I feel slightly guilty that this exists

Good Morning. Sit down. No not in that chair! That’s Alfred’s Chair! Thanks. Comfy? Good! This rant/ lecture/ light Charlie Brooker style analysis begins at a demo I went on yesterday. Regular readers (hi mum) will know that I’m a staunch republican. Not in the sense of being a homophobic extremist Christian in America but in the sense that I hate the idea of monarchy. Yesterday was the Diamond Jubilee procession down the Thames and me and three hundred or so like minded, liberal people (with a smattering of Anarchists… who I fully support by the way - also, I love the word smattering) congregated near Tower Bridge.

I say near Tower Bridge… we could see it! There was a little green that had been closed off from the public and we were as close to the River as we could get without pissing off the police too much. It was quite a middle class crowed so the police didn’t attack… a few Royalists did. They got booed off. But I had fun, even when it started raining, and I saw some great speakers, including Peter Tatchell. Something I picked up on was that a popular mantra of the speakers was ‘shame on the BBC’. Shame on the BBC you say? What the devil is that about? Fetch me musket.

The BBC’s coverage of the Jubilee , like any state owned TV stations during a state event, was over the top, irritating and smiley. But there was barely any time given to the demo or any republican rhetoric. According to one survey 40% of Britain want’s an end to the monarchy. That’s 40% of people who are marginalised by the BBC’s coverage. There wasn’t any mention of it on the news at all as far as I know. Shame on the BBC.

Now, that could just mean that it wasn’t a big enough thing to report. That said, at times there was about three hundred where I was and another huge lot around the corner from us nearer the bridge. Not to mention the republican rhetoric there would have been in other cities, in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, not to mention the common wealth, just look at the PM of Jamaica. Shame on the BBC.

But should there be shame on the BBC? Is it their fault? I don’t think so. I’ve already written my love letter to the Beeb in this blog, go and check it out if you haven’t already. http://i-should-calm-down.tumblr.com/post/8188974244/get-your-dirty-little-conservative-hands-off-of-it-you Ha! Hilarious! The BBC is state owned and when the government is as scissor happy as this one is it has to play its cards right or it’ll be sold to Murdoch or Branson. Realistically therefore the BBC has got to play it a-politically, or centrist. That’s fine, if I wanted left wing news coverage I’d go and buy the guardian or maybe the morning star. Instead I’m fine to look at the BBC for the barefaced facts. But because of the demand from Whitehall, it has to be ever so slightly right wing or it can’t be anything. 

Shame on the government. The thinking behind the BBC siding with the government isn’t a new one, in fact the thinking used to be, back in those black and white days we’re all so nostalgic for now, that the BBC is for the people, the government is elected by the people, therefore the BBC is for the government. Of course after a while a more balanced way of reporting was made and the BBC became more apolitical or centrist depending on how you view it. But now there’s a knife to its throat of course it will stand slightly right of centre. It was slightly right of centre during the last government… but then again Blair and Brown were both right wing in my books.

The BBC’s coverage of the protests and of any republicanism has been scarce, with Question Time being the most arse numbingly boring thing when the subject has been discussed and there has been no coverage of it on the news really. But is that the BBC’s fault? I don’t think so. This is not a time for the BBC to be edgy. I wish it were, I wish the BBC would give coverage to the movement for further democracy and to end hereditary titles but it wont because of the government and because it shares its state owned nature with the Monarchy. Unlike the monarchy though it still does a valuable service.

Fuckateebye. May your God bless you.

I know I’ve ranted about monarchy before but it just seems so much more topical now… what with it being more topical.

Some common misconceptions about republicanism:

• An elected president would have all the power of the Queen and the Prime Minister - a president would be the head of state, the head of government would be retained. This would, if anything, put more of a check on the power of the PM, avoiding things like the ‘President Blair’ era, seen during him giving the ‘people’s princes’ speech. This showed a crossover between the role of the head of government and the head of state as Blair became the spokesmen for the people and not the government as he should have been.
• We care who the monarch is. I don’t care if Elizabeth is a lovely person, it would be even more lovely if she was elected. Its a matter of principle.
• Monarchy is good for tourism… Disney Land Tokyo is a bigger attraction than Buckingham palace. Did you know that Tokyo had a Disney Land? I didn’t. What about all the other tourist attractions in London, let alone the UK. Those world famous musicians? Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament? Yeah, Buckingham Palace might come on the list but if we got rid of it people would still visit. People visit the White House.
• Republicans are just those mental conservatives in America. I hate the way I get looks when I say I’m a republican. This is because the word isn’t used a lot in the mainstream media or politics. We are here and we’re a sane political thought… not the American right.
• We just care about the money that gets wasted on them. It’s a matter of principle. We need democratisation. This isn’t a new thought and has been here for ages, look at Cromwell and the leveller movement then take some more steps back in time. Yes the money wasted is a pane in the arse, not to mention having to pay for their events.
• We’re a small margin of society. According to Republic UK, 40% of Britain are anti monarchists. Boom! Of course, that means playing the waiting game until that number rises… we’re Republicans… not Bolsheviks.
• We’re ruining your fun! Please. Have you fucking been outside? You’re winning. Don’t whine, go put up some bunting and help make this political anachronism an atrocity on my senses. You have 365 days a year of having a monarchy, I get none of having a republic. You’re ruining my fun. It’s like we’ve taken stupid pills. It’s just the done thing to vote. There’s a tradition. One that is way better than a crown, need we mention Greece? (Apart from the women… sorry women… actually could every history book say that, ever? ‘Afghanistan war. Sorry women.’ Thank kind of schtick. Women have been fucked over massively and… I’ve gone off topic again. I MEANT WHAT I SAID THOUGH!).
  Here’s ruining fun - poisoning cakes so monarchists shit themselves inside out during the procession. Here’s not ruining fun - using our democratic rights and demonstrating a political view point peacefully. It’s practically impossible to ignore it. Even if you stay in all day you’ll still have to go out to get milk or whatever. And even then it’ll be a monarchist cow’s… in a crown. This will be a time to bust out the Morning Star, the most delightfully militant communist rag I’ve ever laid eyes on. 
  If you want to enjoy the Jubilee then there is nothing stopping you! Allow me my protest please.
• British pageantry is unique… no. NORTH KOREA OUT DO US. We look like a poor turn out at the soviet red square marches without the weapons.

Well, that’s me done ranting. I know I’ve said most of this before and I know it’s not exactly edgy but its something that really gets to me. I have no spiritual connection to her majesty and I think it is dangerous that we don’t vote for the head of state. If you are a monarchist then good luck to you. I really don’t agree with you but we’re all entitled to our opinions… I just think we should be able to vote on them.

Fuckateebye. May your God bless you.

P.S: If it came to a choice between Dennis Skinner and the queen… come on… It’s Dennis Skinner!

A Slight Case Of Overbombing: Jubilee, The Royals and Me

aslightcaseofoverbombing:

It’s almost upon us. After weeks of wading through union flag draped shops and assaulted by visions of ‘Britishness’ everywhere the Jubilee is almost here. I’m getting ready to avoid newspapers (difficult for someone who works at one) and the TV for the duration. If I had the opportunity to…

SANITY!

Okay, no ranting today, its revision season so I’d thought I’d do some revision. And if you don’t like that… I am truly sorry.

This is mainly from the revision guide Maddie brought in yesterday.

Key dates

• 1813- Georg Buchner Born
• 1836 - Wrote Woyzeck - dies one year later
• 1879 - 1st published and finished by Karl Emil Franzos
• 1913 - 1st performed in Munich in the heyday of German Expressionism

We don’t know if the version we have is the version Buchner wanted to be performed, the final draft or even in the right order. This lets us interpret it in a more open fashion.

The version we have from Edexel is a translation of Buchner’s origional German text and therefore is varied from the other translations.

There was a real Woyzeck. He was a barber/ wig maker who stabbed his ex-mistress and was executed. This case was big in medical journals and fascinated Buchner, who used it to inspire the play after adding a few characters.

Characters and relationships

If you go down a naturalistic rout then you need to explore the characters and relationships, then develop them.

Marie and Woyzeck should explore what brought them together to create before time. Flashback to key points in their lives together

Hot seat the captain to find out how powerful he really is.

Use the actor’s emotion memories to find times when they have acted poorly to others to save themselves, or when they have felt overpowered by their situation. Stanislavski says their body language helps you to develop the physical performance of your cast.

Explore stereotypes of mental illness for Woyzeck.

Try the actors speaking their objectives and making their movements according to them.

Voice

Do you want accents in your piece? If so talk about an accent/ dialect coach. Also think about tones and pace as you need to help your actors produce the correct level of age, class and tone that suits your production.

There are songs in your play, such as the weird little lullaby Marie sings to her child - would you match these to existing songs if they scan, get rid of the singing or even make a create tunes for these - Tom Waits, the actor and musician, composed an entire score for his adaptation…. But then again… he is Tom Waits…. Tom Waits for no man.

