It Is Essential That People Remain Ignorant -- Harold Pinter

[panopticon]

G'day All,

In my continued selective presentation of those I broadly describe as "personal truth speakers" I would like to present Harold Pinter (1930-2008).

Harold Pinter received the 2005 'Nobel Prize in Literature'.
His response when he was told the Nobel Committee was calling him?
"Why?"

As well as being an important figure in literature he was also an out spoken political activist (he declined to do National Service in 1948, registered as a conscientious objector and was fined so he wasn't "all talk" [pun intended]).

In his acceptance speech he partially traced the damage done to the world by power and its consolidation in the hands of those who seek it. As Pinter said:

politicians... are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

The way in which power is portrayed to the sleeping populace, and atrocities are covered up, can be shown from this simple quote from Reagan, mentioned by Pinter in this speech, in regards to the blood thirsty US backed Contra in Nicaragua:

The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.

Moral equivalent indeed.

My respect for this man can not be conveyed in my own inadequalte words so instead another quote from him referring to speeches by government officials:

When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed.

He was extremely ill at the time of this speech so he may be at times hard to understand (transcript in next post).

I hope that many of you take the time to listen to this "personal truth speakers" words and leave with an understanding that not everybody who is classified as "intellectual" is blind to the ways in which money, control and power is manipulated and consolidated. Many are aware and spend their lives writing and talking about it, just seems very few people actually listen...

##################################

The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005
Harold Pinter Nobel Lecture:
Art, Truth & Politics
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...lecture-e.html

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PH96tuRA3L0

Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[panopticon]

The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005
Harold Pinter Nobel Lecture:

Art, Truth & Politics

##################################################

Transcript:

In 1958 I wrote the following:

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.

I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'

In each case I had no further information.

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.

'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.

'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.

It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.

In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.

Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.

Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.

But as they died, she must die too.

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!*

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

##################################################

If you've made it to the bottom of this post I hope you have gotten something from Harold Pinter's speech.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[jorr lundstrom]

Wot a straight talker. Wot a horrendous summary of American foreign policy.

Wot a description of the horror of rationality. Wot a horror.....................

[Mike Gorman]

The Horror, The Horror....yes powerful stuff, the well of Human shame is deep indeed, I sometimes awaken late at night
and feel the centuries of suffering and malice in our species like a weight-where is the hope? But by morning I am restored
once again and the blur of the day is like an anodyne for these feelings. I sometimes wonder what our eventual fate will be.
Mr Pinter was a good man.

[Corncrake]

Thanks Panopticon - I wasn't going to log on this morning and then I did and found this. What a compelling speech. This is what I love about Avalong. I have seen some of Pinter's plays and listened to him over the years and reading this makes me want to revisit. John Perkins writes of pretty much the same thing but from the inside.

Speech at Hyde Park february 15th 2003

The United States is a monster out of control. Unless we challenge it with absolute determination American barbarism will destroy the world. The country is run by a bunch of criminal lunatics, with Blair as their hired Christian thug. The planned attack on Iraq is an act of premeditated mass murder.

Here's a poem, it's called The Bombs:

There are no more words to be said
All we have left are the bombs
Which burst out of our head
All that is left are the bombs
Which suck out the last of our blood
All we have left are the bombs
Which polish the skulls of the dead

In fact there are at least 2 more words to be said, the first is "Resistance". And the second I address to Tony Blair "Resign! Resign! Resign!"

Harold Pinter

[panopticon]

G'day All,

Since some of you enjoyed Harold Pinter's Nobel Acceptance Speech here is one he gave at a 'No War on Iraq' Liaison meeting at the House Of Commons (October 2002).
Source: http://www.haroldpinter.org/politics...onsspeech.html

#######################################

There's an old story about Oliver Cromwell. After he had taken the town of Drogheda the citizens were brought to the main square. Cromwell announced to his Lieutenants: "Right! Kill all the women and rape all the men." One of his aides said: "Excuse me General. Isn't it the other way around?" A voice from the crowd called out: "Mr. Cromwell knows what he's doing!"

That voice is the voice of Tony Blair "Mr Bush knows what he's doing!" But the fact is that Mr Bush and his gang do know what they're doing and Blair, unless he really is the deluded idiot he often appears to be, also knows what they're doing. They are determined, quite simply, to control the world and the world's resources. And they don't give a damn how many people they murder on the way. And Blair goes along with it.

