demand revolution. They recognise the ruling class as the cause of all problems and want them forcibly removed. This has been tried again and again, but hegemonic values of centralised leadership keep these ruling classes in their place.

Despite popular revolution in Russia, a huge cult of personality took hold of Marxism and left the world marked with the violence of a Ruling Class slid in with manipulated Marxism. I would argue, that from a Buddhist perspective those who ‘rule’ are the least enlightened people, acting as if they were the most enlightened people. They see the world as a competitive place, where power is necessary for agency and that they won’t get any unless they forcibly take it. They respond to a mirror image of themselves, planted in every human by Materialism (contemporaneously via Capitalism).

The material world is a jail to these people, spiritually devoid, constantly suffering under the pressure of Materialism and spreading their self-hatred onto the lives of millions, if not billions of people. Protected, to a certain degree, by those with vested interest in the material world, their Karma is shifted to the people they are meant to facilitate.

Perhaps this is what Bill Hicks was getting at in his infamous ‘it’s just a ride’ bit.

“Shut him up! I’ve got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.”

They have been so successfully guided away from enlightenment that they actively push their chronically misperceived ideals as the ‘true’ enlightenment of Materialism.

There's definitely some overlap and in some important areas. They are both responses to the effect of seeing the flaws in materialism, within their respective ages. The Buddhist/Marxist characterisation of Materialism/Capitalism is one I can only agree with. It's a lethal, ugly poison. I think Marxism has an antagonistic edge that Buddhism doesn't. Buddhism is a more spontaneous philosophy, due to it's nowness. Marxism is a

long game thought process, it depends heavily on the past and postulates futures constantly. It's defined by it's longview.

This then begs three questions : Since Marxism is based in Materialism, demands material goods and uses the language of Materialism, how can it ever hope to challenge the monolithic hegemony of Materialist Capitalism?

Since Buddhism is anti-materialism, demands understanding of the world as transient and only existing in the now, how can it ever hope to challenge the monolithic hegemony of Materialist Capitalism?

Can a Marxist be a Buddhist, or vice-versa, if they have dialectically opposed views on the basis of reality?

Chapter Three: Enlightnmental: Finding peace through madness The suicide of Robin Williams rings very close to home for me. A man who appeared so joyous in life becoming so lost and alone it leads to his death. Philosophically, I believe he’s back in the universe that granted him life. But, on a more personal level it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth that a bright light like him could so easily choose to snuff the flame out. That said, I don’t believe that choice was completely without guilt.

People are driven crazy, the don’t just ‘go’ crazy.

When I was 13, I tried to commit suicide. In some ways I’m glad I did. Not because it served anything like the purpose it was supposed to, to kill myself. Quite the opposite, it made me glad to be alive, to simply exist and to see the limitations I had created, led by my reaction to others.

As a child I was described as ‘friendly’, ‘excitable’ & ‘annoying’. I craved new experience, new contact, new everything. But my life changed rapidly as I entered my second year of Secondary school. I’d developed a pile of dark, yet fluffy hair above my top lip.

Apparently, my hormones were ahead of the game and decided it would be a good idea to show off. The social apparatus of school, with it’s homogenising uniforms, target & ratio chasing and an enforced, ill-fitting unity sent me spiralling. But these were secondary, the real spiral was because of one name.

I imagined at the time, that the student community I was to grow up in, had staged a meeting.

“Right, so Donnelly’s got bum fluff, no one else has, it’s time to act”.

Shocked gasps would ring out across the hall and the head of the meeting would call the kids to rest.

“We need a name, a strong name that will perfectly encapsulate his weirdness”. It needed to be something with negative connotations, related to moustaches.

After much um-ing and ah-ing, someone had the eureka moment… ”HITLER”.

And lo, I was thereby named Hitler. Not Dali, Not Zappa or even Magnum PI. Hitler it was, and for 3 years it continued to be. By the time I’d reached 13, it felt like the entire school had forgotten my name and I was beginning to as well. My interest in school dwindled dramatically, as I associated school with pain. I did no homework, as I wanted to spend my down time not having to think about school. Eventually the school intervened, called my parents in and put me on the highest level of report. This report could mean my expulsion from the school if I didn’t produce homework constantly and consistently.

At this point, I felt I had nothing to offer, no future. At 13, your life revolves around school, friends and family. The school did nothing about the bullying aside from telling me to ‘ignore it’, my friends had joined in and my family saw a young, increasingly insular man flailing wildly in education, becoming powerless to help from the outside.

I felt everyone was against me and that I had no future. So, I opted out. I strung a makeshift noose around a light fitting and jumped from the bed.

The weight of my body on the tender wire was too much and I fell immediately to the ground. I had even failed at suicide. After opening up completely to my parents, things shifted dramatically. I had learned a very valuable lesson. Life is what you make of it, your limitations are self-created. Some will try to impose their limits on you, but you are the ONLY ONE who can make the choice of allowing them to do so.

I live for living, exist purely to exist. But without my suicide attempt exposing the frailty of my ego against immense pressure from the external was I truly able to understand the internal pressures as well. I’ve worked on my mind non-stop for the 12 years following. Trying to get to grips with the world. I made many mistakes on the way, and did beat myself up about it. Without those mistakes though, how else could I learn? Now see that what I push out, I will receive.

The world around us is a dark, judgemental & harrowing place at times. Murder, genocide, corruption, excessive limitations of personal freedom, narrow thought, media manipulation & rape. But there is so much light in the world. Love, compassion, solidarity, liberty, open-mindedness, honesty & great passion. It is up to us to find these things, cultivate them and share them. Robin Williams did that for us, and now the light is a little lesser. But from the dying embers of his life, we should light as many candles as we can.

Suicide is not a coward’s exit, it is literally the last meaningful thing a person ever does.

Understand the meaning behind this kind of act and you may progress towards preventing it. If we continue to blame victims, refuse them support and tell them to get with the ‘real world’, we will lose those who are fascinated and overjoyed by life. We will be left only with hardened, emotionless bastards. Do you want to live in a world where funny, illuminating men like Robin Williams don’t want to live anymore? If the answer is no, change it. He did, for better or for worse. He touched us all in our funny little kid hearts. Don’t let his death be in vain.

When talking about Robin, I’ve mentioned my own early teenage depression and suicide attempt. These were elements of my psyche that I’d long tried to submerge underneath various identities or guises. Faced with the self-inflicted prospect of my own death at such a young age presented my brain with a form of cognitive dissonance.

I’d reached a point where I’d wanted to end my life, yet at the same time held the view that I should never do that again. Originally, it was from a place of guilt. I’d felt terrible for the pain I’d inflicted on my parents. Eventually, I began to realise that in death all of my feelings, good and bad, would be no more. My present form as a conscious being would have ended and I’d no longer exist as the thinking, loving, caring human that I was.

“What a waste” I thought.

I had so much to contribute to the world, but had no idea how to do it.

I invested time in people. I made strong bonds with friends who shared similar interests and worldviews. I jumped headfirst into relationships with people who were quite clearly wrong for me. They were special, beautiful people in their own right, but my easy going nature was easily exploitable for their own ends. I was trying to provide some sense and stability in these peoples lives, which they actively shied away from. In the process, I often lost myself. My own identity would be quashed under the wishes and whims of others. This negated the entire reason I’d entered into these relationships in the first place.

So throughout most of my teens I struggled to find myself, my identity, who I REALLY was underneath all the egos that had been supplanted and layered over mine.

Regularly, I’d find a young man disappointed in the world around him, the people around him and mostly himself. I’ve struggled with impressive swings between outright mania and soul-crushing, silent depression. This affected my ability to matriculate socially with those I considered close to me. Relationships fell apart, friendships bruised by my inarticulate nature concerning how I felt. I’d regularly suppress my emotions and come across cold and glib. For far too long, I had depended on alcohol to rid myself of the pressures I was putting on myself, only to contribute more.

I repeated a mantra of ‘you’re a failure, you’re not good enough, you’re underachieving’.

I’d failed two core subjects at GCSE, I’d failed my first year at college, was unemployed for 3 years and didn’t get to University until I was 23. These failures I repeated to myself. Forgetting I’d done well in all of my other GCSE’s, retook and passed A-Levels and BTEC, everyone my age was unemployed and that I actually got to University (7 years earlier than my father). However, I chalked these successes down to mania or delusions of grandeur. I had placed such a high bar for achievement on myself, that I was never going to achieve any of them. So, I acted recklessly, with myself and others. I told myself narratives to keep myself down. I had created a prison with my own shattered ego.

My pre-uni relationship had fallen apart, I’d found out I was a father and was no longer a father in the same sentence and by the winter of my first year, my Grandfather passed away. He was the first close relative to die in my family and it hit me like a tonne of bricks. I had failed him too, I told myself. He’d not got to see me graduate, because I had failed so many times before. I sucked it up and tried to support my father, as best I could.

I again submerged my feelings on this, sharing them with only a select few people. I

skirted around the issue of fathers and death with my parents. But in my core, I held onto the pain of the loss and my own perceived failures. I lapsed in and out of depression for the next 2 years. I’d miss classes, lectures, filming & socialisation. I’d sit silently in my room, half-feigning illness. I say half-feigning because depression can make you feel like shit physically, as well as mentally. When I was expected to share, be open and vulnerable, I’d lock up and close down. I became distant to people who cared strongly for me and let a rotten core eat away at my soul.

I took the inevitable breakdowns hard and personally. Forgetting it takes two to fuck up a relationship…I mean tango.

“A man is an island”, I told myself.

“I am stronger by myself”.

Eventually, 3 failed relationships later, I broke. I had begun to approach the emotional state I was in when I was 13. I felt dangerous, venomous even. I felt like I was poison to those who knew me. I tried to hide myself away and rationalise it all. But rationalising emotion just ends up creating an infinite loop, a helter skelter of the mind. Up to the top, straight back down. Up to the top, straight back down. I wanted off the ride, but didn’t want to leave the fairground, if you follow.

So, I sought help. I went to see the counsellor at the Uni. I backed out twice before actually showing my face. I explained succinctly and honestly who I was, what had happened and what I had done. Shockingly, the counsellor said I was doing the right things, I just need more faith in myself. I hadn’t even realised, that in between the mania and the depression, I’d created a framework of support for myself. I had friends I could talk to, I’d been telling myself to think positively and not to worry about things that didn’t really exist. To stop being so hard on myself and to forgive myself and those who had hurt me. The moment of lucidity and elation was something I wanted to keep, but felt I couldn’t. I took no more sessions and began to drift back into my old, selfabsorbed thinking patterns.

This continued for a few months, but with more frequent reprieves. Brought on by honest, open communication with a few friends and my parents. The biggest shift happened when I bought a book from Amazon about Buddhism. The philosophies of Buddhism are astonishing and unlike any other faith. It’s honest, it’s neutral, it’s not patronising and it’s up to you entirely. As I became more interested in the Philosophy, I began to become more interested in meditation. This was the breakthrough I’d needed.

I knew of meditation. I’d heard of it for as long as I could remember. But, to me, it was something Richard Gere did to make himself feel better after a long day being a movie star. It was something devout monks did in the furthest reaches of the mystical east. It was a throwback to a chilled out time, before the Industrial revolution, TV and the working week.

It was only after a mental breakdown and a peaking interest in eastern religion that I even thought of debasing myself in such outdated mysticism. So, I looked at lots of sites

which told you the usual stuff. ‘Clear your mind, sit with your legs crossed & breathe’. It didn’t work. I stuck with it though, determined to find out how it helped people. I looked at the things celebrities had said on the practice. Russell Brand, David Lynch, Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah Winfrey, Paul McCartney, Josh Homme, Trent Reznor and so many more all extolled the virtues of this simple act.

Then, I watched a film called ‘Her’, by Spike Jonze, which featured the Philosopher Alan Watts, as a character. I researched this Watts fellow and found a guided meditation on youtube. As I listened to his words and followed his instruction, I felt a lightness. I’m almost always aware of the aches of my body and the gripes of my brain, but this man’s usual cadence and slowness made me still. After the video ended, I felt different, quantifiably different.

My body felt lighter, my thoughts significantly less cluttered, my pain alleviated and a sense of well-being and connectedness flowed throughout my body. This could easily have been translated as some kind of religious experience, but its much more simple than that. The focus I was giving to my slow, easy breath and on the words of Watts allowed me to access a part of my mind that was always there. It felt easy, natural even, to go there. It was so easily accessible because I wanted it to be. I continued to listen to this guided meditation, as well as practice on my own with a mantra. Something simple like ‘Peace’ repeated, mentally, can give the mind significant focus. Thoughts will enter, jostling for prime position and at first it felt tense. The trick is to recognise the thought, look upon it and refocus. The mantra, or the breathing can then allow your mind to flow in many ways you wouldn’t expect.

Since I’ve begun meditating, I’ve been able to make peace with my past and with my future. The art of meditation is not to block everything out, but rather to recondition you to living in the present moment. We are shaped into time travellers, concerning ourselves with the past and future so much, we rarely see the world as it is now.

Meditation helped me realise what I needed from life, peace. When I am at peace, I can provide others with peaceful behaviour models. When I am angry, I will provide others with angry behaviour models. When I am hurtful, I will provide others with hurtful behaviour models. We are reflections of the world around us. Each action shapes the world, and therefore the people around us. It all sounds very high-falluting and philosophical, but you know it’s true.

You see it day-to-day.

When someone is short with you for no good reason, you end up being short with other people. They will pass that on, and a wave of negativity will spread across many people through one persons shortness with a friend. Likewise, the whole ‘pay it forward’ idea and Twitter hashtag campaigns show how quickly positivity can ripple across the world.

