The Unoriginal Muse

No dog in the fight yadda yadda…

Last week, there was a kerfuffle as the initiators of the Rosetta Stone Project for Col. West were suddenly informed of being naughty, naughty people and bashed about the head with copyright claims. The claims appear to be legitimate, but they were handled about as badly as they could have been without resorting to actual out-of-the-blue legal attacks. GoV and others involved attempted to explain the situation but were accused of, amongst other things, libel and smears, and then treated to a barrage of unprovoked and highly personal insults. If “not a team player” had made the mix it would have been the perfect storm.

This week we’ve seen the finale of a rumbling between Kurt Westergaard and the anti-jihad over the use of his somewhat infamous cartoon, which has been used widely without his permission.

In both cases there’s a legitimate claim of copyright. In both cases the central figure seems to be Ms Pamella Geller, who has up to now been a shining and somewhat entertaining beacon of the anti-jihad. In one case she’s defending the copy rights of the creator of a work. In the other case, she’s opposing those same rights. Admirable as her actions are up to now I do wonder what is motivating her inconsistency in this particular instance, not to mention the vicious insults she threw against someone of whom she had, up to very recently, been a staunch supporter and ally.

Regarding the copyright, Westergaard has seen his work used, often without attribution, and without any granted permission, to promote a wide variety of events that he has no involvement in and this continued exposure of his work places him in the public eye – and in the sights of the jihad. He has already faced one assault in his home; he’s understandably squishy about the idea of being killed over something that he isn’t that supportive of – Westergaard probably wants to live a normal life and presumably believes that the best way to do that is to get himself out of public view.

The important element of this conflict is the idea that we are standing up for our rights as a culture. Westergaard is simply asking that his copyright is respected – that is, his right to determine how, when and by whom his work is copied and distributed. The right of property is fundamental to western culture and one that I personally feel will allow us to push back the islamic threat. Trampling on those rights when they become inconvenient not only weakens our message, but also weakens our very cause.

Something a little different tonight, a whisky called Jon, Mark and Robbo’s The Rich Spicy One. It’s a blend, which I don’t normally drink, but it’s a very special blend. These three chaps apparently set out to create the perfect set of blends from fine single malts. I’ve enjoyed this bottle over the time I’ve had it (about two years) as a little treat, because it really does taste very good. However it has the same problem that all blends have, in that it tends to die a bit towards the back of the mouth. Singles always cut right to the back of your throat in one way or another which is part of why they’re so unique.

One interesting thing about these drinks is that they have a nifty little tasting note attached to the top, which makes this review easier and harder. I dont’ have to write my own notes down for the book sinc I can just copy them, but the pleasure of figuring it out is gone. Hmm… I’ll just drink it.

So the label says:

rich and spicy. Massive cloves, cinnamon and ginger, wood spices with raisings and other dark and drive fruits. Hints of sweetness. Spicy sensory sensation. Cheers!

Sounds good to me!

The smell of this whisky is very intense but not smoky, like sitting in a wood shop with a summer breeze blowing through it. Lots of woody, spicy notes, like the afformentioned sandalwood and spices (and cloves!). Oranges too and a hint of pear, a little whiff of liquorice.

Taste is pretty much as described, though with the problem of losing intensity very quickly towards the back of the mouth. Blends are always very “forward” like that. There’s a little bitterness, which I think might be the result of having sat in the bottle too long (so I’ll have to drink it all. Oh what a shame!) but it’s got a definite spicy note. Just like the label says. Each sip does pull the cut a little further to the back of the mouth but it still never quite gets there.

I’m a single malt fanatic, but I do quite like this whisky. Unfortunately Jon Mark and Robbo seem to have disappeared off the internet so I can’t be sure if they’re still in business. I suspect not.

Despite the name of this place I do like to think of myself as an original thinker (sometimes I even live up to the idea) and I often find myself pondering the way society has locked itself into what are actually very unoriginal and limiting modes of thought.