He hasn't the support of the Labour Party, he hasn't the support of the country or of the celebrated "international community". How can he justify taking this country into a war nobody wants. He can't. He can only resort to rhetoric, cliché and propaganda. Little did we think when we voted Blair into power that we would come to despise him. The idea that he has influence over Bush is laughable. His supine acceptance of American bullying is pathetic.

Bullying is of course a time honoured American tradition. In 1965 Lyndon Johnson said to the Greek Ambassador to the US: "**** your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fellows continue itching the elephant they may just get whacked by the elephants trunk, whacked good".

He meant what he said. Shortly afterwards the Colonels, supported by the United States, took over and the Greek people spent seven years in hell.

As for the American elephant, it has grown to be a monster of grotesque and obscene proportions.

The terrible atrocity in Bali does not alter the facts of the case.

The "special relationship" between the USA and the United Kingdom has, in the last twelve years, brought about the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia. All this in pursuit of the American and British "moral crusade", to bring "peace and stability to the world".

The use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War has been particularly effective. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high. Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood. Blair and Bush are of course totally indifferent to such facts, not forgetting the charming, grinning, beguiling Bill Clinton, who was apparently given a standing ovation at the Labour Party Conference. For what? Killing Iraqi children? Or Serbian children?

Bush has said: "We will not allow the worlds worst weapons to remain in the hands of the worlds worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you.

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow any inspection of its own factories.

It is holding hundreds of Afghans prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, allowing them no legal redress, although they are charged with nothing, holding them captive virtually for ever.

It is insisting on immunity from the international criminal court, a stance which beggars belief but which is now supported by Great Britain.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Tony Blair's contemptible subservience to this criminal American regime demeans and dishonours this country.

#######################################

For those who don't understand the reference to Greece there's an excellent article that Adam Curtis has on his blog with a couple of old BBC videos from the period (plus it also gives some background on the sovereign debt issues Greece is facing):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurti..._colonels.html

Finally...
There's always Pinter's 2003 poem titled 'Democracy':

There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll **** everything in sight.
Watch your back.

Says it all really...
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[modwiz]

This has been an amazing thread and journey. One of the problems when men or women of morals and intellect speak there are so few who can really hear them. It is one of the reasons that politicians speak the way the do. We all like to think that true democracy is the balm, the remedy for the ills of our society. I posit that the gravest illness is the simple minds of people and the intellectual deficit among too large a number of them. The wall we run into when we seek to explain much of what we know and wish to share with others is one of inability. Not in all cases, but too many cases. We say, "I was like that once", but is that really true? Were you really mentally deficient or just tuned out and asleep. When morons wake up they are still morons. I do prefer a moron to a psychopath, but I would like better choices.

We, here at places like Avalon, and other sites like it, experience a rarefied environment. We think because our friends and family are nimble at conversation that they are just like us. That is where they are like the psychopaths and fool us. Actually nobody is fooling us, we are still in denial about just how the things are. In Plato's Republic, Socrates goes on and on, ( and on and on, Hemlock was the only way to get him to stop) about how society needed to be structured. This is now frowned upon as elitism rather than the eminently practical approach to the intellectual realities of the world. Democracy may have been how psychos got to be leaders, if the current situation in America is an example.

The pyramid structure of society breaks down when bad materials are used in the construction of it. Moral fiber and integrity are crucial ingredients to intellect and ability at the craft you are designated to oversee. The big crime of caste systems and class systems is the locked in structure of it. People should be free to find their own levels based on their ability and not birthright or caste placement. Pyramids standing and resisting earthquakes for many thousands of years are a testament to the strength of the concept. The impeccable placement of the right stones in the right place is the key though. I believe the pyramid structure informs us of a powerful truth if we but meditate on it correctly.

The hue and cry to recognize every man and woman as the same is a fools cry. At our core we are the same and have the inalienable rights spoken of in the Constitution. We do forget that document did not see all people as equals in ability or as equals in standing but as equals in the right to the pursuit of happiness and the deserving to move about freely. There are a few very powerful ideas from both our ancient and not too distant past that are worthy of deep thought and/or meditation. The inherent spiritual equality that we possess does not obtain at every level. There will be sheep and shepards as there will be wolves. The problem occurs when sheep think they should be shepards and wolves become shepards. Wolves should have the space to lose their fangs and change their diet. Sheep should have the right to stand up and stop bleating. By their fruits they will be known. Some might say,"who is to judge?" Is judging good fruit from bad so difficult? Is knowing a peach from poo really so elusive as to fear poor judgement might occur?