As I have found peace in my own mind, I felt more capable to bring peace to other people. To meditate on ideas, not just on my own mind. When I feel stressed, which I

inevitably will, I take a few minutes to close my eyes, focus on my breathing and focus on that word again, ‘Peace’. As I meditated for longer and longer, my views started to shift on the world.

Where before I was angry and disappointed, I was now hopeful and had faith in people.

Where I felt helpless, I felt helpful. I knew that my actions would have a knock on effect on me and those around me, I became more mindful of them. It’s not the answer to all of life’s problems, but it helps clear the obscuring clutter that my brain so readily applies.

So, if I have any advice, it’s this. Find a calm, peaceful place, wear some comfortable clothes, sit in a comfortable position, close your eyes and concentrate on your breath. If it does anything for you, I’d then advise looking into Deepak Chopra’s 21 day meditation challenge on YouTube. I’ve been doing it with my partner and we’ve both noticed a change in our outlook and how we hold ourselves, physically and emotionally.

Chapter Four: The religion of Capitalism or How to be an atheist in the time of Capitalist Christianity.

Mankind has no reason for a god.

Men read what you needed to be a god.

Omnipotence, omnipresence, sanctity, an undying nature and an infrastructure of rules.

Then they reproduced those facets, not in their own image, but in themselves.

Capitalism has failed mankind, time and time again. Yet it survives. It has reached all nations. Even those with the political nomenclature of anti-capitalist ideologies are by and large capitalist states, like China.

Capitalism has become synonymous with reality. It permeates every aspect of our waking lives. Look around you, in your bedroom alone will be a capitalist iconography of logos & brand names.

Now the ultimate capitalist states (USA & UK) know incredible amounts of information about people all over the world.

If you only keep secrets if you have something to hide, the intelligence agencies apparently have a lot to hide. But that’s unimportant, because they are protecting the state and via the state, the people. As long as you play ball.

Even if intelligence and personal communication data is being used in a benign way currently(the arguments against such a claim are strong and passionate), the opportunity for exploitation of such a system is huge.

However, the issue here isn’t direct surveillance by the intelligence arms of the state.

Instead it’s their permitted usage of corporate data, from big companies who will gladly allow free-marketeers to use it. These are the people who will help them in the long run, the customer is little more than cattle to them.

It’s a circle-jerk, win-win situation for the wealthy. While the rest of us openly allow access to all kinds of information to companies via telecommunication because it makes things ‘easier’.

We have no-one to blame but ourselves. We took multi-millionaires on their word. We clawed at whatever they put in front of us, and will sign contracts without even thinking about it. Because if its online, its not real.

Maybe it isn’t, but the information you provide and the consequences of that provision is very real indeed.

Capitalist laws & scripture support itself, and those who support capitalism are supported by those same laws. Those who challenge or deny the capitalist reality, its sanctity and salvation, are besmirched as heretics, heathens or madmen.

I agree with Nietzche’s proposal that God is dead. We are Gods, we shape our reality with each decision. A million possibilities open up, and we shape the world around us with our every move. If we are Gods, then we too are dead. We’re born dying, decaying from birth, cells replicating those that have died a finite amount of times. Life if nothing more than the slow fall towards the grave.

However, we are made of star dust, our bodies comprised of material from dead stars who lived aeons ago. When our consciousness is extinguished, that which was us will be reclaimed by the earth and the cycle will start again. If this is the case, then what’s the point in existing? To exist. To subjectively view the universe, as we would ourselves in the mirror. We are perception filters.

We create reality through perception, as much as reality creates us to perceive it.

Quantum Physics seems to suggest that anything is possible, just that most things are extremely improbable. If the Grand Unified Theory is right in it's conclusion that on the base, sub-molecular level we are all one thing, with additions which could be particles, waves, neither or both, then surely all divisions are superficial. Illusory concepts of properties that are said to be that which define a 'thing', are nothing more than the sum of its particularly arranged elements. Those elements are ubiquitous, found in many 'things' which are considered completely different. If these defining properties are not individuating, illusory and superficial, then we are nothing more than the simulacrum of life, necessitating awareness through style. We are the ghost in the machine. The machine is existence, and we are the autonomous action of a universe wanting to experience itself.

Meaning is applied perception. Our understanding of our existence, our reality is the creation of years of conditioning into the 'way things are'. This conditioning alters our perception and therefore our subjective reality. There is a reality that is beyond this thinking. But, once labels are applied to a reality, meaning is applied. Meaning is again a perception. We must realise, we don't know everything, that it's okay to not know everything, but it's not worth stopping. We are an adaptive species, but our adaptation has been stunted, so the adaptation of only specific elements of the species continues.

With these subjective perceptions of reality comes a set of subjective values. These values are self-created. The extremely fallible laws of rich men are an ill-fitting glove on both hands and feet, hiding binding underneath. The social contract (you serve us, we protect you) is a lie. It is nothing more than a form of free range slavery. When the owners renege on the contract, we are left with social disorder. People have seemingly no agency against monolithic institutions. So, they turn against each other, following the patterns set by ‘leaders’. If their sociopathic conception of good is extended over the aforementioned social contract, all laws are void of ethical meaning. Normality is based on this broken contract. Abnormality, or madness, is therefore a new set of rules.

I believe firmly that Madness has elucidatory properties. Madness allows a deeper, different experience than ‘normal’ reality. Drugs are a short-cut there and back, a sudden, overwhelming reframing of consciousness. Reintroducing concepts of reality we ignore, actively and passively. Madness, however, isn’t chosen, but a reaction to the structure of human society. A distorted mirror of the worst elements of the psyche, or as Foucault put it people are “driven mad”, they never choose madness. This society narrowly bands normal into working, middle class, middle aged, middle weight, godfearing, law respecting, white males. This excludes most people and exasperates the issues of social disconnection, leading to anti-social behaviour. It reflects the anti-other

attitude of the social constructs we know. Instead of nurturing the personal, unifying enlightenment that is possible, we’re shaped into a mould. A dull, middle of the road, bland mould. Non-threatening, uninteresting & pointless.

Yet, thinking in such a way is seen as bizarre. The hegemonic values overwhelm external views of institutional capitalism & chronic materialism. The perceived world blocks the many truths of the non-corporeal. Other ways are blocked by ‘common sense’ values. It’s a non-corporeal world that lacks constructs of material world. Filters are voided as perception shifts. Materialism keeps us grounded in work ethic, as does the capitalist ontology. We exist in the truest sense only as consciousness, a consciousness that we push that through the net. This allows us to create frameworks of dissent. This is why the internet is the promised land, it is timeless.

Time is typically conceptualised as the Past, Present and Future. Each are distinct moments on an ever-flowing journey from the cradle to the grave.

However, in reality, only the now exists.

The Past is you remembering in the now, the future is you imagining it existing in the now.

But, as a framework, ideological constructs like past, future, weekend, working week, days, hours and time itself as the western secular world knows it, seems to be an inhibitant to living in the now.

Is there any possibility that the framing of time in such a segmented, yet far-reaching way is a side-effect of a heavily regimented & bureaucratised social structure, Capitalism?

After watching Enter the Void & DMT : The spirit molecule, I’ve become incredibly intrigued with the simple compound that makes up DMT. It’s found in a huge amount of living organisms, and exists within the pineal gland humans, in small amounts.

However, when taken in drug form it creates a hallucinatory, non-corporeal experience for the user. At some point, my intrigue will peak and I’ll want to experiment with the drug. Not for recreation though. I’m interested in the philosophical, psychological & potentially political aspects of DMT. We live in what can arguably be described as a monotonous reality. Similar sets of events happen over a 7 day cycle. Hence why people say things like ‘ooh, it feels like a Tuesday’.

The repetitive reality of materialism is ingrained into our heads by a Capitalist Ontology. This capitalist reality keep us grounded in the work ethic needed to facilitate said capitalist reality. However, with DMT the user can break from the monotony of the material world, as the non-corporeal experience of DMT lacks the constructs of the material world. It appears the filters of having a body & ego are voided, as perception shifts dramatically.

DMT essentially sends the user out of their body and only their ‘mind’, in the simplest experiential sense of reality perception, takes the journey. Your senses are closed off and your body goes into autopilot as your mind goes somewhere else. Taking the Cartesian principle of Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) as a launching point, this that means that you, only as the ‘thinking’ aspect of you can be stated to exist. You only truly exist as consciousness.

This means that with the effects of DMT kicking in, the existent consciousness, that ‘you’ are part of, travels from the non-DMT world to somewhere else.

Where?

Is it another plain of existence, the basic framework of the brain seeing itself, this world without the filters of corporeality or this world with the filter of DMT laid over the top?

Either way, it’s highly illegal. This is despite it not being habit-forming, having no real long-term negative effects and being used for centuries by ‘wise men’ in many preindustrial cultures. I would posit that this is because the context of capitalist ideology, how far it reaches into our lives and how many falsehoods abound materialism can be seen via the lack of the structures of power within the DMT world.

Existing on what Descartes would potentially see as the purest form, without the corporeal world, DMT could be used to create a framework of dissent against both philosophical materialism & capitalist ontology, much like the internet.

Chapter Five: My privilege I worry about my ability to stand up for anyone, due to my relative privilege. I’m white, male, employed, live in the UK and belong to a middle-class family. Yet, instead of enjoying these privileges, I’m angered that they aren’t universal. I’m appalled at how effectively humanity has been shaped by the self-serving attitudes of a small group of people. I want to fight this system and when the revolution comes, I’ll greet it with open arms. I am ashamed of my privilege, because it shouldn’t just be mine.

How does a person reconcile a feeling of cognitive dissonance, caused by understanding that the world is massively unfair place, with the fact that privilege and large parts of their former understanding of the world was based on a hegemonic ideology?

That’s what I’m dealing with right now, it seems like a whine to most, I’m sure.

My privilege precedes my affirmation of it, but does my privilege mean that I’m not allowed to find the inequality suffered by fellow humans abhorrent?

Is my alignment with an anarcho-syndaclist world-view, ultimately pointless?

Especially as part of a classically self-serving middle class. Am I just utilising a cognitive form of charity?

Surely, as some one who believes in anarcho-syndaclism, I should want to help others to reach a cognitive apex, where real critical thinking about the world we inhabit can be reached by those who need it more than myself.

Yet, all I do is write about it, to people who are in the same area of thinking anyway, with relative similarity in privilege. Is this worthwhile of my time, or should I take more direct action involving those most in need of being dragged from the gaze and influence of the institutions?

But who am I to say that my viewpoint is completely correct, and will indeed help everyone?

What about those who have no desire to learn?

Can I ethically justify shoving this information onto them?

In a post-modern world, where grand-narratives are treated with conspicuous cynicism, can a narrative like Socialism ever be taken truly seriously again?

Especially when espoused by a person who has previously enjoyed the individualist (and admittedly selfish) boons of a imperialist, panoptic, aggressive & capitalist society.

I believe so, yes. I am willing to change my lifestyle and have done so. I believe we all can. So level claims of hypocrisy at me, at least I'm doing SOMETHING.

Chapter Six: A man talks about feminism or How I learned to stop worrying and love feminism Anger is a political act. Women getting irate about their chronic & continuing poor standing in all aspects of their lives is an extremely political act. But, action based on anger isn’t good enough, that’s how you get the London Riots or Ukraine. Instead deliberation, synthesis of ideas and collaboration are needed to push feminism forward, not hurried direct action in the face of an incredibly anti-feminist political framework. Transmogrifying that anger into ‘practical’ activism, however, depends on agency. Agency is something that feminism, in all its forms, argues women have diminished levels of in the world as we know it.

What both the Libertarian and the Radical feminists share is an understanding that it is female agency that is undermined by patriarchy. One group claims it’s agency by simply doing as they wish, the other by diminishing the agency of others. I’d agree it’s conducive to the movement to address the worrisome inverted sexism of the Radfems.

Although they represent a vocal fringe group at best, its major successes lie in solidifying the stereotypes MRA’s regularly use to attack feminism as a whole.

I honestly believe that Patriarchy is the panicked response, of men, to the god-like lifegiving abilities of women. Men produce more semen than there are women, so men could easily be thinned out and used merely as studs.

Why do you think conservative governments hate single mothers? They prove women don’t need men. The two-parent ideal is a myth. If it has any psychological value, it is merely through hetero-normative value systems which tell single mothers they are ‘abnormal’, ‘wrong’ and unable to ‘keep a man’.

I’d disagree that feminism has been diluted. Each ‘wave’ has added new viewpoints, slowly progressing towards and form intersectionalism. Many activists, academics and intellectuals from various backgrounds are calling for the multi-facted, layered approach to feminism that combine various methods of investigating gender and providing something worth more than the sum of its parts. Karl Marx believed in Synthesis. That is taking one idea (Thesis) and smashing it, intellectually, into another idea (the antithesis) and until the pieces locked together, creating a satisfying outcome (the synthesis). This is what intersectional feminism is, throwing all the many feminist forms into a pot, keeping the strengths of each & doing away with the weaknesses.

Like any great social movement, feminism needs space to breathe, experiment and grow. It cannot be acted upon at first notice, first we must think. All of those involved in feminism must build bridges, share understanding and think together for true equity. If we do not lament our ills, we will never reach true understanding what our ills are. For change to be affected, there needs to be consensus. The way that is reached is by negotiation with the masses. How do you reach the masses? Through the Mass Media.

This is the biggest hurdle for feminism. Not over-analysis or unevenly weighted concentration of discourse against action, but representation. That is, representation of women and representation of the feminist discourse. By and large, the question of female agency is ignored, rebutted or taken for granted in the mainstream media.