Movement

You will have to explore the way your actors will move around the space. 

Physical theatre permanences generally enlarge and expose their characters through emphasised, and sometimes grotesque, movement. Some ways to explore this could be

• Play a scene as if you were performing it to an audience a mile away - over exaggerate everything- then bring it down in scale and see what it does to a scene
• Different ways of walking - get actors to walk in character at different times in the character’s lives. Then give them circumstances and events that have happened to them

Naturalistic directors wok with their actors closely in rehearsal to uncover inner motivations for characters and how to portray them.

Directing

You need to know what your production is about, what message it gives to the audience, and how your rehearsal process follows from those decisions.

If you look at it as a comedy look at:

• Woyzeck’s relationship with the doctor
• The way that Woyzeck can only eat peas
• Drum Major and the sergeant - are they a double act? Classic school bully and henchmen?
• The  Showman and the astronomical horse … if you think its a stupid scene make it seem stupid and pathetic
• The captain and the doctor, is it a clash of egos?
• Are any of the lines funny? Do the actors need to be larger than life to make them so?

If you see it as a tragedy look at:

• Woyzeck and Marie - why did this happen to them? Is it their own fault? Are they just thick? Has society let them down? Is it fate? Or is it Woyzeck’s madness?

If you’re going to approach it as a fiary tale think about:

• What kind of black magic is this play?
• Astronomical horse? What or who is he/ was he? 
• Is it all told by the grandma?
• Are all the characters simply caricatures from a set of stock gestures, words and deeds?
• Also, check out Struwwlpeter - a collection of the most messed up German fairy tales ever.

Edit the text

You cannot add lines but you can change the order. If you start with the final scene the action becomes more of a fairy tale told by the grandma and more of a trageddy as it builds dramatic irony, as a death happens one way or another. Do you want to shorten the play? Its about 70 minutes as it is.

Time

You could set it today! This will add an understanding from the audience that may be lost otherwise. Then again the script is vaguely modernise anyway, so it doesn’t bind you to history. Does it even matter when its set?

There’s no reason to update any of it if you don’t want to because the script is so well translated and understandable. The story itself seems universal and timeless 

because its about an every-man, going against the repression of the powers that be and class cruelty, looking for love.

You could set it an a historical period! This would give a different meaning. Maybe a more obvious symbol of oppression such as an occupied state or Nazi Germany. If so, you need to design it around these ideas - is the Drum Major a member of the SS? That kind of thing.

Key Moments

Working on key moments is an effective way of tackling a text. Directors will consider different scenes which are pivotal to their interpretation.

How you open you the play will be vital to the scenes you think are key - e.g scene 1 is a solid introduction to Woyzeck as a central protagonist.

Ultimately

A production of Woyzeck should be a universal tale of the everyman fighting oppression, engaging a modern audience. The world you should show is one where civilisation is a very thin layer hiding the worst of humanity, a theme in most contemporary and historical theatre and present in modern life.

So, good luck, I hoped this helped, and a hearty fuckateebye!

Is it just me or is British Nationalism being forced down our throats? It seams that just about every shop, café, and advert is covered with bunting, cakes and union flags.

If you’re reading this and thinking ‘if you don’t like it go home’ I am home, now fuck off and let a Guardian/Independent  reader read this. Now that we’ve gotten rid of UKIPy Jim I’ll continue. 

We’ve given a strange nostalgic gleam to the 1950s, we’ve got bunting up left right and centre, its fashionable to wear chinos and for women to dress like 50s housewives, we’ve got old posters from the 50s and forties in random bits of tin we can hang from … somewhere, and a bit royal event coming up. I’m fucking disgusted by it.

ITS 2012. WE’RE IN THE FUTURE! DON’T GIVE ME A HORSE AND CARRIAGE! GIVE ME A FLYING CAR, GIVE ME CLEAN FUEL, NUCLEAR FUSION, SOLAR POWERED GRAPES, DOWNLOADED RICE AND DILDOS THAT CAN WRITE AN ESSAY ON SOCIAL JUSTICE IN CHINA! 

The fifties were quite grim anyway! We had a Britain that wasn’t recovered from war yet, that had rationing, smog, a new fear of Soviet power on the horizon, homelessness, a decade of Conservative rule, we didn’t even have Attlee all that long, and we had high levels of racism and sexism. Oh but we had the coronation. Don’t fucking give me that. Don’t you dare ever assume that I’d be glad that some woman, who’s apparently chosen by God, sits on a throne and passes laws while we pay her to. Its fucking sickening! She carries a lot of power legally but we’ve not even fucking elected the bitch! The fifties were a bit fucking grim and I hate the strange affection we’ve grown.