After all of this, is the biggest laugh. Although many here may have many of the abilities to be shepards, how many want to do it? I don't. I am a counselor and healer not a leader. The ones who might say' "I'll do it", could be the most ill suited for the task.

In what turns out to be a circular argument most of us here would probably do best with a form of self-governance with natural arising lead people well suited to what little bits might need a some supervision. We, however, really are the exceptions at this time. Much of the traditional structured societies we know of would be highly functioning if the ones in those positions were not dysfunctional. Many of these highly functioning traditional societies were obliterated by war-like outsiders who then replaced healthy leaders with psychopaths, deviants and idiots. Through retention of power by these same we have generations of psychopaths, deviants and idiots running things. In fact they have become so degraded on every level that even the sheep among us are their superiors in almost every way.

We have had our minds bent and corrupted in so many ways that even the very intelligent amongst us are hard put to think through the twists, turns and dead ends we have been programmed with. The pyramids were not built by slaves directed what to do by the types of psychopathic leaders we have today. We often hear that we could not build the pyramids today. That is correct, mainly because there are no organizers/leaders capable of doing it. Our world is led by degenerates. Generational lines co-opted by alien intelligence's who aren't even capable of putting a body into our dimension that they didn't steal first.

I will end this by declaring that the most important disclosure, the conspiracy of all conspiracies is who/what runs this planet. To realize our freedom is to know this information and to begin to act on it. 'They' not only need us to make the world work, they are totally dependent on us. Not only for work, but for bodies to inhabit and infect. The great lie of the United States so well laid out for all to clearly see by Harold Pinter has to come down, IN OUR MINDS! The internet and forums allow for the communication we once depended on governments for. The internet is a world wide web and cannot be taken down. A corner can be ripped, but rerouting and the nature of this web prohibits its destruction. It is how it was designed, to resist a world wide nuclear conflagration. Just about every possible inhibitor of our stopping the nonsense in ten minutes is all a lie. The chains are in our heads and our creature habits. It is all a spell cast on us by a desperate and frightened group of usurpers of this planet.

How about we agree to no more fear porn and they are doing this and they are doing that. How about we start to keep the dialogue uplifting and empowering? Can we do it? Sure we can, but it will be like stopping smoking, or drinking, or eating crappy, empty calorie, toxic foods. That is to say, it won't be easy.

I plant a seed and see how it grows.

[astrid]

Yes and stay in the heart while doing this,
rather than holding onto an "us vs them"
attitude, because that's what is keeping us
distracted, in fear and from uniting.

IMHO

[transiten]

Wohoo modwiz, that was a truly Aquarian utopist (in a positive sense) post! Made me think of my mother (Aquarius Moon) who, if she had not been distorted/twisted into a schizophrenic/manodepressive/hubris-elitist state of mind might have appreciated ýour perspective. It's interesting how i can see some of her strange ideas make sense if just coupled with love instead of despise (due to her losses of parents, status and power) And of course this tells something about issues i've pondered myself. Don't have the energy to elaborate or "confess" just now.

Thanks for this Mercury retrograde - old coming back for review post!

.....and astrid, your post just added the "heart" thingy!

[Mad Hatter]

Perhaps the problem is that democracy (mob rule) was designed to be the best solution for those 'inside' Platos cave.

Could it be that some two and half thousand years later we're all still huddled in the cave...?

[PurpleLama]

It speaks truly to me, in reference to a spell being cast to keep the world in thrall, although to most it is metaphor, except insofar as it would pertain to propaganda, programming, and mind control. So much of the show is operated from a meta level, with no physical technology in hand, precisely for the purposes that modwiz says, for the nutriment of beings unable to take physical form. Magic and mind control are the fine and gross decriptors of the same mode of activity.

Too many of the awakened take it for granted that such operation is to be discounted, thereby allowing just so such influence to do it's work unimpeded. This is mostly observed *right here at avalon*. Every one of us who allowed emotions to cloud reason in the most recent soap opera of he said she said ban me please, we were being played, as it were, and not by the key players on the forum, but by *an outside influence*.