Feminism is arguably declawed by lack of agency in female public and private lives. The mediated, artificial image of femininity that we see via the mass media will have a huge effect on the efficacy of both discourse and active participation. We are treated to more Katie Hopkins' and Beyonces, less Beat Poets & neo-Marxist Third Wave Post-Feminist ethical pornographers.

Perhaps there is only so much a GIF-set of a feminist beat-poet on Tumblr will do for the cause, but Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d rather see that than the same image of women in pre-defined, gender-specific roles of motherhood, bitchiness or titillation. An activist is indeed someone who activates, and the best way to do that is to talk about it, to think on it and to plan. But, what an activist has, and I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t stress this enough, is self-actualised agency within the world.

Activism relies on personal agency, political consciousness and solidarity. They want to do something, they discuss it with other activists and they do it.

Considering how few women have agency of any real, effective kind means that for most women the armchair is the only place they can participate.

Chapter Seven: English Nationalism and it’s manipulative ways By nationalism, I don’t just mean outright xenophobia, I don’t mean imperial/colonial nostalgia, I mean anything to do with the division of peoples according to land and the pride involved with that division.

National pride is something the American’s are largely mocked for. I’d posit the theory that America, being relatively new and extremely successful in it’s short amount of time, is afraid of an inevitable fall from grace. It’s fiercely nationalist and it’s own sense of national pride is both enviable and incredibly irritating, but it’s possibly based on fear.

But, Britain has it’s own brand of national pride. It’s one that is easily skewed.

Typically, but not in all cases, British national pride goes hand-in-hand with British nationalism. Britain for the Britain.

Why? The usual response is…

‘Because i was born here’.

Lots of people are born in Britain, roughly somewhere around 80% of the British population were born here (as of 2011), from various backgrounds. This will include people whose parents may not have been born here, but they themselves were, the 20% not born here will birth children in Britain, making them British.

Being born somewhere is merely a coincidence. As my father put it, your place of birth is entirely dependent on ‘where your mum’s fanny was at the time’. For instance, Cliff Richard is a British institution, where was he born?

Lucknow, India.

So, birthplace isn’t a legitimate claim for ‘Britishness’, as many people who consider themselves British will tell you. So, what’s next, amount of time spent in a country?

How long does it take to be fully immersed into British culture before you are considered ‘British’? A year, 5 years, 10, 30 even? If so, would you say the generation of people born of Pakistani parents who have lived their entire lives in Britain, British?

'If they act British'.

But how do you even begin to decipher that phrase? Some consider pessimism a British trait, or binge drinking, snobbery, casual racism and eccentricity. These are all seen as ‘British traits’, yet cover a wide spectrum of culture. What is British culture?

As far as language is concerned, it’s an amalgamation of several diverse languages.

Typically added to the existing common parlance by invading forces of Roman, Viking, Saxon & Norman invaders. Along with the languages they bought from mainland Europe came genetic material. Don’t forget that the Celts eventually became bedfellows with the Romans literally, culturally, economically and linguistically. This mixture of

different materials scuppers the idea of a ‘British’ people, and predating that, there is much evidence that Celtic culture and genetic make-up owes some debt to travellers from India.

One thing that is unavoidable about British culture is class. Some people feel that class divides aren’t as clear cut as they were. But even now, the traditional dichotomy of rich and poor can still be seen in modern Britain. The bankers of the city, the aristocracy, hell, even Made In Chelsea shows the massive cultural and financial divides between those born with money and those who have to earn it.

Which I believe brings me nicely back to nationalism. What better way to distract the poor from the inequalities between them and the rich, than to present another inequality. This is where Johnny Foreigner and his job-stealing ways come in. Provide a scapegoat and explain the poor’s ills as ‘competition’ from a person who is different in more recognisable way.

This is best facilitated by a sense of community, and nationalism provides that. What better way to create an us vs them mentality than to create an ideological border on an island that has a geographical one. Treat it as an invasion, a consumption of your freedoms by an other, an alien.

The characterisation of Immigration as an invasion, a consumption of your freedoms by an other, is a form of perpetual war. It will never end, because people will always want a better life. This country is built on immigration, as are you and your family.

Without the movement of peoples you wouldn't be here. Our species didn't originate in England, and to think so is sadly mistaken. We are all the product of immigrants. To characterise anyone else in such a way intentionally obscures the shared humanity we all have.

The seeds of xenophobia successfully sowed, you can turn the poor and the fearful middle classes against themselves. Blame ‘spongers’ on the welfare state, then happily demolish the welfare state due to ‘righteous indignation’. Blame the middle classes for trying to aspire to the status of the rich by getting into debt. The debt itself is controlled by the rich, and middle class will eat themselves alive & be hated by the working class. Which leaves the rich, safe and quite likely rural and in their traditional place.

Tradition is what makes a person ‘British’, and tradition is what tears people apart. The laws of this country are based on tradition, hence the concept of legal precedent. If you demolish the love of tradition force-fed to the people of this isle, you’re left with a melting pot of many cultures. With this concept of non-nationalism, you create an open society, less presylatising and less dogmatic about a false identity. Without tradition you allow progression.

As immigration politics becomes increasingly popular, I began to wonder what is more important, as a politician. What the populist ideology is or what you believe to be right?

As a member of parliament, it is your job to represent the public interest, whilst in the House of Commons? If that same public largely share a view, for instance that a large part of the country’s economic woes are dependent on ‘poor’ immigration policies, surely an MP is obliged to present that feeling and create policies around it. However, if you as a person believe this view to be wrong, ethically dubious or created by misinformation, is it then your duty to create policies which benefit the people, but they don’t actually want?

Speaking on the speech, and it’s attempt to match the conservatives hard line on EU immigration, David Blunkett said that it was a ‘xenophobic’ step back for the party.

Blunkett, as Home Secretary created policies which allowed a steady influx of legal migrants from the EU, specifically post-soviet Eastern Europe, to enter the country to work. The aim was to plug the staff shortages of the early 00’s in catering, healthcare & construction. Official figures at the time claimed that migrant workers in the UK contributed £2.5 billion more in taxes than they claimed in benefits.

Recent figures suggest that despite immigrants making up 9% of the population, only 6.5% of those 5.5 Million claimants of benefits on a 60 million-strong (approximately) Island are actually immigrants.

Ironically, Blunkett was an integral part of the New Labour government, which former Tory PM Margaret Thatcher claimed as her ‘greatest victory’. A formerly socialist party which spent many years in the political wilderness due to Thatcher’s dominance in British society, tried to claw back voters by shifting to from the socialist left, to the centre of the political spectrum.

Despite many vocal attempts to distance themselves from the vote-gaining policy changes of New Labour, the Miliband-led Labour party now seems to be doing the same things. Mirroring the Conservatives on a contentious issue wrapped up in (and smoke screened behind) big scary numbers, right wing rhetoric and political power plays.

Instead of attempting to create a real debate on the issue, it appears Miliband & co. have merely jumped on the immigration bandwagon with the Tory government to garner more votes from a populist outlook.

This will inevitably cause people outside of the populist mind-frame to feel left somewhat at sea. With all major contenders positing the same anti-immigration standpoint, those who believe in a different ideology will feel unrepresented on an issue that causes many liberals great distress. With UKIP pushing a ‘not like the other politicians’ angle, doubled with strong immigration policies, the Tories reeling the same old spiel out, but with a new face and now Labour heading in the same, arguably xenophobic, direction; the left in the UK will feel very alone and very disenfranchised.

This is a crucial time for alternative parties like the Greens, TUSC & Monster Raving Loony Party (The true protest vote party) to push the difference between itself and the mainstream parties. Labour has instead lumped all its chips on a changeable populist vote. It seems the only party policy decision making you can rely on Labour for is ‘Whatever gains the most votes wins’.

But even without these factors, who are they to argue with people who gave them the power? Who are they to tell the people what is right and wrong? They aren’t dictators, and are (meant to be) under the will of the public.

Gaining votes, and standing as elected officials has shown how legitimised the politics of the party that attracts racists has become. It’s acceptable to vote in a Hitler-saluting politician, because he’s ‘exercising his right to express himself’. That expression is replicating the salute of a murderous fascist dictator, who led the German people into attempting to exterminate a race, and killing millions of people in the process.

It’s not that he shouldn’t be able to do it, it’s that he shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

UKIP is dangerous because they describe themselves as a libertarian, ‘non-racist ‘party.

Which is essentially the same as, ‘I’m not racist, but’.

It is the fact they are aware they can’t appear racist that is dangerous. They’ll insist they are not a one-issue party, to appear well-rounded. However, outside of the ‘Europe Question’, their policies are largely the same as the conservatives, following the same old neoliberal guidelines as the rest, pseudo-fascism and heavily leaning on austerity measures as financial policy.

They’re playing the ‘not like the others’ card, and its working. People are disenfranchised; as no one has faith in the political system. They feel forced to choose between lesser of two evils. UKIP, and its increasing attention, have presented a third option. The liberal democrats lost their place when they bedded in with the Conservatives, for whatever short-sighted reasoning they may have had.

The strong opinions and ideologies of UKIP resonate with a group of people who are depoliticised by the homogenous nature of the Tory-Labour-Liberal dynamic. They are unashamed of their opinions and leader Nigel Farage has tried very hard to humanise himself admitting being a ‘pisshead’, a workshy fop, a big fan of lap-dancing bars and that is wife is German , so he knows ‘how to handle the odd powerful German female’.

The political mistakes its members make, only serve to drive home the human element.

They aren’t politicians, they’re people.

This is very dangerous.

They are, of course, people. But, they are people with a very insular, isolationist and paranoid mindset. They are protectionists of the highest order, and will protect what they believe is theirs at any cost. They don’t believe in sharing, and will gladly & publicly defend their own interests. What the supporters don’t realise, is that underneath the façade of populist ‘man-on-the-street’ tactics, UKIP is a political party like any other. It strives for power, and will tell paranoid people what they don’t want to hear. A paranoid vote is a strong vote & politics thrives on pessimism.

It is the fear of things going wrong that makes people vote. Those who have left-

leanings, vote left because they fear right-wing ideologies and their historically disastrous outcomes. Those with right leanings, vote right because they fear left-wing ideologies and their historically disastrous outcomes.

These ‘disastrous outcomes’ themselves are subjective and wide ranging.

Those who aren’t sure where they stand politically, or are disinterested in politics, will find information from sources they trust. The mass media or family.

This too, is dangerous. Too many vested interests, outside of a personal frame of reference, colour the political allegiances of both.

The legitimisation, via populist politics, and success of UKIP in the UK Local election represents either the start of a slippery slope into increasingly dangerous territory, or serves as a wake-up call to those on the centre & left.

As I scroll through the groups of people, the swathes and masses of users online, I began to study them. I looked at their faces, at their words, and more specifically how they talk of those around them. I see a group of people that I thought I knew, but have realised I don’t know them…at all.

From a young age, I’d lived under the presupposition that I was in the quiet majority, whilst a vocal, but largely ignored, minority spoke of the ills of immigration, benefits, the NHS & social equality. I’d always believed the educated, intelligent & kind people of this isle would be like me. They’d be understanding, if at times a little scared, but able to see through rhetoric and the obvious narratives pushed on us by mass media to sell their wares.

We’d learned from years of our Imperial rule that peoples were deserving of respect and would fight for it, we’d learned the hypocrisy of war, the untrustworthiness of conservative ideologies and how to detect bullshit.

That was my long-held belief about the majority of people in this country. Imagine the political dissonance I felt when I found out that I was mistaken. The inexplicable feeling that I’d been lied to, or blinded by a false hope. The realisation that I was seemingly in a minority.

These people would rather look at everyone else. They’d rather point the finger at the foreigners, the benefit claimant, the disabled, the Muslims, the church, the bankers, the NHS & the Army. They take no political responsibility for themselves, and idly sat on the fence whilst ‘big people’ argued about ‘big people things’. Acting like a child will get you treated like a child. If you contribute nothing to the political spectrum, you will be force-fed your politics.

So, they will gladly swallow rhetoric from a regularly denounced paper, which regularly has to apologise, due to legal obligations following slander cases. The same paper, which is part of an establishment which underwent massive criminal investigation.

They will continue to swallow this information whole, as if gospel. Why? Because it’s safe & easy.

They will turn on the TV, and watch a show hosted by a man who was involved in many

dishonest & immoral acts, acting as a moral arbiter. They will watch show hosted by a former children’s entertainer, who will throw a scarcely researched list of men from the internet at a senior politician and ask him what he is personally going to do about the age-old problem of Paedophilia. They will swallow the reports done by a corporation which consistently hid, lied about and denied accusations of sexual assault by one of their biggest stars.

A group of men, with no background in the areas of government they oversee, will tell the people of Britain how to live their lives. They will say they are ‘protecting’ the people and their interests. They will use phrases like ‘We’re all in this together’. They will say this whilst heavy-handedly implying people NOT LIKE YOU, won’t be pulling their weight, ergo damning the entire proposal from the get-go due to ‘entitled’ and ‘lazy’ people. This is of course, whilst they themselves have been proved to be entitled from birth, due to the social and financial standing of their families and social circle.

Nepotism stains the walls of Westminster and their jobs beyond ‘public service’. They give no heed to anyone other than themselves and those that can help them maintain, gain & consolidate their power. They will gladly be the richest cockroaches on the pile of ashes. Yet, despite being told of this, the people will gladly swallow bitter pill, after bitter pill, because they have been promised personal financial safety.

These ‘elected’ people will lie to the British people, and the British people will, apparently, happily lap it up, because the status quo is ‘safe’ and ‘easy’. Change is frightening and chaotic to them.

These people would rather see the world fall into darkness, than to take a leap of faith into the light.

This Island will eat itself alive through fear, and only the outlets labelled as ‘socialist propaganda’ or ‘bourgeois-liberalism’ will have mentioned where this country is going.