The one that’s come up in particular is sexuality, after a long and rather roving conversation with a friend on the subject. Western society is obsessed with sex, or at least the part that we get to see in the media on a regular basis. This obsession with sex is alleged to be an enlightened view, a liberation from teh sexually repressive attitudes of yore but it’s still an obsession with sex. Everything is seen through the lens of sexual intercourse, or is tinted by the believe that every single human activity is ultimately about sex. This isn’t surprising, when you realise how sexually obsessed the people creating and sustaining this belief are.

The reason I’m bringing this up is because of how damaging it is to relationships. Most obvious is the idea that every relationship is about sex, which makes it hard for men and women to be mere friends. I know from experience of the “behind the scenes” life of media types that the general perception in the media is that when a man seeks any sort of relationship with a woman, it’s because he’s ultimately or primarily after sex. One could spend hours blaming this or that mode of political thought (especially the whole Freudian interpretation of relationships that permeates the collective mind of the media class) but that might be counter-productive – and, to be honest, I don’t have any papers or books to reference on the subject, which makes it a little hard to produce a coherent and well-founded argument.

As I said, the concept of relationships-as-sex is damaging to the individual in obvious ways, but also less obvious ways. The same misunderstanding of the motivations for human behaviour influence the understanding of sexuality as well. This will take a little while to explain, and on top it necessitates putting out a little bit of information that I’ve tended to keep secret up until now because of the misunderstandings that surround it:I am bisexual.

It might not surprise some people who know me but I’m damn sure it’d surprise others to learn this. But what do I mean by bisexual? The popular (and, as far as I’m concerned, wrong) understanding of the term incorporates a wide gamut of definitions and behaviours but, as far as I’m concerned, bisexuality means that a person wants to experience a sexual relationship with both men and women.

Now, being a Christian I wouldn’t want to engage in promiscuous sexual behaviour. Being married, I have vows to maintain, and because I love my wife completely, I can’t really countenance having an intimate relationship with anyone else. Absent those conditions I’d have a slight interest in sex with men, but then absent those conditions I wouldn’t be me.

By this definition bisexuality is fairly simple. It’s about sex. The problem is, relationships more often than not aren’t about sex but about closeness and intimacy. Not “intimacy” in the modern understanding, which is again coloured by the assumption that it necessarily requires a sexual component, but intimacy in an older, more defined meaning of the term that would have been familiar to the writers of pre- and early-post-renaissance romances. The crude term often used is “platonic” or idealised love but that doesn’t really cover it; the word “platonic” is thrown around as often as the word “love” these days, without any real understanding of it’s meaning. Intimacy as I’m trying to define it is the sort of knowledge of the inner soul, the intimacy of life-long companions who know each other’s needs and desires and motivations so implicitly that they often don’t have to speak to communicate. The intimacy of Frodo and Sam from the lord of the rings is often given as an example, but in more general terms the intimate closeness of any partnership that has survived adversity, either of events or simply time.

The post-modern, sex-obsessed world of the media considers such intimacy to be obviously homosexual in nature, because for all their talk about enlightenment they can’t see past their genitals. At one level it’s fun to joke about a gay relationship between Frodo and Sam but, at the same time, it reduces something that is very powerful down to the base and carnal. The idea that two men can be affectionate towards each other without there being some level of homosexuality underpinning the affection has distorted society’s view of relationships to an enormous degree, to the point where you have a lot of people who have accepted the false label of homosexuality or bisexuality for what are perfectly natural, non-sexual behaviours, or who suppress any sort of intimate behaviour, towards both men and women, out of fear of being perceived as “gay”, or less masculine.

It is actually possible to find the male form attractive without being sexually interested in it, and it’s possible for men to be affectionate with other men at a very intimate level without ever having any sort of sexual involvement. The problem is that society, as arbitrated by the media, assigns these behaviours to a sexual foundation rather than one of innocent intimacy.