How many light workers, builders for the positive, were pushed from the path, were led to quit, were caught up in drama and either temporarily or permanently disabled from having this discussion. I observe this as it was directed at me, too, and this time I recognized it's source, and played it back against itself, within my own mind, to be sure. There is indeed somethin nasty trying to rule us all, and seeing it and laughing in it's face takes it's power away, but not seeing it and thinking these turbulent events and emotions belong to us, even as the awakened we are every bit still the sheep.

Every single little tiny thought counts, and agreement is what the damn thing wants, and if it can orchestrate events for us to react to and thereby have us own the reaction, then it won, we lost. So, by observing the reality and reacting from the attachments we carry, we give it our energy. Hence the whole detachment as the way to go thing. Our thoughts are not our own, our very minds do not belong to us as each of us experiences the same field of consciousness, with the illusion of separation being the very foundation of the lie that's used to control us.

This isn't something to preach to the masses, but it is somethin to preach to the choir, for if we hold the truth, we gain equally the ability to push the unseen influences in the opposite direction. Just establish our own coherence with what is solidly real, that being Love.

It is essential to be able to hold first the mode of observation of the wrongness of things, then to be able to hold in mind the equal opposite, opposing observation, made up, in imagination, but understood for all it's fancy *to be equally real*. In holding the opposite perceptions of mind, we are then enabled to make a choice for which is preferable to us, and then by virtue of the universal principle of balance we begin building the foundation for another reality we can all come to experience as the consensus.

[panopticon]

G'day Modwiz,

You have written some wise words, expressed your thoughts eloquently and I agree with much of your post.

Your reference to Socrates gave me a good laugh.

Posted by modwiz (here)
Although many here may have many of the abilities to be shepards, how many want to do it?... The ones who might say' "I'll do it", could be the most ill suited for the task.

I have often said much the same about those who are "eager" to be in charge and the old union adage stands true in this instance (ie "poo floats to the top"). Those who seek power are almost never the ones who are worthy of the trust that is invested in them by society. It is in the exercising of power, through their acquired resources, that they are able to consolidate control and from this the cycle of Money/Control/Power continues.

Posted by modwiz (here)
We have had our minds bent and corrupted in so many ways that even the very intelligent amongst us are hard put to think through the twists, turns and dead ends we have been programmed with... The chains are in our heads and our creature habits.

One reason I found the above interesting is because of the following Alan Watts quote (that is a favourite of mine):

We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. We copy emotional reactions from our parents... Our social environment has this power just because we do not exist apart from society. Society is our extended mind and body.
Society...pulls [a] trick on every child from earliest infancy....the child is taught that he is...a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions... [The child] accepts this make-believe for the very reason that it is not true.... He has no way of resisting this kind of social indoctrination.
-- Watts, A. (1989). The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, pp. 70-72.

This may be an unpopular sentiment but I view that many think they are free of the psychological and physical constraints of their society. Free of the various discourses working on and through them that is society. Many construct around themselves a new illusion that says they are free of the baggage of the past. Yet the construction of this new "freedom" is often only a different form of prison, all be it one they are happy it be inmates of. In this way they are no better than the sleeping masses who live on debt, created from their present wants and paid for by their future labours, in happy ignorance of the control structures that make it virtually impossible for them to do anything else.

In presenting alternate discourses it is possible to have an effect on society and create new understandings, or what is sometimes referred to as a "paradigm shift". This was once extremely difficult, due to the concentration of discursive control within the mass media, however the internet has presented a platform for the so called "99%" to show that they have a voice that does not rely on pronouncements by office bearers, bureaucrats and intellectuals. I often see reference to "being the change you wish to see in the world" and agree that this is important. To stand aloof and separate from the world has little if any effect. I view that it is only through changing the way in which we act on society, while understanding that we are part of it, that real change can occur.

Yes, the dice are loaded.
Yes, there are structures in place that make this difficult.
Yes, many are comfortable in their ignorance.
Did anyone think it was going to be easy?

Posted by modwiz (here)
How about we agree to no more fear porn and they are doing this and they are doing that. How about we start to keep the dialogue uplifting and empowering? Can we do it? Sure we can, but it will be like stopping smoking, or drinking, or eating crappy, empty calorie, toxic foods. That is to say, it won't be easy.
I plant a seed and see how it grows.