We’ve also not kept any affection for the good things of the 1950s… like FUCKING WELFARE OR NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES FOR FUCKS SAKE! IF WE’RE GOING TO GET ALL MISTY EYED ABOUT THE FIFTIES COULD WE AT LEAST GET A BIT NOSTALGIC FOR KEYNESIANISM AND FOR HELPING OTHER PEOPLE! 

Anyway. We’ve adopted this chintzy bullshit and with that comes chintzy nationalism. JUST ABOUT FUCKING EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE A UNION FLAG! AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I FIND IT UNNERVING! Yes, a lot of good things have come out of Britain, be it Chaucer, Dickens, Shakespeare, Sylvia Pankhurst, Sherlock or whatever you feel proud of, but these are things that have come out of Britain. It doesn’t make the political construct of the United Kingdom any better, and that’s what the union flag is a symbol of… its a boring flag anyway, its just lines.

But that aside, if you’re selling a cheesecake then fine. Mmm cheesecake, lovely. THAT DOESN’T NEED A UNION FLAG BEHIND IT! WHY DOES THAT NEED A UNION FLAG BEHIND IT? IS IT PARTICULARLY BRITISH? NO! EVERYONE LIKES CHEESECAKE! ITS SHAVUOT SOON, ITS CUSTOMARY TO EACH CHEESECAKE THEN! DOES THAT MAKE IT JEWISH? NO! I DON’T FUCKING WANT A POLITICAL CONSTRUCT ATTACHED TO MY FOOD OR I’D EAT A PIE MADE BY THE SOCIALIST PARTY FOR GOD’S SAKE! (I know those are biscuits but I couldn’t find a still from the advert)

Its just stupid now! I know we’re all really excited about the jubilee or whatever I’m not, but I can’t fucking stand everything being made slightly more nationalist. If you want to go down that rout …. THEN FUCKING NATIONALISE IT!

Oh, and on the subject of the jubilee… really, are we really going to be happy that the queen is still here and half of our public services aren’t. Not that its all about money, an elected head of state (and yes we should also keep an elected head of government as well) wouldn’t be that much of a saving but its the principle. Over the last couple of years parts of the world have being throwing off the dictorships of unelected bodies, its just stupid that we want to keep ours. I like democracy!

The point I’m making is that we don’t need to just stick on the flag to anything. I know that there are people in America who may think that’s how we live but we don’t! We have a monarch while we should have had a revolution. We’re not in the 1950s we are in the year 2012. We’ve got an Olympics to run and I don’t want us to look like fucking Trumpton with a BNP rally. This is London, not a giant village fate.

I’ve gone on a wee bit but its something that gets to me. Nationalism in the sense of unneeded patriotism and jingoism is always unnerving. We’ve fought wars over it and the most evil men have risen to power because of it. Nationalism is a road to evil. Yes its a very left wing view but… I’m just very left wing.

Yes you can have a flag if you like, but don’t ram it down everyone’s throats with a senseless desire to cash in on the nation’s delusions and short term memory.

Fuckateebye. May your God bless you.

When 140 characters aren't quite enough...: "YOLO." "Haters gonna hate." "LOL"......... stfu.

somethings-gone-terribly-wrong:

YOLO - is the latest internet ‘big thing’… which basically involves people spewing absolute rubbish and then putting ‘yolo’ after it which of course stands for You only live once.

You only live once has the power in fact to be quite a good thing to say as it can lead to quite liberating…

Genius and it shares my sentiment completely. Wonderfully cantankerous! 

Comrades! Friends! Strangers! Pervy chipmunks who have overthrown their human oppressors to use their computers! We’ve done it. We’ve got there! 100 blog posts! Be they rants, lists, rants, manifestos, rants, political view points, rants, occasional picture reblogging, rants, confessions, and, of course, tips on the bum sex… Okay there’s not a lot of that but FUCK ME THERE WAS A LOT OF RANTING! 100 blog posts and its a year and a day since I signed up to Tumblr. 

So what’s it going to be then? I’ve thought long and hard about what to do this on, and I have no clue. Absolutely no idea how to go about this. What should I do? Analyse something from an outsider’s perspective? Do an edgy (yet predictably left wing) piece on a hard hitting political item in the news? I’ve been told to do something out of my comfort zone but I don’t know what that would include! Its not really a secret that I’m a sad lonely man (I’ve got a blog for fucks sake). 