The crowd I observed, their appearance has changed. They are dulled behind the eyes, they see only in binary. One of us, or one of them. They stalk their pray with blood-lust, and they do so in packs. You must keep quiet. Any loud noises will attract their attention and anger. You must be careful. They are trained to sniff out difference. To their senses, difference is a threat.

You’re now living in the island of Zombieland. The political un-dead, De-politicised, then politically resurrected by the rich right, whom themselves are social vampires, sucking the life force from this country, one benefit at a time with a smug smiley face plastered over the entire thing. But, there must be other survivors, right?

Chapter Eight: Heroes and Villains As long as narratives have existed, it seems fair to say, Heroes and Villains will have existed. The most identifiable being the Abrahamic characters of God & Lucifer.

Regardless of one's view on religious texts (or their veracity), the stories provided set up a lot of the ear-markers for the dichotomy we know today as Heroes and Villains.

Two powerful entities fight over self-determination, the 'greater good' and the status quo. Lucifer (The Light Bearer) was the favourite angel until he challenged God's authority and was cast down to hell. Now known as Satan, he believed it better “to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”, and becomes the “adversary of God”. Indeed, Carl Jung believed that religious figures such as Buddha Gautama, Jesus of Nazareth & Mohammed all represented the self-fulfilled heroic archetype One definition of a hero is “a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities”. Another description of heroic action is supererogation, or going “beyond the call of duty. This supererogation is deemed as morally good, yet more than is due. Essentially, heroism is a high-powered form of Good Samaritanism, if you will. This means that heroism drifts between Axiological & Deontic forms of 'goodness'. Axiology deals with ideological concepts, dealing in human affairs characterised by the open ended approaches & progressive attitudes. Deontic goodness handles legal concepts, deals with human actions characterised by fixed approaches and legal attitudes.

A villain is conversely defined as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime”. Another definition of the Villain is one who “adheres to his own rules, doesn't conform and is strong-willed and individualistic”. Agency, free will and choice are characteristic of the Villain.

Joseph Campbell defined the hero of myth as one who “brings back from his adventure the means for regeneration of his society as a whole”, but juxtaposes the mythic hero with the hero of Fairy Tales. In the latter the hero is defined as the “despised child who becomes the master of extraordinary powers-prevails over his personal oppressors”.

These two definitions could easily be applied to signify the similarity between heroes and villains, in their efforts to change the world for a subjective 'better'. What this paper will investigate is how these two, apparently binary oppositions can, on occasion, seem more similar than dissimilar in Film & Televisual fiction.

Heroes and Villains work best as cultural icons when they are viewed as essentialist & absolutist in nature. Heroic & Villainous acts are created on the concept of absolute Good and Evil, a Hero & Villain can only exist in those two categories. What is considered heroic or villainous in any given society “says a lot about that culture”.

If Heroes go beyond what is expected of them for 'greater good', what draws the line

between them and the Villain, who goes beyond what is expected of them for the relative 'bad'? The Villain will have justification, allies & strategy much like the hero, but wishes to destroy the status quo (which they deem dystopian). The Hero, ironically seeks to preserve the status quo, whilst shattering it with his presence. An example of this could be Nolan's take on the Dark Knight, Batman. Throughout the Dark Knight, Batman has become a self-imposed guardian and watchman over the sprawling metropolis of Gotham. This begs the question Juvenal asked of Caeser “But who watches the Watchmen”. If a Hero has decided that only he can stand for justice and has the infallibility that no other human possesses, he is arguably falling into the trap of egotism and 'world in my image' thinking that clouds the 'best intentions' of many Villains.

The Villain has much in common with the sociopathic 'heroes' of modern Television.

Characters like Mad Men's Don Draper, and the eponymous Hannibals and Dexters indulge in detachment from the wider social contract to achieve agency within their respective diageses. However, from a Nietzchian perspective, these characteristics could be attributed to his concept of the Ubermensch. It is important to attach the Ubermensch to this topic as both Heroes and Villains can be described in such terms.

The Ubermensch is a transcendental or supra-human individual (in its truest sense) who is endowed with “superior potential” and could be “any man”. These descriptions easily fit the heroic characters we've come to associate the term with., from Batman to Scott Pilgrim.

However, Nietzche posited that humanity no longer had a need for a God for ethical guidance, declaring that God, or at least the necessity for one, is dead. Therefore, the Ubermensch is described as a “Value-creating and value destroying free spirit who disciplines himself to wholeness”, and that it remains “an ideal”.

This immediately shouts out as a villainous behaviour, as far as the Deontic concept of 'goodness' is utilised. Destroying & creating values transgresses the base level concepts of good and replaces them with those which exist outside the deontic social contract described by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau argued that initially the natural order of life had been instilled by the abundance of comparative nature to man. Competition was lesser and people led simple, “morally pure” lives. This was disturbed by the invention of private property, which led to increasing inequalities. Eventually, these inequalities manifested as a class system, the top of which wished to protect their interests. So, governments were created to protect property and this class. They propose a social contract of protection to the lower classes, in exchange for obeying their laws, all the while solidifying the inequalities intrinsic to the system.

This concept of the social contract, utilised by arguably villainous people, begs questions of the Hero & Villain, as Heroes are typically characterised as being involved in this social contract, where the Villain uses it himself or works outside of it.

Nietzche's Ubermensch has independent will and establishes his own values. This resonates with Kant's writing on Freedom and the autonomy of will, which suggests that one who possesses these attributes does “what ought to be done, not what others tell you to do”. This strange blurring of the heroic & villainous can be succinctly shown in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.

Batman, as a wider pop culture icon, had trod the line between Hero & Villain often.

Alan Moore's Killing Joke has Batman experience the “one bad day” that can drive a man to the kind of insanity Joker experiences, forgetting Batman had already experienced that day. A retired Batman makes a brutal return, killing Joker and beating Superman to a pulp in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. In Nolan's iteration (which borrowed from the two aformentioned texts in several areas) this issue is shown through the three main characters. Batman, Joker and Two-Face. These characters signify three frameworks for understanding the ethics of their actions. All three act outside of the deontic framework and each one acts extra-judicially.

Batman believes life is a chaotic tragedy, that only he can defend via his higher mental, physical & financial resources. Joker believes life to be a chaotic joke, with a punchline that only he can explain via more chaos. Two-Face believes that life is simply chaos and leaves his life up to chance. This is where Two-Face differs, his moral nihilism is so complete that he resigns his agency to a coin. Batman shapes his existence through his actions as does Joker. Batman's agency is framed through a humanist code of honour, based on a harm-to-efficacy ratio. His is a deontic good, the lowest common denominator. The Joker's nihilism is social, he tries to deconstruct social order to reveal some truth he has found in and arguably represents the lofty axiological good more clearly than Batman. However, the deontic good wins out within the film, as the base concepts of right and wrong win out over permitted chaos.

The simple fact that all of these characters have reached the same conclusion of life as chaos suggests how closely Heroes and Villains are, at least philosophically. Their methods differ hugely due to their differing approaches to the social contract. Joker & Two-Face deny the social contract as an obfuscating framework for understanding reality. Batman puts stock in it, yet willingly acts outside of it. Arguably, the more honest approach is that of the supposed villains who look to expose the corruption inherent in the system, something the film makes a point of referencing.

However, Heroes and Villains are typically described in binary oppositions. Following the intellectual strands already placed within this paper, a matrix of heroic/villainous behaviours can be created. Investigating the dichotomy of Heroes and Villains seems to suggest a selection of behaviours. Heroes are isolationist by nature, politically conservative & driven by fear. Heroes wish to be left alone, to protect the status quo & are fearful of a world without rule. They are dependent on the social contract for their morality and are given their agency by it. Villains are conversely globalised, politically progressive and driven by egotism. Villains wish to demolish the status quo and wish to replace it with their own view. Villains vehemently deny the basic, deontic aspects of the social contract, which they deem as constricting. Their agency is either created by them, or through exploitation of corruption within the system.

How does this correspond to those we deem heroes and villains? The American Film Institute's top Heroes and Villains is worth investigating as it shows some interesting cross-over of behaviours. Atticus Finch and Hannibal Lecter take the top places of Hero and Villain, respectively. So, using the theory of behaviours previously posited, let us look at these two characters. Both Finch and Lecter act outside of the common thinking, Finch preaching equality in a unequal time and Lecter transgressing basic taboos on Cannibalism & Murder. Both are globalised, educated and intellectually independent men. They deny the status quo, deny the deontic aspects of the social contract and take agency for themselves. Where they differ is in their approach. Lecter, much like Finch is a Villain to the Villainous & a Hero to the Heroic (to a certain extent in Lecter's case). However, despite his apparent altruism towards Clarice, Lecter's heroic stature is largely due to his support of the Intelligence and Police departments.

His extra-judicial actions are heroic in a complicated way. Whilst he is stopping other serial killers, he himself is a serial killer. Finch's altruism harms no one but the system.

Finch is closest to achieving the truly transcendent status that heroism requires.

Villains are egotists and Heroes rely on a social order built on villainy. Altruism ultimately shines through as the defining feature of heroism, but without the larger realisation that alternative social orders could be more ultimately altruistic, they will always be villains to someone, much as Villains will always be heroes to someone.

Reality rarely presents us with such people, and if it does, they are often cannibalised into a narrative character. For every subjective right decision a hero makes, a subjective wrong will be made. The heroic or villainous nature of their actions are based on a posteriori, subjective conclusions on the ethical location of these actions. These are typically framed within the social contract, which means if Rousseau is right, they are framed by villainous actions. If villains are describing others as villains, perhaps they are in fact heroes. Perhaps, even as Two-Face, Harvey Dent was the true White Knight of Gotham, ridding Gotham of corruption and secrecy in the most natural way, chance.

Dent understands that heroes will always exist and villains will always exist, and as Zygmunt Bauman put it: “What we perhaps fear most, is that each of the two faces can no more exist without the other than can the two sides of a coin”.

Heroes and Villains are so similar because they're humans, or at least aspects of human nature. Zimbardo argued that “The world is filled with good and evil-was,is, will always be. The barrier between good and evil is permeable and nebulous” and that “it is possible for angels to become devils and, perhaps more difficult to conceive, for devils to become angels”.

He argues that the concept of the “unbridgeable chasm” between Absolute Good and Evil is a doubly thick security blanket. In it's form as a binary opposition, evil is distilled and essentialised into an innate aspect of certain people, an other. He carried

on the cultural characterisation of the other as evil, stating that “the process [of propaganda] begins with creating stereotyped conceptions of the other...as demonic...as abstract monster...as a fundamental threat to our cherished values and beliefs”.

Pomeroy believes that our moral philosophy has not evolved in conjunction with science, and that the “rational natural science without a rational moral science” had been perfectly shown in the rise of the Nazis & following genocide. Hitler once stated “how lucky it is for rulers that men cannot think”. Blackburn argues that it is exactly because men could think, but that thinking “was poisoned by an enveloping climate of ideas, many of which may not have even be conscious” that groups like the Nazi's captured the imagination so successfully. Pomeroy continues this strand stating that “racists always tell themselves a story that justifies their system. The ethical climate will sustain a conviction that we are civilised, they are not, or that we deserve better fortune than them”.

This means that good people are let off “the responsibility hook”, according to Zimbardo and are allowed to involve themselves in evil acts, as they are good people despite their evil acts, as “it's the way of the world”. The justification of the greater good fits in with the argument that “a reason rationalises an action”. If we can then become aware of some “consequence...the agent wanted, desired, held dear, thought dutiful, beneficial, obligatory, or agreeable”, evil actions are made good (Davidson, 1980). If this is compared with part of Zimbardo's definition of evil actions as “using one's authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf”, one can begin to see how easily the hero can be regarded as the villain by those on the other side of the social contract.

Bauman states that “the more rational is the organisation of action, the easier it is to cause suffering”. If a hero is co-opted by the social contract to perform beyond his simple duty, he is working outside of the social contract to achieve this. Flugel, much like Nietzche, believed that it was “Man's duty” to continue human evolution by “reshaping of the world into a fitter place for human beings to live in”. This seems to describe a hero, as Joseph Campbell described them as having the means for “regeneration of his society as a whole”. Yet Flugel also talks of the “betterment of himself...improvement of his spiritual and physical welfare...increase of his knowledge and of the power with which this knowledge can endow him”, which fits more with the individualistic, value destroying aspects of the villain .

He continues the individuality strand, stating that large amounts of our species progression resulted due to “isolated individuals here and there, working for their private ends or to satisfy some personal urge or curiosity; and the greater pioneers among them have...been feared or persecuted”. These are typically people with lofty, ideological and axiological goodness whom work outside the deontic social contract.

Bauman argues that relativists thinking means “no claim to truth, authority, certainty or necessity-will be audible except as one more saying like all the others”. If this relativist framework is utilised on heroes and villains, then neither can truly exist and will remain an aspect of the narrative way in which we perceive the world to make sense of

it.

From a narrative perspective, it is important for the Hero & Villain to share common elements to present a real threat and challenge to each other. If they didn't share individuating strength, extra-judicial agency & a sense of what 'ought to be done', one would easily defeat the other. Let us consider some of the more popular cinematic heroes & villains.

Star Wars' Luke and Anakin Skywalker share a lot of elements. Both suffer the loss of a hand, emotional manipulation by the Emperor & use of the force at a higher level. Both share Obi Wan as a mentor and are introduced to the Jedi way of life later on in their respective lives.

A similar thread can be seen in the Harry Potter series, between Harry & Voldemort.

Both are Half-Blood orphans, raised around 'muggles', who don't find happiness until they reach Hogwarts, are dark haired and share the same 'model' of wand.