Thank you Modwiz.
The constant fear mongering prevalent on the internet is a distraction that I find distasteful. I do however appreciate that, on occasion, there are those amongst us (both at Avalon and elsewhere) who feel that they are obliged to express concern over a "feeling" and I can not fault them in this. It is up to me to decide for myself if I choose to believe the "warning". Throughout history there have always been those who would proclaim "the end is nigh" and those who would believe them. This has not altered in the modern era and I view that fear and superstition will continue to be exercised as a means of control, and power acquisition, for the foreseeable future.

I, for one, do not wish to lead, nor to be led. I would walk with others for awhile 'til the time has come to part.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Lisab]

What an amazing thread. I was lead here via a link from Purplelama and Im so glad. In relation to your Alan Watts quote about children and the conditioning we impose upon them Im reminded of Osho telling this story......
Just the other day, one small boy in California did something unique and special. He wanted to go out and play. This was nothing special; all children should be allowed to go out and play. But the mother and father insisted, "No, don't go out; just play inside the house." And the boy shot both the mother and the father. He played inside the house! There is a limit, always listening to "no, no, no..."
I guess that can also relate to us all.

[transiten]

Gosh Lisab! Was that a true story? And without being judgemental i always get a feeling of unease with Osho....

[Lisab]

Lol Osho isnt to everyone's tastes Transiten but I like the way he just tells it with a degree of humour and compassion, at least that's the way he comes across to me. I havnt read everything by him but I what I have read, I like alot. Yes I believe the story is true but also a great metaphor for us all.

Here's one of my favourite poems by Philip Larkin - This Be The Verse

They f*ck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were f*cked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

When I say favourite poem i just mean fave by him. x

[13th Warrior]

Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.

I highlight this quoted material in light of recent events here on Avalon concerning this very subject.

[onawah]

I see the seeds of the new, post Charles, post Sidious Avalon have been planted here and are already blooming...
One door has shut and another has opened.
Thank you Panopticon for showing us the way.

That Pinter's voice is the one used to herald the opening to our new era here is very meaningful to me.
I had my first real awakening as a truthseeker when I saw Pinter's play the Homecoming performed at a small avant garde theatre in downtown Washington DC in my junior year in high school.
I did not understand all the nuances, but I felt the underlying, gestating mood and sharply inquiring mind of the author and what he was trying to awaken in his audience.
It was like a sleeping giant, rolling and tossing in its dream, readying itself to open its eyes and face the world as it really is.
I felt a kind of eager dread, knowing that what lay ahead for the giant and all the rest of us, was a long and very difficult, frightening but necessary journey, if the truth was ever to be revealed for all to see and act upon, as it must be.

Modwiz wrote:

Generational lines co-opted by alien intelligence's who aren't even capable of putting a body into our dimension that they didn't steal first."
“We have had our minds bent and corrupted in so many ways that even the very intelligent amongst us are hard put to think through the twists, turns and dead ends we have been programmed with... The chains are in our heads and our creature habits.

John Lash has shown us the truth of this, the Gnostic wisdom that was recorded long ago in the Nag Hammadi scriptures and is finally being brought to light again, verified in these times by what we have discovered ourselves through the testimony of many courageous whistleblowers, whose names we all know.
He said over and over that the solutions to this problem, which is not indigenous to our world at all, will be found by first realizing that the intentional disruption of life and growth on our planet is not natural to our world, and must be recognized for what it is, a foreign and unnatural intrusion, and dealt with as such.

Purple Lama wrote:

This isn't something to preach to the masses, but it is something to preach to the choir, for if we hold the truth, we gain equally the ability to push the unseen influences in the opposite direction. Just establish our own coherence with what is solidly real, that being Love.

Love, the true ground of Wisdom, of Sophia, of Sophia embodied as Gaia.
That is indeed what we can preach and learn from one another here, and we have an unquenchable source of Love and strength from which to draw.
We have only to strengthen our connection to Her and then to each other in the name and the spirit of Love and Truth.

Modwiz wrote:

How about we agree to no more fear porn and they are doing this and they are doing that. How about we start to keep the dialogue uplifting and empowering? Can we do it? Sure we can, but it will be like stopping smoking, or drinking, or eating crappy, empty calorie, toxic foods. That is to say, it won't be easy.
I plant a seed and see how it grows.

The power of that Love will spread through the new grid of communication via the Internet to many other choirs so that much cross pollination and fertilization may take place.
This is what Avalon can do, if we choose that, if we nurture it. That spirit has been here all along.

