freedom costs money

In an attempt to foster some kind of meaningful discussion regarding the relationship between local music and the world at large I thought I’d respond to the angry letter (did the band in question in fact write it themselves to keep the literary ball rolling?!) which came as a response to Sandman’s Les Flames feature, and in particular, took offence at the assertion that “the most punk rock thing in the world is terrorism” because “punk rock is about destroying stuff.” My first impression of the article itself was “that bloke Noah from Baby food wrote this feature, he knows the band and I smell a rat!” Then I saw the ‘infamous quote’ (just to grant Les Flames their obviously so fiercely sought after feeling of infamy!) and thought “what an obvious attempt at being controversial, they could have done better than that surely!” Then I pondered this and concluded no they couldn’t really be any more controversial because the world’s a fairly sick place and much about the way it is run seems pretty disgusting to me. In short, it’s hard to be shocking these days when so much of what we see is so shocking that a natural reaction is to block it out.

April/2004

The likelihood of conflict in Iraq provoked the largest anti-war marches London has ever seen yet did nothing to convince Blair that he needed to rethink. Instead he continued with the “I know it’s tricky but I believe I’m right so trust me” line of argument. Now that there can obviously be no turning back, and that Iraq appears to be in turmoil, how should we view the situation?

First of all, when you consider how many people managed to get to London for the anti-war demonstrations and then consider how many people may have liked to but didn’t make it, what you have at the very least is widespread public doubt over the effects of war and what the motivations are behind it. This includes a lot of people who suspect the policies of the stronger countries in the world are being carried out to the detriment of the weaker ones. We weren’t generally protesting because we thought Saddam was a nice man that had been misunderstood. On the contrary, we knew British and American governments had been culpable in allowing him to retain a stranglehold over Iraq. What we were voicing were our doubts that the U.S. and Britain’s leaders A) knew what was best for Iraq and B) were trying to do what was best for Iraq. What we perhaps yearned for, and still ideally yearn for, was a stronger U.N. that could decide democratically who the main violators of human rights across the globe are and how best to deal with them. What we certainly didn’t want was everyone bowing down to a zealous U.S. Administration that has never even bothered to disguise its desire for America to dominate the world and its ever-dwindling resources (yes it’s the same old oil story).

March/2004

Apologies to my legions of fans (or should I say true believers?) for the late arrival of this piece.

A rather disturbing George Monbiot article on the guardian website was pointed out to me the other day my mother. The central thrust of this piece was to illuminate the happenings in the strange deluded world of the Republican. At a convention in Harris County that covered much of Houston the easy conclusions were reached in the form of resolutions with the minimal amount of fuss. Is homosexuality the work of the devil? YES. Should there be any form of gun control? NO. Should Income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax be abolished? YES. Should immigrants be kept out through the use of electric fences? YES, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.

February/2004

You may have heard in the news that Haiti is experiencing a few problems at the moment. I wonder why?

Aristide's election in 1990 was not looked upon favourably in Washington because they supported his opposition. Just over half a year later a military coup took place which brought into play a horrifying period of ‘terror’. If you are willing to look for literature on the subject you can find out all about it. Those that led the coup, together with wealthy elites, continued to enjoy help first from Bush Senior and then even more from Mr Clinton. In fact both of these leaders even approved Texaco giving much needed oil to the torturers despite the fact that this violated presidential directives. The CIA actually told Congress this was not the case even though ‘even a casual visitor’ would have noticed according to Chomsky.

January 2004

Just as I was starting to feel a little more happy with my lot here I am wallowing in the fact the apocalypse might be nigh! Yes the work I have put into music is now paying off and yes I have managed to find work that allows be to base the hours in which I earn money around music commitments. These things are immensely satisfying in the short term. If only the long term were not so daunting!

Recently a friend (you may want to call him a comrade in sticking with the Bolshevik Bill theme) forwarded me a link to an article on The Guardian website that states the Pentagon has warned the Bush Administration that climate change is much more of a threat to the stability of the world at large, and indeed the security of US interests both at home and abroad, than terrorism. The same article also describes how Britain could be experiencing a climate similar to Siberia within twenty years.

December/2003

Whilst the mainstream media continues to portray us as the United States’ most precious ally it is time we began to view our partnership in crime in the correct light. Essentially, Britain is just another state that is having its sovereignty breached by the United States’ designs for global preponderance…………

As pally as Dubya and Blair may seem, the UK government must surely know that it is little more than a stooge to the Bush administration. If Blair truly believed he could exert control over international developments by continually cozying up to the Americans he has been naïve to say the least. By alienating France and Germany and taking a lead from Washington the Blair government have done nothing more than make Britain a focus for fundamentalist hostilities. In order to gain a realistic view of how Britain is perceived stateside by the central federal government you only have to examine the fact that an extradition treaty that was concluded last year with the United States allows the Americans to extract British nationals without presenting evidence before a court. Does Britain have the same right in the US? Dream on!

November/2003

The recent terrorist acts in Turkey only serve to illustrate further how Bush and Blair’s strategy is all wrong. Modern-day terrorism mirrors the guerrilla battles that wore down the US during the Vietnam War in the sense that it begs the following question: how can you use traditional military means to defeat an enemy you cannot see?

My argument is that you cannot, in fact such action can only worsen the situation. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were crushed by overwhelmingly superior firepower yet although beaten soundly on the battlefield resistance continues. Whilst the world’s strongest military powers have worked tirelessly to ensure they have the capability to destroy the planet many times over their need to use their weapons of mass destruction has actually dwindled. This is why it is perceived to be in the military-industrial complex’s interest to sell so many surplus weapons to despotic regimes and ‘fanatics of terror’ (though perhaps described as ‘freedom fighters’ at the point of sale). When the stooges we’ve sold weapons to step out of line it presents us with the perfect opportunity to employ our more advanced weapons systems to batter them – then we can make more weapons and more money – YIPPEE!

October/2003

How many times have we heard something along the lines of: Well after 9/11 everything changed…….. DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE! The external enemy has long proved a valuable means towards exercising internal control and achieving the limited agendas of corporate-political elites..............

As 80’s retro seems to be unnervingly trendy at the moment why don't we examine the rhetoric once employed by the Reagan Administration? A prime objective of the Reaganites was to wage a “war on terror. Sound familiar?! As Chomsky shows; the Reagan Administration claimed it was their aim to eradicate ‘state-supported international terrorism, the most virulent form of the plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself in a “return to barbarism in the modern age, as 'Administration moderate George Shultz’ put it.¹