The Toy Story franchise draw parallels between Woody & Lotso as intelligent, resourceful & strategic leaders and Woody and Stinky Pete as conservative cowboys fearing replacement by a space toy.

What the effective mirroring of these characters does is drive home the similarities between these binaries to investigate what it is that truly decides whether a character is a hero or a villain. If it is agreed that the above characters are heroes and villains, it appears that choice is the only thing that separates these characters. Their lives have trod similar, if not the same, paths. They have experienced the same journeys, but one makes a choice in a wider social context, where the other acts selfishly and that is arguably the only difference between the two.

Damon Lindelof believed that “we want heroes to know the difference between good and bad, and we want them to be strong”, but it's “hard for such a person to be accessible”.

Why is this the case? Perhaps it's related to the culture of sociopathy that is encouraged in power structures. Wall Street & Neoliberal capitalism have both been identified as having the obsessive, self-aggrandising sociopathy which are encouraged as the norm in the Capitalist western world. An article on TheLastPsychiatrist.com described Wall Street as “stealing your savings and feeling no shame, having no punishment”, while non-sociopaths can only compensate with “moral superiority”. Non sociopaths want to “feel some power, which in a normally functioning society you would be able to get in your own natural way”. However, because it appears the “social contract has failed”, we must play the game of the sociopaths, who are egotistical villains. As justification of sociopathy becomes more widespread to preserve the social contract, our heroes begin to shift to represent that .

However, it is important to remember that narratives serve as a framework of understanding. We make sense of the existent world through narratives, stories and casual logic. The hero/villain dichotomy presents two moral standpoints on a narrative map of causation, each on differing sides of the social contract. The Hero exists as something to reach for, the Villain something to avoid. However, the obligation to the Social Contract creates a dilemma for the Heroic character who must act outside of it to

preserve it. If this preservation undoes itself by its own existence, is there much point to trying? Heroes are always a few steps away from being Villains, ethically. But, more often than not it is the reversion back to the status quo that saves the day and makes the hero. Through this essay, it has become clear that the binary opposition we've covered here isn't quite as binary or oppositional as we'd care to think. Instead, this dichotomy acts as a philosophical synthesis of ideas. These two tropes act as philosophical characters through which to filter through the arguments for Villainy or Heroism. Ultimately, a hero is an altruist & a villain is an egotist. Man can be both, man can be neither. There are no heroic or villainous people, just actions.

Chapter Nine: A poem, for you I’m no better than you, You’re no better than me, we succeed at being each other, more than perfectly.

I know some things, you know others, I’ve got two parents, you might just have a mother.

I get it, life’s hard, it’s harder for some, it’s easier for others, it’s a sliding scale, I’m not dumb.

But inside, you have something a gift that’s so great, pure creativity, a dream, a goal, a fate.

You’ve been told over and over, time and again, get a job, work hard, pay your taxes, to the lead men.

But your life is restricted, embittered by fear, as you worry about money, health, wealth & family, year after year.

A wide eyed child once lived in your brain, a child fascinated by a squirrel in a tree or even a speeding train, that child’s within you, never went away, but it’s fallen on deaf ears day after day.

Do what you love, be with your love, change your life and rise above, the world is your playground, but it’s guarded by fear, no one can stop you, once you’ve grabbed what is dear.

People will tell you to grow up and get real, these people have signed their life away on a bum deal, they’re trapped in their mortgages, debts and jobs,

their appearance seems tidy, spiritually they’re slobs.

Don’t redesign yourself to fit a mould, don’t kill the kid inside, you’re never too old, to do what you need, and need what you do, to be nothing more, nothing less, than just you.

It might sound all preachy, a philosophical coup, but, trust me, I wrote this for you, and you, and you, and you.

Chapter Ten: Propaganda or How I learned to stop worrying and turn off the Television Television in Britain is near-Omnipresent, shared by the population, despite class stratification (apart from those in real poverty). This chapter will discuss whether the BBC represents a union & solidarity within the classes, or whether it enforces a statusquo within the national ideology.

Having seen how the Public Service Broadcaster has increasingly become part of the free market, one begins to wonder how the corporation could reconcile their arguably socialist goals, with their more capitalist ones, especially when it is largely funded by public money.

Within this chapter, there will be a critique of the BBC and its News programming. To give the critique some framework, it will investigate specifically, at whether the Corporation is indeed a Public Service, whether it represents the wants and needs of the British people, or instead consolidates a neoliberal ideology.

Chomsky suggests that Mass Media, as a whole, serves to engender viewers with : “The values, beliefs and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into institutional beliefs of the large society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts in class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda” The BBC has the public's trust and 60% of national News viewership, TV reaches 44 million people a day and 54 million Britons watch, at least, 26 hours of TV a day.

Current affairs is an important part of the BBC's national identity, and is consumed by the majority of UK TV news viewers. The BBC's presence in the British Home, especially as a News provider is substantial. Yet, the private sector has increased its own presence in the BBC; and despite its claims of political independence, the BBC has been long-accused of leaning towards whichever contemporary political ideology is fashionable.

Those at the top of the Corporation's management hierarchy are a mixed bunch of professionals representing the creative Industries, party politicians and the free market in general with Big Business and Board Members making up much of its chair.

Therefore, vested interests seem to lie outside of the Public Service ethos, leaning ideologically towards Conservatism, Private Industry and Neoliberalism.

The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) defines Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) as “Broadcasting made, financed and controlled by the public, for the public. It is neither commercial nor state-owned, free from political interference and pressure from commercial forces. Through PSB, citizens are informed, educated and also entertained”.

This begs the question, Is the BBC truly a PSB? While the large amount of BBC's

Broadcasting is paid for by the public, it also relies on elements of the free marketplace to sustain itself on top of the license fees. The BBC has forays in merchandise, Home video, magazine publication & 12 non-PSB commercial digital channels; all of which bring funds into the BBC from private sources. The BBC is not controlled or made by the public and I will discuss further how free the BBC is from external pressures and influences from both Westminster and commercial forces.

Civic responsibility to the Public is of utmost importance to PSB, with necessity for Education and Information being a universal concept within it. Original Director General, John Reith's mantra of 'Inform, Educate & Entertain' is an attempt to facilitate the informing of a public, as an informed public is a democratic one. Ergo, current affairs take precedent, and for the BBC are a mainstay of their programming rostrum.

This information usually focusses on economic, domestic & international politics. The BBC also informs viewers on a local/regional level. For this to work well, independence from the centralised governmental branch of state is incredibly important. If the state is too closely involved in a Public Service Provider, it risks becoming a State Service Provider.

Within the higher levels of bureaucracy at the BBC, is the BBC Trust, a 12-member governing body. Looking at the background of the Trust is an intriguing spectacle. The career backgrounds of the Trust range from economy, banking, security and includes a foreign policy advisor; part of a foreign policy double team with the former Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten. The newest incarnation of the Trust increased its roster, to include six members with experience of the arts, culture, journalism and film.

This odd duality of business and pleasure, in the non-executive day-to-day management of the BBC is an apparent attempt to "bring objectivity, experience and expertise - gained over successful careers - to the board, which would assist the executive directors in deciding how best to run the BBC".

(Fowler, 2005, cited in OpenDemocracy.net, 2012) Michael Sandel suggests that inclusion of big business in Public Service as "marketmimicking governance". It's worth noting that Trustees Patten(also Chairman), Fry & Taverne all gain money directly from the finance industry. Dan Hind suggests that the BBC, like many Public Service Broadcasters, 'has been urged to adopt best practice from the private sector' to combat competition. Ergo, it reflects "enterprise culture" pressing itself upon Public Service. Its management and its output then reflects that pressure.

Fairclough argues that one of the characteristics of New Labour's tenure was borrowing phrases from American management & consultancy industries . Following this trend the language of the creative Industries shifted from the language of the Academic to the language of “Stakeholders and partners, synergies and added value”.

A report & lecture by Gavyn Davies in 2004, when he was Chairman of the BBC, is entitled 'Building Public Value'. By the end of the introduction, according to Lee, he clearly states that 'the language of economics', not 'Public Value', will “justify the role of the BBC”. This is a drastically different approach to that suggested by Mark Moore in

'Creating Public Value'. He states that the idea of transferring private sector practices into public services didn't constitute 'Public Value', or Public Services.

Indeed, Marquand talks of “citizenship, equity and service whose integrity is essential to democratic governance and social well-being”. The inclusion of many important members of the Private Sector within the BBC trust appears to represent a conflict of interest between what is good for the Corporation and what those like Moore argue is good for the Public.

The BBC described Public Value as such: 1.

2.

3.

The value licence fee payers would place on the service (measured through ‘willingness to pay’ consumer research methods) The value the service delivers to society as a whole through its contribution to the BBC’s public purposes and priorities (six ‘new public purposes’: Sustaining citizenship and civil society; Promoting education and learning; Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence – including film; Reflecting the UK’s Nations, regions and communities; Bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world; and Building Digital Britain) The value for money delivered by the service.

Two-thirds of this description is based around the financial aspects of the license fee, and the remaining third appears to be their entire Public Service remit. This in itself represents the dual directions the BBC is being pulled. The addition of monetary value seems to be what Lee describes as “greater use and reliance on consumer research techniques”. Lee goes onto point out that earlier in the year; the title of the lecture was 'Economics and the BBC Charter”. The concept of Public Value has an “implicit focus on private individual citizens who are seen as 'shareholders'”. He goes on to argue that this is an example of how deeply Neoliberal ideology has shifted concepts of the 'Public', after all former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did say that there is “no such thing as society”.

This is not too dissimilar to TF1's current management system by Ockert. France's TF1 PSB channel was bought by a civil engineering company. Ockert characterises their attitude towards the management of TF1 as 'no reason why a TV station should be run differently from a pipes factory’ and their ethical code as ‘Kill the enemy, the competition, the weak’.

She goes onto characterise such non-creative executive control as a 'new breed' which have quantitative goals, but no qualitative standards. Ergo, as financial success becomes the main priority, more popular shows are bought in. Making original content is comparatively expensive, with high risk on return. So, with a deregulated system, more channels play identical programming with identical schedules. Choice of channel has multiplied in the information age, but diversity is largely absent.

According to Froud(et al), OFCOM's definition of PSB in their 'Measuring Public Service Broadcasting Report' doesn't actually define PSB. Instead, it “proposes a procedure or

set of steps through which consumer wants can be ascertained and market developments predicted”. This is the Office of Communications (OFCOM), the regulator for quality on Television (amongst other things), and it is defining PSB by Market Value, not Public Value. Is this telling of the entire Industry's shifting attitude towards Public Service Broadcasting? Froud alludes that this is caused by marketisation causing the BBC to rely on quantitative “targets and ratios”.

Public Service Broadcasting, by its own definition, demands independence from the government. Each BBC charter, however, must be ratified after a lengthy discussion with Westminster about the 'future of television'. After that, it is should no longer be affected by direct political will for 10 years. It is then granted freedom of editorial policy and management strategies.

The government hold ultimate power however, and can choose to override the charter at any time, but this method hasn't be utilised in 80 years. Instead, they wait until the next charter review. The financial support divvied to the BBC is also protected for years to protect it from political will.

It is worth noting that the current Conservative-Liberal Coalition government has frozen the BBC's licence fee for six years. With current inflation levels, the BBC's spending power would decrease to 40%, leading to the BBC cutting 20% of their spending over a few years.

Robin Aitken, a former BBC journalist, puts forth the argument that for an individual to succeed at the BBC necessitates signing up to “or at the very least, not publicly dissent from” a select range of attitudes & opinions, that make up what could be called the 'BBC Ideology'. It is regularly described as liberal, or the Corporation is characterised as having a 'liberal bias'. But in this case, Aitken says, 'liberal' merely describes 'nonconservative'. It's basic belief in the legitimacy of the market means it poses no threat to the status quo of neoliberal capitalism.

However, Hasan fears that the right wing press & political parties may have redefined “the centre ground of politics to suit their own political agenda”. One of their own journalist's Andrew Marr stated that the BBC as “a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people...ethnic minorities and almost certainly gay people, compared with the population at large” was an example of “innate liberal bias”. Barnett rebuts these allegations as a “concerted effort” to discredit anything that opposes their ideology and “promote a political agenda which is more consistent with their own”.

This is down to a dominance of ideas, or Hegemony. Hegemony is a form of soft power, which presupposes anything other than the status quo of the society in which it is performed. Sardar & Van Loon define Hegemony as that which “binds societies together, without the use of force”. Gramsci theorised that this was created when the “Upper classes” added “intellectual & moral leadership” to their huge, pre-existing economic & military power.

To allow this power grab to be effective, the Upper Class & Working Class must compromise and reach a “general consent”. Typically, the norms and values of a society are negotiated by the classes, but when the working class is ill-informed, consent is no longer reached, but is instead manufactured.

Chomsky postulates that the function of News Media is to instil the public with the “values, beliefs and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into institutional beliefs of the large society”. He goes onto to state that in a world where wealth is unequally concentrated and forms of class warfare exist, it requires “systematic Propaganda”.

Propaganda is defined as 'Any association, systematic scheme or concerted movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine of practice'.

Bernays describes 'Public Opinion', as something that “stood out as a force that must be managed”, and that the job of doing so was “all important”, and should be left to “experts”. He goes onto say that “The manufacture of consent” in the 'Public sphere' was seen as a necessity not just by businessmen, but journalists as well.

According to Lipmann, the creation of consent was not a 'new art', but an old one which appeared to have died. He argues, however, that it merely improved its technique and is based on 'analysis, rather than rule of thumb'.