Purple Lama wrote:

It is essential to be able to hold first the mode of observation of the wrongness of things, then to be able to hold in mind the equal opposite, opposing observation, made up, in imagination, but understood for all it's fancy *to be equally real*. In holding the opposite perceptions of mind, we are then enabled to make a choice for which is preferable to us, and then by virtue of the universal principle of balance we begin building the foundation for another reality we can all come to experience as the consensus.

The new reality begins in the Imagination.
Thus inspirited and inspired, the energy for the creation of the new reality is made manifest as it flows down and is refined through the intuitive, the conceptual, the feeling and mental realms and is grounded into the Earth, which provides the birthing energy for manifestation into the physical, and then back up through our roots, into and through us, the tools through which the building is accomplished.
We each contribute our best from whatever our greatest strengths are, making a cornucopia of variety and diversity.

We draw from all these realms to make a lasting and harmonious reality that works for all of sentient life on Earth, so that all that lives on and loves the Earth may find their true purpose, role and fulfillment, and all that does not belong here is repelled by the sheer power and exuberance of Life itself.

Carry on, Avalonians!
We're on our way!



and

[modwiz]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
It speaks truly to me, in reference to a spell being cast to keep the world in thrall, although to most it is metaphor, except insofar as it would pertain to propaganda, programming, and mind control. So much of the show is operated from a meta level, with no physical technology in hand, precisely for the purposes that modwiz says, for the nutriment of beings unable to take physical form. Magic and mind control are the fine and gross decriptors of the same mode of activity.

Too many of the awakened take it for granted that such operation is to be discounted, thereby allowing just so such influence to do it's work unimpeded. This is mostly observed *right here at avalon*. Every one of us who allowed emotions to cloud reason in the most recent soap opera of he said she said ban me please, we were being played, as it were, and not by the key players on the forum, but by *an outside influence*.

How many light workers, builders for the positive, were pushed from the path, were led to quit, were caught up in drama and either temporarily or permanently disabled from having this discussion. I observe this as it was directed at me, too, and this time I recognized it's source, and played it back against itself, within my own mind, to be sure. There is indeed somethin nasty trying to rule us all, and seeing it and laughing in it's face takes it's power away, but not seeing it and thinking these turbulent events and emotions belong to us, even as the awakened we are every bit still the sheep.

Every single little tiny thought counts, and agreement is what the damn thing wants, and if it can orchestrate events for us to react to and thereby have us own the reaction, then it won, we lost. So, by observing the reality and reacting from the attachments we carry, we give it our energy. Hence the whole detachment as the way to go thing. Our thoughts are not our own, our very minds do not belong to us as each of us experiences the same field of consciousness, with the illusion of separation being the very foundation of the lie that's used to control us.

This isn't something to preach to the masses, but it is somethin to preach to the choir, for if we hold the truth, we gain equally the ability to push the unseen influences in the opposite direction. Just establish our own coherence with what is solidly real, that being Love.

It is essential to be able to hold first the mode of observation of the wrongness of things, then to be able to hold in mind the equal opposite, opposing observation, made up, in imagination, but understood for all it's fancy *to be equally real*. In holding the opposite perceptions of mind, we are then enabled to make a choice for which is preferable to us, and then by virtue of the universal principle of balance we begin building the foundation for another reality we can all come to experience as the consensus.

What a great post. Thank you, PL. My post needs addendum's and this one is beautiful. The highlighted part is the part that helps address some of the frustration in my post.

[alienHunter]

Modwiz,

very eloquent and very impressive...and, of course, I am in 100% agreement with you...if I wasn't I'd give you a softer hand clap.

[Atlas]

Posted by panopticon (here)
It Is Essential That People Remain Ignorant -- Harold Pinter

The Difference Between Essential and Necessary

“Necessary” and “essential” are used to show an indispensable thing or point towards a thing which is an absolute must. “Essential” refers to things “without which one cannot do” whereas, “necessary” refers to “things which cannot be avoided but can be done without.”

“Essential” and “necessary” are words which are used in different circumstances. “Essential” is “something without which we cannot do” and “necessary” is “something which is important but we can do without it.”

“Essential” means “absolutely necessary”; it also means “indispensable” [...] “constituting or pertaining to the essence of something.” [...] “something which is natural and spontaneous” [...] “a necessary element, indispensable, basic or chief point.”

The word “necessary” -> “Indispensable, being essential” [...] “Existing due to necessity or happening due to necessity” [...] “Something which is requisite or necessary.”

Source: http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...and-necessary/