When I say “I am bisexual” I mean that I find both men and women sexually attractive. I have a rather high sex drive and, if not for my faith, would have very little taste or discernment when it came to sexual partners. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I love them and find intimacy with them appealing because, despite the contemporary reductionist belief that all human activity stems from the desire to mate (a belief that was hammered home constantly by the media establishment types when I was at university), sex does not equate to intimacy and sexuality is not love. It is possible to know someone intimately without sex ever coming (so to speak) into the equation. It is possible to love someone so deeply that you would sacrifice everything for them, without every being sexually attracted to them. Our impoverished linguistic understanding of “love” cannot really describe the concept without taking up several paragraphs (in fact C.S Lewis had to take up an entire book – well worth the read, incidentally), and even then the definition is cognitively tainted by the subconscious filtration of love through the concept of sexuality as the primary metaphysical urge. To the post-modern mind, the mind that currently dominates our culture, everything is motivated by sex. The concept that two people can love each other innocently, that love and sexuality are actually separate and sometimes contradictory drives, is alien to a psyche so dominated by an obsession with the sensual that it can no longer understand the spiritual. Even those who claim to be seeking a spiritual understanding tend to let slip that they’re seeking a spiritual experience, falling back to their sensual or “soulish” interaction with the world. But that’s another rant for another day.

I keep preserving these, whether or not they’re any good. They feel like some of my best writing.

This one was on whether the comparison of the current UK government to the nazi state is valid, written a couple of weeks back.

Sure, the government isn’t killing jews and gypsies but, the indoctrination of youth into the service of the state, the increasing state control of private capital and the constant chipping away at anything that isn’t “healthy” (As defined by the state) are all consistent with the national socialist program. Hitler also dropped in a massive state-funded stimulus package and had an obsession with environmental affairs (it’s often remarked that the nazi party was the first environmentalist movement to gain traction).

None of these things on their own make someone a nazi. I’m not saying that. I would even consider myself a conservationist. Being “Green” or supporting the idea of some level of state intervention or “stimulation” doesn’t make anyone a nazi (there are sound economic arguments for and against each of these positions). It’s the convergence of interests that leads to the totalitarian state, with its inevitable descent into absolute control of every aspect of the individual’s life, potentially up to the “removal” of undesirable elements by force, which produces valid comparisons to nazi germany.

Try and argue that our government *isn’t* trying to control every aspect of our personal life. And despite the argument I can hear brewing, democracy is not incompatible with the totalitarian state. In fact it can tend to produce it if you aren’t careful – as a wise man once observed the democratic state ceases to function when the electorate realises they can vote the wealth of the treasury into their own pocket – to which I would add, at which point the totalitarian state is almost inevitable. Once the totalitarian state has begun to coalesce then democratic elections mean nothing, as the state acts in spite of the wishes of the electorate and continues to consolidate its control through legislation ostensibly aimed as “undesirables” and newly defined criminal activity. You can vote for the new guy who will promise the earth, but when the state continues along the same path as before, proscribing activities that were seen as a natural right just a few years ago, then it is a totalitarian state.

Successive governments in this country have, directly or via the chambers of the EU, continued on the path of proscribing activities that were, up to that point, natural rights, shielded by the use of high profile “issue” legislation that allows them to slip their restrictions through almost unnoticed. These activities are not immoral or unethical. They are merely against the law. The state we live in has acted, up to this point, over the last fifteen years, to produce a situation where everything an individual does is potentially illegal, so that each of us can be forced to live our lives according to the direction the state wishes. Therefore we live in a totalitarian state.

Written in response to a conversation about whether the UK has a constitution, on The Register.

Ooh, a chartist!

Magna Carta isn’t a written constitution, though it does contain elements that would later be incorporated into the constitution of the United States and many of their state constitutions.

We don’t have a written constitution. We have several documents and treaties that together form our constitution: magna carta, the acts of settlement, the Act of Union and the parliamentary Bill of Rights, which several of our erstwhile representatives have recently tried to resurrect in order to avoid prosecution for fiddling their expenses. Our constitution is largely statute-based, which is why it’s often referred to as unwritten.