Creel argues that the use of 'Propaganda' (a word that, ironically, suffered from bad PR at the hands of the Germans), was “Educational and informative” and that they represented “simple, straightforward presentation of facts”. This justification of education and information, with fact-based reporting sounds very similar to Reith's concept of PSB. It's also interesting to note that in the 2006 BBC's Charter, a declaration of the corporation’s public purposes, included 'sustaining citizenship and civil society'.

The Murdochs (Rupert and his son James) have long levied claims of monopolisation and elitism within the BBC. Defending Sky's arguably populist programming and reliance on bought shows, Rupert Murdoch said that the BBC believed that ‘People could not be trusted to watch what they wanted to watch, so that it had to be controlled by like-minded people who knew what was good for us’.

Murdoch seems to suggest that the BBC, as a PSB is undemocratic and enforces an ideology onto the viewer. He goes onto suggest a level of elitism within the BBC saying, “I am suspicious of elites, including the British Broadcasting elite, which argue for special privileges and favours because they are supposed to be in the public interest as a whole”. Murdoch enthuses that he has “never heard a convincing definition of what Public-service television really is”.

It is worth noting that Reith's own views weren't too dissimilar from this description.

He felt that “few people knew what they wanted” and “what was good for them”.

However, he justified this by deciding that the BBC “should be just ahead of the centre point of public taste”, to make the programming “Challenging and elevating”. The statements of the Murdoch family seem to suggest that the BBC has an ideological

prerequisite.

There seems to be some truth in this concept. News Media is not a mirror, it is the active construction of a 'version' of events. As Sardar & Van Loon point out, “even a 'live link' can be manufactured from head office, with the correspondent reading from an autocue. All news is professional construction of reality”.

News Media defines and labels situations, disallowing alternative viewpoints with 'unbiased' reporting. Hall (et al) felt that the media “tends to reproduce, symbolically, the existing structure of power in society's Institutional order”. Andrew Murray seems to agree, stating that the BBC “is on the side of those who like the world pretty much the way it is”.

Jean Baudrillard seems to agree with this concept of reproduction of the status quo, he believed that the Media don't push “dominant ideology as false messages to the masses”, but instead the intrinsic ideology is the media fabricating “non-communication”. He believed that real communication works on a reciprocal level, with responsibility and immediate accountability. As the Mass Media is one-way communication, it is only half a conversation, with someone who doesn't care what you have to say back. This means that News is merely a simulation of communication.

Leaders need effective communications with the public, for whom the Mass Media is the mediator in the Leader-Public dichotomy. Television is, by far, the biggest medium of the Leader-Public relationship, and is used as a tool of persuasion & judgement, respectively. This means huge amounts of effort are put into positive ‘Public Relations' or 'Communications' from successive governments. This then suggests that Broadcasters like the BBC become incorporated into the state, with establishment values embedded deeply into the 'common sense' ideals of the corporation. Public Service then metamorphoses into the respectful projection of Official Attitudes. Mike Berry research, with the Cardiff School of Journalism (CSJ), into the potential bias showed that on any number of topics “the BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, Pro-Business version of the world”, and CSJ's Content Analysis showed that the Conservatives dominated the BBCs breadth of opinion, and had a noticeably larger presence in 2012 than labour did in 2007 on their broadcasts.

Chomsky states that the Public Relations industry is “dedicated to undermining authentic democracy”. He suggests that PR & communications were built around the conceit that “it's necessary to regiment the minds of men”. This isn't too far from Reith's assertions that the Public didn't know what was good for them, and the Murdoch's argument of Elitism in the BBC. Chomsky goes onto say that the PR industry is solely dedicated to creating “uninformed voters who will make irrational decisions”. If the PR Industry feeds information directly into the BBC, and they feed it to voters, there is potentially a huge issue of undemocratic practices within the corporation.

News Values, according to Cotter, are Ideological constructs. Institutional socialisation creates what Allen describes as “Conceptual boundaries of interpretation...of beliefs values and intentions”.

A huge amount of events happen with any one day. Very few are, or can be, reported.

News is therefore a process of elimination, based on subjective judgements of 'News Value'. These judgements have innate political/ideological characteristics, as they eliminate many possibilities. The less aware the judge is of the political nature of news values and their judgements, the more normalised it is and therefore easier to imbue into common sense thinking.

When Greg Dyke was installed as DG, he stated that he wanted 'brave' and 'investigative' journalism, unlike his predecessor, John Birt who believed in a 'centralised' and 'weighted accuracy' to the BBC's journalism.

Dyke believed in taking risks and was known for his scepticism surrounding the Iraq War, which eventually led to end of his tenure as DG. Dyke also proclaimed the need for 'intelligent, mediated journalism' in a 'post-9/11 world'.

Barnett suggests that “ any public interest broadcaster should be twofold” primarily, as far as “party policy issues are concerned,...give a fair account of the arguments of all sides”, “to have a duty to find out what is true” and “report this without fear or favour...and establish whether a story has integrity.”

Chomsky states that “The democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish it to be perceived” and that “News choices rest on unbiased professional and objective criteria”.

From within the sphere of Journalism, it is believed that news has to be amoral. It's purpose is, as Michael Buerk put it not to “solve the world's problems, but to so inform a working democracy that those people will come to their own conclusions”. If their stories are associated with partisan campaigning, the journalism is undermined or tainted.

Journalists are merely impartial witnesses who “tell fresh, uncomfortable and unbiased stories that fuel...democratic accountability”.

Molyneux rebuts this concept stating that “centrism is a lie” and that for us to truly understand the 'centre position' as a bias in and of itself. The argument then becomes a justification for bias, rather than the equilateral denial of bias. Molyneux uses the tobacco Industry as an example to show the implicit ideology behind this argument, when “medical evidence suggested that cigarette smoking was a serious cause of cancer; the tobacco companies denied it...they were not half right, they were lying”.

When the internet placed itself as a major player in the world of information communication and accessible media, the BBC instigated an expansion into the world wide web. Propagated by Birt and carried on by his successor, the BBC became a new animal. No longer bound to the Television or radio, the BBC paved the way for Broadcast in the digital area. Just as the public had more access to the BBC, the BBC had greater access to the public. External forces saw this rise, errors in editorial practice and withdrawal symptoms after Dyke's last payslip, and saw their target. Artz (et al) assert that “to defy the government is to court disaster”, and that the BBC is so impartial, not our of fairness, but “to do otherwise is to endanger the whole basis of the

organisation”.

This is backed up by former BBC correspondent Derek Bateman states that the BBC are in “Full assault mode...defensive and flustered”. He characterises this defensive position as the default for “an organisation caught out by events and floundering”.

Following Lewis' research with Cardiff University he believed the “most plausible hypothesis” to be gained from said research was that “the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right” and that in a vulnerable position following pressure from successive governments and worrying about the application of the Charter by those governments. Lewis continues this idea stating that the BBC's “cyclical dependence upon whoever happens to be in government during the licence renewal period is the greatest threat to impartiality” and that “no similar patterns were found in ITV or Channel 4”. This suggests that the BBC's unique position as a Public Service Broadcaster puts it under intense pressure, which the free(er) market broadcasters don't suffer, to step in line.

This 'stepping in line' was suggested by the Director General Mark Thompson appearing from a meeting at Downing Street with a list of programme ideas that “appeared to showcase Tory economic of savage, indiscriminate cuts”. This arguably represents an open willingness to follow the line of the government, rather than making their own impartial decision on how to broadcast information on Government policy.

The once amicable BBC-Westminster relationship changed dramatically when the UK went to war in Iraq, citing 45 minute launch-strike capability of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as justification. On John Humphry's radio show, journalist Andrew Gilligan produced a report which suggested that the New Labour government knew that the 45 minute estimation was wrong, as Dr. David Kelly's research suggested. Kelly was a senior Weapons Inspector at the UN. This suggested that potential lies had been told on a governmental level. The Blair government & then-Press Secretary Alastair Campbell had issues with Gilligan & the BBC's contrariness. Director General of the time, Greg Dyke, stepped into defend Gilligan, his report and this had galvanised the BBC into a rebellious denier.

Kelly, following intense scrutiny & pressure from politicians, media and secret service alike, was found dead soon after the antagonism had begun.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair instigated the Hutton Inquiry, which led to BBC and Gilligan being condemned and the BBC dropped him and Dyke. It was later found that the Gilligan/Kelly Report had been right in it's conclusions. The British state could not openly admit they'd falsified justification for war, and punished the BBC. The 2003 Hutton Inquiry later acquitted the Blair government of any guilt and the BBC shrunk away, losing Dyke in the process. Barnett describes this result as being “strung up on the rack”, pointing out the fact that “we now know the story was wholly accurate and well sourced”, and describes he BBC as being “massively punished”.

The BBC, now more sheepish and risk averse than before struggle in a world where everyone is seemingly against them. The reaction was the creation of the BBC Trust, replacing the board of 'audience guardians' with more of a concentration on business strategy.

The Trust enforces 'purpose remits' and uses a 'performance Measurement Framework', which assesses “Reach, quality, Impact & Value for money”. OFCOM also assesses 'Public Value' assessments of any commercial venture by the BBC. The Trust has to regularly report to select committee & the EU monitors their output from a fair trade context. The Trust is a heavily bureaucratised body, with Independent & external stakeholders. These stakeholders increased demands for both financial and cultural goals, while giving the aforementioned regulatory bodies greater power, so as to assure they reach their goals. It is worth noting that the Director General is appointed by the Trust, which in turn is appointed by the Queen (on advice from Government ministers).

The Queen is appointed by no-one, and this could easily be argued to represent undemocratic practice on an institutional level.

Beyond the Trust, the corporation now felt it was mistaken to broadcast the Gilligan item, despite it's veracity. The BBC had been “bullied and bent to the will of a duplicitous political class” . Indeed, the BBC began to believe that just because a story was true didn't mean it should run, and “might even be a good reason not to”.

The BBC lagged behind the crowd with the Expenses and Banking scandals and was largely left alone, but when they covered the Saville case, they were punished. The BBC is now damned if they do, damned if they don't, and the fall out from the Hutton Inquiry led to a BBC which no longer seeks the truth, but manages it. Molyneux states that if the Media fails to fulfil the service of “systematic legitimation”, then the State “as guardian of the overall interests of the Capitalist Class, intervenes to rein it in”.

This accusation of the State's character as the aforementioned guardian is supported

by Marx, who states that the “ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” and that the “ruling material force, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force”.

Chapter Eleven: Ideology and how to fight against it Woodfin defines Ideology as “the set of attitudes, values and perceptions via which we understand and relate to the world”. We as humans have pre-determined attitudes that colour our perception of the world.

However, Allen puts forward the concept that “humans do not perceive reality, but construct a cultural & social understanding of it”. He points towards Saussure's ideas of the signified (as mental representation) and the signifier (as referring sign). Each culture will use different combinations of coded signs to decode & encode reality differently, Ideology is such a combination of codes. The power of ideology is “to signify events in a particular way”.

Louis Althusser posits that “Ideology provides a conceptual framework”, which allows one to interpret our “Lived, material lives”. Hall continues, stating that “Ideology therefore produces our culture, as well as our consciousness of who and what we are”.

Ideology, therefore, is an extremely powerful, systematic tool. Hall however, states that Ideology is not a determined set of coded messages, and therefore becomes an “autonomous” reaction within Ideological “agents”. That is to say, Ideological statements will be perceived as statements about “how things really are”.

This 'common sense' coding of popular culture, in its instantaneous and shared understanding it becomes a Cultural code. Frederic Jameson takes this step one further with the 'Ideologeme', a belief system which manifests as a concept or narrative.

Such a narrative can be used, in the fashion of the common sense code, to successfully imbue belief systems onto the receivers of such a message. If the Capitalist Class wishes to organise and shape the world according to their interests, what better way than via entertaining, informing and educating popular culture? Fairclough argues that people are not aware of the “implicit proposition” of Ideology, which allows the reproduction, socially, of the “relations of domination”. Greg Philo continues this strand, arguing that isn't possible to “fully understand” representation without investigating the production processes involved.

Common sense thinking becomes common through repetition. Molyneux states that “these arguments are also circulated by word of mouth...partly because people receive them so frequently from the Media”. Therefore, speaking outside of the common parlance, as it were, makes facts sound strange, outlandish or even conspiratorial in nature. Guy Debord waxes poetic that “In a world which really is topsy-turvy, the true is a moment of false”. Media Ideology relies on this common sense thinking to represent reality, and as such any 'non-common sense' ideologies are seen as extremist, or at the very least “highly contentious”. Marcuse argues against these concepts of ideology stating that the “unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their Utopian character, but of the strength of forces which prevent their realisation”. That is to say the

normalised appearance of this ideological work is so firmly engrained in our perception of reality that any other frame of reference creates a level of cognitive dissonance.

Elements of our mediated experience are so rarely examined in any great detail that “familiarity has bred consent”. This is due to the media achieving Ideology so well by “acting as cultural wallpaper to our lives”.

Taylor describes western media as being able to “excel at using this sort of ideological bluff...the very guise of 'non-ideological”. Taylor believes the media proclaims to be impartial, while being completely partial to an institutionalised form of world view.

Debord poetically states that “Psuedo-histories”, or mediated events, are constructed so unanimously in order to “preserve the threatened equilibrium of frozen time” or put plainly, to conserve the status quo. Althusser states that Ideological State Apparatuses “represent the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”, and therefore the dominant ideology interpellates the individual, so no other world can be imagined.

Marx argued that capitalism caused “alienation from our own human nature, our ability to consciously shape the world around us”. He believed that the working class, or Proletariat, had been alienated from their 'proper' connection to the world, and their lives. These improper connections cause unhappiness hidden under the illusion of consumer happiness. Moreover, a capitalist Ontology has perverted the co-operative elements of humanity into ugly competition.

If this alienation is accepted and internalised, the individual has “adopted compliance with status quo as a life strategy”. Marcuse believed that the media industries “promote false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood”. This false consciousness preordained “attitudes and habits certain intellectual and emotional reactions” to the consumer and bound them, ideologically, to the producers. An entertaining form of indoctrination that creates a “pattern of one-dimensional thought and behaviour”.

But, what of those who work within popular culture? This includes News Broadcasters.

They are typically or will become, through their work, Middle Class and imbue Ideology into their work, by being ideologically unaware. To succeed in the creative Industries, creative workers must follow rules, avoiding offence to those in power, following editorial policies and company guidelines. Rules become 'common sense', and so the Ideology works in its most effective way, indirectly. These cultural workers – Editors, journalists, hosts – Chomsky argues, are “wealthy, privileged people, whose associations and [sic] interests and concerns are closely related to those of the groups that dominate the economy, and that dominate the state”. He goes on to say that they are “basically the same group”, those who “own the country, or the ones who serve their interests”. Molyneux agrees, stating that cultural workers “mix with powerful politicians and business people professionally and socially”.

Gramsci believed that for the world to stop being 'topsy-turvy', an alternative viewpoint seen by the broadest amount of exploited would transform the world. This worldwide access to alternative viewpoints sound very similar to the internet. With the

ability to check sources, cross reference information and have regularly updated content, the internet presents a world of views previously unseen. A site like Reddit.com has a huge community which interacts with smaller subcultures or 'subreddits' dedicated to different topics, passions, concepts & jokes. Within the internet community is a group of amateur, yet dedicated civic journalists. They perform what they perceived to be a civic duty by reporting on stories that get little attention.

These are those who receive the Ideology-imbued media texts as something beyond its harmless common sense meaning.

Baurdrillard discussed the media as a system which circulates information, rather than a message delivery service. He argues that the media, itself being arguably apolitical, depoliticised the masses and overloaded them with information. The effect of this excess is to collapse the media and the masses into one entity, the mass media.

Therefore the Sender-message-receiever(SMR) model is null & void.

Hall posited that the SMR model needed to be replaced with a reciprocal 'circuit' model with the message being sent, but the reception being dependent on the receiver. The reaction from the receiver affects the message and its context. Hall described 'Oppositional' and 'negotiated' readings of texts. Hall described the media as the “field of Ideological struggle” and that is a struggle I feel is important to invest in, despite what Slavoj Zizek describes as the “undesirability of truth”.

Baudrillard describes humans as being unable to remove ourselves from a 'system of meaning' as we are intrinsically linked to it. Baudrillard goes on to describe theoretical knowledge as 'strategies of refusal' which undermine the system from within.

This is because Ideology is much like a canvas. Images can be painted onto the canvas, a resemblance of life, but underneath it's always the canvas. I know it's a canvas, you know it's a canvas, but we say it's a painting.

The media is the paint, broad strokes splashed across the canvas, telling us many things & providing us with meaning and a narrative.

But, underneath it all is Ideology as the canvas. This framework states what size the picture can be, what materials can be used and the quality of the image, but the artwork distracts us from its obviousness.

Chapter Twelve: To boldly see what no men have seen before or An analysis of our Dystopian/Utopian present through speculative fiction.

Dystopian narratives are a product of the issues of the 20th century. These issues include repression, state violence, war, genocide, ecocide & the “steady depletion of humanity through the buying and selling of everyday life”.

Sargent states that Dystopias require the intent to cause the “contemporaneous reader to view [the diagesis] as considerably worse than the society in which that reader lived”.

Inversely, Utopian narratives lack the intention to inform the reader of the drop in quality of life, that Dystopias necessitate. The Utopia communicates ideas of 'organisation' working on what Suvin called a “more perfect principle” than modern life. This efficient organisation includes institutions, socials norms and individual relationships.

Utopianist texts can be read, uniquely, as what Moylan describes as a “radical hope”.

This 'hope' juxtaposes them against the pessimistic attitudes of Dystopian texts. They instead use features of the existent world, which they extrapolate to it's worst case scenario. Utopia relies on subverting this trope and creating 'brave new worlds'.

Blade Runner can be considered a Dystopian text. The 21st century Los Angeles of the film seems to suggest a future in which “ecological systems have been replaced with technological constructs”. Seemingly affirming this suggestion are the flaming, gleaming towers that consume the future L.A skyline. In fact, the film is defined by it's distinct lack of natural influence. The apparent loss of ecology & sunlight has created a vacuum; filled entirely by a dark, junk-filled techno-landscape.

To visually drive this point home, the cinematography utilises a Panoramic shot of this new urban sprawl. Brande states that Panoramas are typically used for 'natural landscapes' and the use of this juxtaposition highlights the dramatic & overwhelming nature of this 'bad new world;. Artificial light illuminates the megalopolis, and the fireballs which explode into the sky from exhausts provide a hellish representation of this world.

One of only times that natural light is seen, is via Eldon Tyrell's window. Tyrell seemingly has a monopoly on nature and symbolically controls it with his 'view'. He is the only person to have enough financial resources to escape the smog of the underworld, in his huge, ornate pyramid.

This is a stand-out feature of L.A, 2019. Much of the rest of the locations are in states of disrepair and decay.

The interiors throughout much of the film are junk-filled. Outdated, patch-worked tech & their spare parts litter the mise-en-scène throughout. The more recognisable elements of this world are abandoned buildings. The 'old' architecture of the 20th

century is where many of the characters spend their time.

There is a sense of tension between the past, present and future within the diagesis of the film. The hi-tech is shoulder-to-shoulder with the retrofitted and decaying tech of the past. This is now a decaying, largely redundant junk-world, from which many wish to escape. J.F Sebastian states that he lives “Pretty much alone right now. No housing shortage around here”. This is due to the existence of off-world colonies, and the authoritarian health-based selection process for colonisation.

Within this apparent dystopia, 'Impaired' humans remain on the Junk planet as secondclass citizens. Captain Bryant is overweight, Gaff needs a cane to walk, Sebastian has 'accelerated decrepitude' and Tyrell requires immense spectacles to see. They are deemed 'Junk' humans on a junk world. Ironically, the replicants represent the idealised, unimpaired human form. Leaving behind the 'junk', seems to be a callous and authoritarian control measure to assure some kind of Übermensch representation in the extraterrestrial colonies. This is one of many ways in which the hegemonic power of this world presents itself as totalitarian.

Throughout the film the Police 'spinners' appear multiple times. The police themselves have general levels of aggressiveness and wear uniforms which Hermansson describes as 'crypto-fascistic'. Bryant, as a figure of police authority refers to citizens as 'little people'. Suggesting that the Police, or at least the Blade Runner unit is perceived (or perceives itself) as better than civilians. The unit is a shadowy, semi-secretive police organisation, whom openly discharge weapons in the street and act as a replicant analogy of the Gestapo, according to Hermansson.

But, all police forces represent the state. What kind of state is this? One extremely plausible suggestion is that of state corporatism.

Advertising is ever-present, with huge dirigibles baring adverts for any number of products. The film itself features 30 companies advertising including; Atari, Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Hilton, Malboro, Pan Am, Polaroid & Toshiba. Branding is inescapable in the landscape of the film and the near-ubiquitous nature of the advertising within the film represents the visual manifestation of corporate power. This is a world devoid of culture, only products remain. The central strut of the film is the commodification of sentience. Animals and humans are little more than mere stock to those who bestow life upon them. The Tyrell Corporation has 'commerce' as a goal, and a motto of 'more human than human'. This Nietzschean form of capitalism produces the Nexus-6. A slave race of superhumans, whom have their time alive & empathy limited for maximum profit.

With the Fordist creation of meta-human life, the film is placed firmly in the sphere of 'post-humanism'. Brande states that post-humanist societies are seen by some as a 'post-ideological' world where class, gender & race divides aren't relevant any more.

However, he argues the film is a vision of capitalism restructuring “modes and relations of production and its corresponding transformations in ideological reproduction”. Capitalism has affected society to such a great extent that life is openly created for financial gain, with no argument. Suvin seems to agree, stating

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Corporation rules, and does so more effectively than the state, as its exploitative tentacles reach into the cultures and bodies of the people who serve it and who are cast aside by itâ&#x20AC;?.

This view sees capitalism as the transformational force which drives our world into the Totalitarian excesses of state capitalism. Blade Runner is full of the cultural influence of a powerful form of capitalism. Tyrell, the elder statesman of the eponymous Corporation has huge amounts reach within the diagesis of the film. The antagonists are his creations, he provides the main character with a goal and a love interest & provides synthetic eye producer Hannibal Chew with work. The artificial animals seen throughout the film are either his creations or their production is influenced by his work.

This 'state corporatism' is combined with a new, extraterrestrial form of colonisation.

As Earth became over-populated and terrestrial resources became exhausted, humans began 'off-world colonies'. Advertisements list the virtues of Off World life, 'Best future...All new, live clean'. The aforementioned 'health' policies of the colonies prevent those who are 'non-healthy' from leaving the dying junk planet of Earth.

The main antagonist group of replicants have received full military training, with Zhora being trained in 'political homicide' and Pris Stratton is a pleasure model for 'military clubs'. If the military are in the colonies, is there a war that is not visible on the Old world?The replicants are not, however, soldiers. They are merely slave labour. Within dystopic texts, slaves are typically considered to be shorthand for totalitarianism within a society. Their appearance and definition as slaves, asks questions of freedom, inequality and domination. These slaves have little choice in their lives, being used for hazardous exploration, colonisation & warfare. However, in a world that accepts their lives as nought more than a product, they have no chance for revolution or escape. This is in spite of being endowed with intelligence equal to their creators. They are sentient, self-aware & existential beings. They are 'more human than human'.

This motto makes sense, as the technological world has arguably robbed the Human race of it's humanity. Humanity, within the film, is measured & categorised quantitatively through a limited number of predictable responses. Compassion can be quantified by a machine, and the test is based around animals to test emotions.

Animals which don't exist in this world any more, and have been replaced by facsimiles.

This vacuum of humanity is ironically filled by the replicants. Rachael, essentially human, has it snatched from her by an unempathetic father figure. She becomes a mere experiment, which she understands when she states 'I'm not in the business. I am the business'. Her cold, business-like demeanour slips as she becomes emotional over her existential issues. As a whole, the Replicants show passion, solidarity and concern for each other. Rick Deckard, Sebastian and Tyrell all talk to non-humans with more warmth than they talk to each other. Deckard falls in love with Rachel, Sebastian loves his toys and seemingly has feelings for Pris and Tyrell sees himself as a proud father to Roy Batty.

This strange reversal can be seen in the dichotomy of Deckard and Roy. Deckard kills despite his reservations, Roy saves despite his programming. Humans have lost their spirituality as a capitalist technocracy took hold. The replicants, suffering existential maladies in a human world, fill that void. Roy teaches Deckard empathy, showing him how it feels to be a replicant. “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave” he tells Deckard.

This is most interesting, as it takes place after Roy asks Tyrell for forgiveness. Tyrell gives him none, as he performed his programming perfectly.

However, despite it's dystopic signposting, Blade Runner does have some Utopic elements.

It is incredibly multi-cultural. While this could be seen as a marker of Globalised capitalism, it's effective cultural assimilation can be seen as a positive. Peoples of all races, nationality & relatively similar class live side by side. This is perfectly encapsulated by both the multi-lingual singage that abounds the landscape and 'cityspeak' a mixture of several diverse languages.

Through the presence of replicants on Earth, Deckard & Gaff both seem to have levels of empathy which aren't present in other sections of society. Through their experiences they find an 'internal balance and harmony'. The Replicant-Killer becomes Replicant Lover & the Killer Replicant becomes the saviour of (a) man. n sharp contrast to the doomed, decaying state-capitalism of Blade Runner, Next Gen presents a different version of the future. A Utopia in which equalism is key, poverty, scarcity & capitalism no longer exist and technology is seen as an enhancement.

Within the United Federation of Planets, many races work side by side with humans.

Within the main crew of Next Gen there is a Klingon & an Android. Commander Riker takes part in a cultural exchange scheme of sorts, taking up the position of First Officer on a Klingon ship. Much as Lieutenant Worf adapts to a mostly human Starfleet, Riker adapts to the Klingon way of life. This cultural trade-off is an attempt to resolve diplomatic tension from a previous war between the two societies (A Matter of Honor, 1989) . Wesley Crusher's cultural awareness allows Worf to practice the rites of his society. Despite the crew's lack of comfort with the way in which Klingon society celebrates certain rites, they participate out of respect for Worf and his culture (The Icarus Factor, 1989). Data is regularly given the helm, and holds the position of Lieutenant Commander, despite being an artificial life-form.

Captain Picard makes a point of telling the a 20th century man that modern economics and capitalism are no longer parts of human life. He states that “A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'”. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions." (Neutral Zone, 1988) Hunger has been essentially eliminated thanks to the invention of replicators, which create near-identical & nutritious food from 'nothing'. This technology makes it a postscarcity society, where no-one has to go hungry.

Starfleet acts a interplanetary diplomatic venture in the far reaches of space. It's goal to explore and understand. Picard & Counsellor Troi talk with an alien head of state, looking to create diplomatic avenues with a relatively advanced planet. When the Chancellor is worried, Picard assures him that they are not 'conquerors' and that they mean to merely begin a peaceful relationship, “help guide [them] into a new era” and will respect the wishes of the leader of that world. ( First Contact, 1991) In a literal translation of Utopia as 'no place', it also fits as it is in the 'non-place' location of outer space. The parts of More's Utopia that stuck in popular culture were those of equality, harmony and prosperity, which Starfleet ascribes to.