The big problem is that people don’t know about this. Ask the average person on the street what they think about magna carta and they’ll ask if it’s that classical music record label *if you’re lucky*. They might think it’s a spanish football team. Without that knowledge of how our government was established, it is impossible to prevent the government from going beyond the bounds set for it by those documents. The Bill of Rights is a good example, as it guarantees certain things (including the right to own guns as long as you aren’t a catholic, and the limitation on unfair taxation without legislation enacting that taxation – bye bye nearly every non-criminal penalty charge in existence!) that have subsequently been overridden by successive governments. The problem is that the Bill of Rights establishes Parliament, and isn’t an Act of Parliament but a treaty. Overriding it removed the constitutional basis for Parliament to legislate, which means that current moves to use the concept of Parliamentary Privilege as established in the Bill of Rights means that either the Bill of Rights is supreme, in which case nearly every piece of legislation for the past 100-odd years is invalidated, or that the Bill of Rights must be struck down, in which case every piece of legislation since 1668 is invalid.

As for the US Senate, as per their constitution that body was meant to represent the States, not the population as a whole. The house of representatives represents the people. The Senate was meant to act as a brake on populist legislation, a body of oversight similar to the House of Lords (probably the only marginally functional part of our own legislature left) and was meant to consider bills produced by the House and re-write them, or block them, before they went to be signed by the president. This is why their constitution includes a requirement for the senate and house bills on any subject to be worded identically before they can be signed into law.

A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of both the house and the senate, but even that would just call a constitutional convention. Constitutional convention then requires a two-thirds majority of all the states.

You see the constitution governed the Union of the States, not the sun-total of the population, which is why it was originally so small. The individual states governed their own populations as they saw fit, as long as they didn’t breach the articles and amendments of the Bill of Rights, which restricted the state to the smallest possible functional level by intention. The Federal government was meant to function as primarily an arbiter of the collective position of the States towards common problems and international issues and so in the constitution its powers and roll were very strictly limited. The expansion of the role of the federal government since the 1890s has resulted in a situation where the federal government has already broken past its constitutional limits many times, which is why you often hear references to the constitution being a “living document”, not to mention a great deal of resentment amongst the elected representatives of the people and the states that a document written by a bunch of “dead old white guys” still has enough potency to limit their aspirations for absolute power.

Our “unwritten constitution” has lost that potency. Most criticism of the US from our side of the atlantic seems to be blinkered by an inability to understand how little freedom we have left compared to them, or perhaps a profound case of denial at just how restricted our lives are. Yes, their government is moronic these days, and they are pushy and loud, but they still have their constitutionally guaranteed rights. What do we have? Mandelson’s muppetry and Ms Hillier’s ID cards. I personally break the law several times a day doing things that are still considered to be inviolable rights in any functional society, but which have been rendered illegal here simply because the government of the day decided that it could do so. Criticism of America for problems that are even worse here smacks of a little bit of projection, I reckon, especially as we have no mechanism for restricting the activities of the state when it reaches too far. Think about that next time you’re criticising the US. They may not exercise it all the time but they have that option to declare acts of the state unconstitutional. Do we? No. Even the much vaunted human rights act is filled with so many caveats and contradictions to make it useless for anything other than forcing people to comply with whatever positivist “rights” are the current politically correct whim.

Face it. We’re fucked.

I’ve had conversations like this with people before. The most entertaining was when someone insisted that we don’t have “a constitution”, we have “institutions”, which is the most puerile piece of twaddle I’ve ever heard in my life. A “constitution” is whatever “constitutes” the state, whether that be statutes, a group of institutions, a written document, or a set of commonly held ideals.

So, yeah. Rant off.

In lieu of legal lollygagging, and inspired somewhat by Tasty Infidelicacies, a recipe, for a dish I call

Tasca di Pollo con Anacardi

… or, chicken in a pocket with cashews.

Now I’m not so good at precise measurements and tend to go for things in handfuls and pinches rather than kilos and grams, or even pounds and ounces, so the recipe that follows will reflect this. I also like to cook bulk on a budget. Handy, since I have big hands.

That said, on to the ingredients. You can find most of these in Aldi or your local equivalent.