While Starfleet seems clean, legitimate and conscientious in its approach to unprecedented space-faring issues, it also has an auxiliary connotation.

The United Federation of Planets can easily be seen as an Imperialist, globalised state.

National identity is apparently meaningless, and alliance politics have replaced individual states. This central Earth government is organised into an massive bureaucratic institution.

This would cause alienation, as it were, from the system of rule. Regularly throughout the series, we see alien characters like Worf face up against humanist hegemony.

Wesley Crusher points out that Worf, being the only Klingon on board, feels 'culturally and socially isolated' (The Icarus Factor, 1989) . Worf meets other Klingons for the first time, who state that to “fit in the humans demanded [he] change the one thing [he] cannot change”. He is primarily a Stafleet officer, and a Klingon second (Heart of Glory, 1988).

The society of Federation earth is homogeneous, as can be seen in the near-identical outfitting of the Federation members. Despite their distinct cultures, they are humanised and their lifegoals are the goals of the Federation. Picard states that “If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign” (Reunion, 1990). When human child is discovered to be adopted by Talarians, the automatic assumption is that he is suffering from 'Stockholm syndrome', and that he has been brutalised (Suddenly Human, 1990). Picard doesn't recognise his cultural assimilation as legitimate, and wishes to re-humanise him. This cultural assimilation is seen by Troi as a 'condition'. Much is said of the child finding his 'humanity', despite being raised as Talarian. This suggests a humanist hegemony that believes human is better than alien. Picard demands that the child stops practising his culturally recognisable 'grief' sound, as it annoys him, and that he 'deserves more' than a warrior life, despite it being heavily embedded in the culture of the Talarians.

This humanising of aliens is mirrored when an inherently non-violent man, adapted to be a super-soldier states that “The man I was is still inside me, but this conditioning has been imposed...woven together with my thoughts and my feelings, and my responses” (The Hunted, 1990). Riker himself states to a Benzite ensign that “there will be a briefing and indoctrination session”. The Benzite states that in his society “No officer...would report an occurrence like this until he had a full analysis and a resolution” and is admonished for not following Starfleet protocol.(A Matter of Honor, 1989)

According to Willert, Starfleet is completely ideologically driven and it's members have “blind faith” in the way of life. Riker asks if Picard will continue his duty to Starfkeet to the 'bitter end', to which Picard replies “I see nothing bitter about it”(Encounter at fairpoint, 1987).

Within the series, and Starfleet itself is the over-arching bureaucracy of the 'Prime Directive'. One of the main tenets of this directive is a non-interference policy with 'less advanced' societies. Jameson argues that there is an issue with 'higher' cultures interfering with 'lower' cultures. Even with the best of intentions it could be “ultimately destructive in it's results”. Indeed, one question that should be asked is whether a culture has the 'right to intervene' and whether advancement is “desirable and if so, which kind”.

This is covered in 'Who watches the Watchers' (1989), when a camouflaged study of a 'bronze age' society is exposed to the people of the planet. One of the members of this society investigates the study outpost and becomes injured. Dr. Crusher knowingly breaks the Prime Directive to help him. When pressed, Crusher exclaims “It was was either bring him aboard, or let him die”, to which Picard replies “Then why didn't you let him die?” The alien views his experience of advanced society as a religious one, and believes Picard to be a god. As the story develops, this new 'Picardism' evolves into religious fundamentalism, as the Bureaucracy of Starfleet prevents any (further) 'cultural contamination'. They are slaves to an 'Oath' to uphold bureaucracy “if necessary, with our lives”, according to Picard. This leads to two members of the 'advanced' society being at risk of death.

Despite this overwhelming bureaucracy that demands oaths & unemotional decision making, Picard , acting as representative of Starfleet in the furthest reaches of space, regularly ignores it. He returns the human child to the Talarian, with no mention of the high-ranking human relative (Suddenly Human, 1990) , places light punishment on Worf for murdering another Klingon in vengeance (Reunion, 1990) & shows a 'bronze age' people the advanced world of 24th century humanity, despite declaring noninterference as the “Highest law” (Who watches the watchers, 1989).

The concepts of Utopia & Dystopia can share many of the same elements. It is the subjective view and treatment of these elements by the creator of these media texts that shines either a negative or positive light on contemporaneous issues. But despite this subjectivity, it would be fair to claim that Star Trek represents a more Utopian vision of the future. The humans of this future define themselves by their humanity, and have ultimately altruistic goals. They are diplomats, not warriors or business men.

They know their failings and try to correct their mistakes. Blade Runner on the other hand, is oppressive in a number of ways and the humans struggle to define themselves in a world where a capitalist ontology has a firm grip. That said, the film does have a slight glimmer of hope as Deckard regains his humanity, by seeing Roy gain his.

Chapter Thirteen: Pots and Pans(exual) I don't like Gravy. I don't like the taste, the texture or the smell. I don't like it thick or watery.

I ate sunday roasts without it. I ate christmas dinner without it.

I am a freak. This makes me a freak. I am an outsider.

I've also had sex with men, women and everything in between. I have on occasion worn 'women's' clothing. I don't recognise gender, gender roles or sex as a reason not to have sex with someone.

This does not make me a freak.

You may think it does, but it doesn't.

If you know me and are shocked by this revelation, you don't really know me as well as you though. That's potentially my fault, as I've never been particularly vocal about my sexuality. As soon as I could hide which gender I was 'interested in' on Facebook, I did.

Not because I was ashamed, it's just not important to me, at all.

If you know me, you knew me when I was like this (always). I've always had a fairly open look on sexuality and figured why should I be any different? I experimented and found that apart from some obvious physical differences (dangly/not dangly), it's still sex. It's still a human being.

So why talk about it now? Why is it so important to talk about it?

It's not, not really. It doesn't affect my relationship with you, it won't affect my relationship with you and if it does, you're a being an asshole. Have your sexuality, be comfortable in it, I'm not going to bully you out of it. But, if who I was didn't bother you before, why should it now?

Men, if I was going to fuck you, we wouldn't be friends. I'd be someone you deem to be a predator, because I treated you the way you treat women. Women, if you think I'm gay, you're wrong. Dead wrong. I'm not straight, I'm not gay, I'm not bi, I'm not a crossdresser. I'm the person known as James. I've always been the person known as James and, on some levels at least, always will be.

If you're offended by my sexuality (or lack thereof), get fucked. If you think you can try it on because I'm a greedy bisexual man whore, get fucked. If you think you need to ask for my opinion on 'gay' subjects, you can also get fucked. This information makes no difference to your life, as my sexuality belongs to me. It's my life, my dangly bits and my love. Our relationship is already defined by who I am to you, not what I do with my sex organs.

If you're an intolerant fucknut, please disappear from my life. If you want to congratulate me on my 'coming out', that's very nice, but please don't. You're so very late to the party, and there was no closet to come out of. I never liked Narnia, it was too christian in there. If you're going to ask what this means to my current relationship, please don't. We've already talked about this, and I'm in the relationship, end of. I don't know if you'll be surprised or shrug and say 'typical James', but if you are, good. We need to stop putting labels on people, and suggesting that difference makes people weird or some kind of second class citizen.

I also dabble in narcotics. I'm not a drug addict. I also have manic depression. I'm not a mental case. I also watch cartoons. I'm not a child. I also meditate. I'm not into new age.

I'm also an anarchist. I don't want anarchy. I also sometimes let my fingernails grow long. I'm not a wizard. I also don't like football. I'm not a snob. I also enjoy well written prose. I'm not a grammar nazi. I'm also thin and tall. I don't have an eating disorder.

We too easily define other people by the superficial differences, but they are just the surface. If we scratch a little deeper, we find we all have the same wants and needs. If we stopped putting ourselves and others into little boxes that make us feel some kind of false, divisive identity and just shared the experience of life as it is, we'd be a lot fucking happier.

Chapter Fourteen: Pornhibition and Esoteric wankers The effective censorship of ‘extreme’ pornography is typical, politically charged, moral crusading. It is, however, treating a symptom and not a cause.

Instead of looking at the way in which people are educated on sex, gender, violence and porn itself, they’re claiming pornography is evil in and of itself. The use of it is dependent on the individual and like any form of media, the audience has specific tastes, requirement and uses. A blanket approach like this is counter-intuitive and morally-led prohibition doesn’t have a great track record, like the war on drugs for example.

But, what of those who are part of the BDSM community, with specific attitudes towards consensual dominant/submissive roles and sexual violence? Their sex acts, from an outside perspective can appear demeaning and/or violent, but from a Freudian perspective fulfil a role within their psyche. Many times the submissive is someone with a large amount of control in their non-sexual life and the dominant , vice versa.

The best-selling book 50 shades of Grey is an erotic story based around the concepts of submission and dominance, with emotional & physical violence. Does this constitute ‘extreme’ pornography?

The debate on pornography has not been properly handled, discussed or concluded in the public arena. All we have heard are official soundbites and rhetoric from the ‘no sex please, we’re British’ brigade.

That aside, the completely vague elements of the rhetoric itself, which include terms such as ‘extremist related’ & ‘esoteric material’ are incredibly troubling as those words are entirely subjective. One man’s extremist is another’s revolutionary, and esoteric by definition is: 1.understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.

2.belonging to the select few.

3.private; secret; confidential.

4.(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.

So therefore any private joke, political view outside the mainstream or religious material is therefore banned. Some define ‘esoteric’ as occultism or paganism, but that doesn’t make banning them any better.

As this concept of porn-hibition gains momentum, more and more things are being added to the list of ‘opt-in’ material. ‘But what’s the issue with opting in’?

Besides the fact that it will be on electronic record indefinitely, that you are willing to look at material seen as just plain wrong by the state, it’s an incursion on the most free

place that exists in our increasingly monitored world, the internet.

On the internet, you are largely free to look at photos of Naziâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s officers, Howard the Duck remakes, communist blogs, the anarchist cookbook and gifs of ninja-fighting cats.

Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the appeal, no, the beauty of the internet. The use of it is completely up to you.

This piece of legislation will cut you off from the exclusive freedom that the technology provides and places your private needs and wants into the hands of the state.

This is wrong and unjustified.

Besides all of this, porn does not exist in a vacuum. Porn is an industry, and like any industry, it works on the concept of supply and demand. If violent or extreme pornography is in demand, perhaps its more viable to look at the society which produces those viewers, rather than the material itself.

Epilogue: Tell them that it's human nature There are times when I come to realise the terrible and cursed duality we must all bare. The world is a beautiful place, filled with beautiful people. Every person no matter what, has a core of beauty and and kindness. The world we live in is a place where life cycles in and out. Things are born, flourish for the smallest time, die, but are reborn anew.

Yet, there is an unbearable ugliness we all carry, no matter who or what we are. The human condition is not an illness, but a minor hitch in the life we wish to fulfil, but we allow fallacies to prevent up from truly fulfilling our lives. The best we can do, however, is the best we can do. While we may feel down or sad, insecure, depressed or in mourning or hateful, Just remember we are all beautiful. And we are all ugly.

Despite of all things we are human, one and all and we should never forget this.

Tomorrow is a new day, and just as new flower will sprout in spring and die in winter, so shall we. But as long as we love each other as much as we can, we will live on and the love of a friend, a loved one, or even a stranger should keep you warm at night and you should save it.

If you stand by and let others suffer to preserve yourself, you are selfish.

Your isolationist, self-serving, self-aggrandising ego trip is a lonely road to notoriety.

For your every success, you will be damned for your complete cuntishness.

And, if you let those cunts put you under their thumb, you deserve every bag of shit that lands on your doorstep.

If freedom means more to you than a false dream of moneyed bliss, do something. Do anything, just make sure its for the good of everyone.

Here are some important things to remember: • • • •

• •

•

Tradition is conservatism. It is the conservation of the institutional status quo.

Conservatism is Selfish. The Institutional status quo favours the rich, and damns the poor.

Selfishness is Anti-Social. If you think only of yourself, you will not think of others.

Society is humanity. Despite all differences, the one thing we share is our humanity. All the gifts and curses.

The abolition of unity (socialism/trade unionism) in this country has brought about the ills of the current era.

State Capitalism, conservatism, monarchism, theocracy & centrism are all antisocial modes of thought.

State Capitalism created cults of personality/state worship, which allowed the uneven distribution of power and wealth to the few.

• • • • • • • • •

Conservatism created selfish individualism, which allowed the uneven distribution of power and wealth to the few.

Monarchism created idolisation, which allowed uneven distribution of power and wealth to the few.

Theocracy created idolisation and blind faith, which allowed the uneven distribution of power and wealth to the few.

Centrism created voter apathy, which allowed the uneven distribution of power and wealth to the few.

All of these modes of thought rely on the creation & acceptance of traditions.

Progression is social. Moving away from the institutional status quo.

Social is helpful. It favours no-one, and benefits everyone, equally.

Helpfulness is Pro-Social. Helping means you think of others, and they think of you.

Society is humanity. Despite all differences, the one thing we share is our humanity. All the gifts and all the curses.

• Our reality relies on belief. If you believe the world is a cynical, hurtful and harmful place full of selfishness, it will be. If however, you believe virtue, kindness and understanding will always win, it will. So concentrate your efforts on making that world become true by acting as if it is. As Gandhi is often quoted as saying 'be the change you want to see in the world'.

Be the heroes, with your heroic actions. Install the Utopic vision, by fighting against the dystopic one. We have been given narratives since stories began, to aid us in actualising our best interests. The reluctant heroes, realises their world is a lie that benefits the few. Through solidarity, unity and assistance, the heroes overcomes the obstacles thrown in their way and reconstitutes reality for the betterment of everyone.

There is such a hero, that hero is you. That hero is me. That hero is all of us.

See, think, talk, demand & change.