One bag of frozen chopped chicken breast
One or two cloves of garlic
Salad vegetables
Dried or fresh chopped coriander leaf (optional but adds a nice fresh hint)
Lemon juice
Pita bread or a similar bread pocket
Cashew nuts
Ginger

First prepare a salad. Salads are simple, you can buy a bag of Mediterranean salad from Aldi for 99 pence, and then top it up with other veg as you need it for a similar price again, or you can buy all the bits yourself and make it that way. Either way it’s fast and easy, not to mention useful to have around for sandwich filler. I used mushrooms, spring onions, tomatoes, some left-over walnuts and baby sweet corns. Half a bag plus veg can last you several days without any problem, and if it’s going a little bit limp by the end then it makes a perfect backfill for burgers, giving you that authentic McDonalds texture.

Next take a bag of frozen chopped chicken breast, one large clove of garlic, chopped finely (not crushed!), and half a red pepper that I found getting ready to go soft in the back of the fridge, also chopped finely. Glaze the garlic in olive oil in a large pan (preferably not non-stick – it’s probably my imagination but teflon always seems to add a funny flavour) and then start frying the chicken on a low to medium heat straight from frozen, as this will give it a nice browning and infuse the garlic flavour. Toss in the cashews and some ginger and continue turning for a while until everything is well coated in the oil, then leave to soak heat on a low setting.

Whilst the chicken is infusing, pop the pita thing under the grill to start warming and toasting it. Depending on your bread choice the time for this can vary.

When the chicken is starting to brown a little, throw in a couple of shakes of the coriander and the chopped pepper and turn up the heat for a final blast, turning vigorously. Towards the end add in a little lemon juice and if you’re feeling adventurous a splash of white wine. Continue to turn until the coriander is well spread and everything looks satisfactory.

Remove the bread from the oven when it’s toasted to preference.

Now fill the pocket with chicken and salad and add pepper or whatever else takes your fancy. Two pockets will probably fill you up, and from a single bag of the chopped chicken you get enough to make at least six. Once cooled the chicken also makes a decent sandwich filler or can be mixed with the salad and some feta.

Long rambling legal post removed after I realised it might not be a good idea to have it lying around just yet. It’ll be back later.

From a comment on Gates of Vienna.

A person, especially one not trained to consider what one sees with at least a bit of dispassionate skepticism, can simply absorb ideas passively by watching films or television.

More true than you even realise. When I was doing my undergrad, part of the course on media analysis included information on how the brain reacts to television and film compared to other forms of media. Television and film specifically create a very passive state in the viewer. The combination of the hypnotic effect of a fast strobe light and the generally passive state the viewer must enter to take part in the piece work together to produce an incredibly suggestible state of mind, one where ideas are much more easily absorbed by the viewer than in any other situation. It’s akin to hypnotic suggestion. Film in particular is immensely powerful in this regard, as the scale and overwhelming force of a film in a cinema strip away any natural defences against the ideas being presented to you.

C.S. Lewis would have described this as the difference between contemplation and enjoyment of a particular thing, which he outlined in Medition in a Toolshed, where he compared Contemplation and Enjoyment by refernece to a beam of light shining through a crack in the door. Contemplation is looking at the beam of light from the outside, in the dark of the shed, seeing the motes of dust twinkling in it and being able to see that it’s a beam of light, where it falls, what angle it’s at. Enjoyment is akin to looking along the beam, so that you no longer see the beam of light but are immersed totally in it; along the beam you see sky, clouds, the top of a tree. You no longer contemplatively see the beam of light, you are “enjoying” it.

Looking at a film from outside, reading the plot and examining the ideas contained produces an contemplative effect that isn’t nearly as potent as the “enjoyment” effect caused by actually watching the film. When you contemplate a film you examine it’s characteristics in a different way to when you are enjoying it. This state of enjoyment is where film and television become so powerful and consequently so easily used for manipulation. In the enjoyment of the film you are totally immersed in it to the point where your own self, your id, almost becomes lost and quiescent. “You” nearly cease to exist, your role is so passive and so enjoined. In that state, the message presented to you is absorbed as easily as a sponge soaking up water.

Perhaps with the exception of staged theatre, no other media has this effect. Not even computer games. Anything that requires an active participation consequently requires a contemplation, and contemplation requires personality and individuality. And whilst both contemplation and enjoyment – looking at the beam and along it – are necessary modes of thought one must be aware that each requires the other to be whole. To be totally looking along the beam one must necessarily give up looking at the beam – one must give up more logical and rational assessment to become lost in the experience.

Most people in the industry don’t even realise this. They just instinctively know that television and film are very powerful tools for spreading a message.

If I were to watch this film it’d be on my computer with the lights on, a cup of tea, and perhaps with some music. That would prevent me from losing myself in the spectacle and allow me to rationally examine its message and undertones. I’d be able to enjoy the impressive special effects without losing myself in the message. I certainly wouldn’t watch it in a cinema.

Got me a project to work on and writing the spec right now (which makes a change from some of the other projects I’ve worked on. Spec? What’s that? But that’s another story) so, busy busy busy and all that.

I need to update the blogroll, hopelessly out of date so it is. Until I get around to that here’s some random blog love.

The Strata Sphere
The Blogmocracy
Ace of Spaces (like he needs any more traffic)
Robert Stacy McCain, who has some interesting advice on what to buy wives for christmas.

That treaty. That damn treaty. Constitution in all but name. I’ve avoided EU issues for quite some time (as there are people better covering it than I) but it inevitably intrudes in every aspect of life.

It’s a done deal. A fait acomplis. No way out of it In the process of this constitution treaty becoming law I learned something about my father that I didn’t really want to learn, but which, perhaps, is inevitable. Brave as he is, free thinker that he is and smart as he is – god knows where that bit went, I sure didn’t get it – he sees no point in fighting. On his sixtieth birthday my uncle and his family came to visit. My uncle is Irish to the bone and a fighter like his forebears, and was in typically rambunctious mood over the possibility that Cameron would backtrack on his promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, taxes in general and the terrible fate awaiting politicians he despised, which would be all of them. Dad’s attitude was… knuckle down, try to pay as little as possible and try not to catch their attention. Don’t make an issue out of it and they won’t come after you. And yesterday, I brought up the issue of the treaty and the referendum being called off, expecting at least indignation or agreement that Something Should Be Done. He replied that nothing could be done. It’s law now.

Recently I’ve been feeling a little nagging voice that says it’s not worth fighting any more. It says give up and live your life as best you can. It’s the voice that no doubt millions have heard in the past as they worked around and behind the back of the system imposed on them by autocrats, trying to claw back as much if their pittance as they could from the maw of the state whilst avoiding its notice. I feel… it would be so easy to just go back to sleep. But, I’m young(ish) and still have a long life ahead of me. I think dad has decided to listen to that voice. He no doubt feels he deserves some peace in his life after the constant up and down of the last couple of decades. No doubt he doesn’t want to go back to the days when we lived on the edge of starving and he sees that any resistance to the growth of the EU in our lives would threaten the relative stability we’ve achieved as a family. He’s proud. I’m proud, which is why I hear the same voice.

I have, in the past, encountered people who assume that the country as a whole is populated by sheep who are so dumb they’ll follow any siren voice (mixing metaphors is fun!) but I think I discovered the truth today. Not sheep. My country is proud, far too proud to admit it has taken the wrong path. My people, all the peope who live here, refuse to accept that they collectively made a mistake in joining and remaining in the EU.

It is far easier to manipulate a proud people than it is to manipulate sheep. The metaphorical sheep will follow the loudest voice and can be snatched away by another in moments. A proud people are much harder to set on a course but, once set on it, are harder still to turn away or convince of their folly. In good times such pride will lead to great heroism and accomplishment, the refusal to stand down in the face of total defeat and the “stiff upper lip” of fable. In bad times, it leads to the tragedy of Scott and the rout of the Indian Mutiny, the bloody mess of the civil war and the loss of an empire.

God once called his people stiff-necked. Stubborn, like an ass, which has its good points but made them hard to save. I suspect the Israelites are not alone in this state of mind.