What about doing something on sexuality? That’s in the news what with Obama saying he backs gay marriages. The thing is (and before you ask, yes I think gay people should marry and I can’t believe that anyone would be so ignorant as to argue otherwise - Put God First isn’t a strong enough counter argument if you ask me) what I want to say about it has been said and said brilliantly by other people a great example is on this blog. Its brilliant!http://somethings-gone-terribly-wrong.tumblr.com/

What about other aspects of sexuality? I had considered doing this on ‘the friend zone’ but I don’t want my 100th blog posts to be me complaining … I mean it will probably anyway. I want to give that more time to brew in my mind. (I’VE GOT AN ANALOGY AND EVERYTHING). What about people I fancy? I’m not sure its fair to name people who I have a crush on… I will simply say Claudia Winkleman… because I love her. If you have a problem with that then I don’t want to hear it… Unless you’re Claudia Winkleman. In which case ‘heee. Hi! *blushes*’

Dear everybody. I made a list. A LIST! I WAS GOING TO DO 100 THINGS I LOVE. Alas I pressed a button and the 27 points I had disappeared. I’m very sorry, but I shall abandon that plan. I now return you to our regularly scheduled …thing.

So, whats this going to be about? Well, lets start with what made this blog.

A lot of it comes down to a man called Thomas Fawns. He’s a close friend of mine who got tumblr around about the same time I did. I would say follow him but I can’t find his actual blog. Oh well. I decided not to care if it makes me seem like a bit of a hipster because I would only blog about things I really found interesting or that I felt passionate about. Yes I’ve reblogged a few photos and so on but they’ve had a meaning behind them… apart form the ones with the otters. If it wasn’t for Tom I wouldn’t have made this thing.

A lot of how I write comes down to a few people who I consider inspirations.

• Charlie Brooker. He’s possibly the voice of the generation and has turned a lot of people on to the news and how TV and the media is made and changes the world. His rightful anger is something that I’ve tried to emulate with some other things. (Emulate is a word I’ve just taken a risk with. Lets hope it worked)
• David Mitchell. I know they’re quite similar to a lot of people but his microanalysis of the anything that pisses him off is just priceless, and his anger and genuine passion about stupidity and things that are genuinely horrible in the world is nothing but commendable in my books! And I do get told I remind people of him alot!
• The Nostalgia Critic. A lot of it comes down to anger I know but I like the way the reviews he does and the near break downs he broadcasts on Channel Awesome show that he genuinely cares and it genuinely irks him when he sees something that is shit I like to do that with society… maaan!

• Mark Kermode. The film critic who gave the world ‘Hello To Jason Isaacs (Google Jason Isaacs) is a great example of someone who will not settle for for anything second best.

• Josie Long. I absolutely love Josie Long! I absolutely love her! She’s clever,
   sweet, adorably enthusiastic, cultured and at the end of the day, really really funny! … Plus she mentioned me on twitter once… about This Week with Andrew Neil! There’s also a lot of whimsy in her work, not like an out an out fairy tale because it does have a lot of bite in places and she won’t take shit from anyone (watch her at the UK uncut gigs). She’s, relatively recently, become more politicised and its in the best way possible! I really wish I did have more women on this list and its something I am working on… honest! Marvellous 
• Karl Marx… Well… he’s the boss isn’t he… I mean, not boss… he da worker! 

• Naomi Klein. Her theory of how neoliberal capitalism works as damaging shock treatment is stupendous! I saw it in my Alevel Politics class and it was shocking! The Shock Doctrine is one of the best documentaries what I have ever seen gor blimey (sorry, that needed cockenying up!

I know this may seem a bit self congratulatory but I genuinely didn’t know how to approach it. I’ll try and squeeze some ranting in now.

• Dear climate sceptics. Shut the fuck up. Yes there was climate gate but I would argue that exaggerating the facts was simply to put a boot up the intergovernmental arse of the world stage. If you want to pour acid onto a rock and call that proof of something then fine. Don’t you dare use that as evidence against people who have far better evidence than you and who are trying to better everyone. The safety of the market is not the same as the safety of the planet.
• Dear people who still find it acceptable to make kitchen jokes about women. I hope you drag your knuckles over dog shit and then you have a really bad day… yeah! Also I hope that somehow you get enough brain cells to realise you speak nothing but bullshit!
• Dear people who say I’m too angry. I’m only angry at the shit there is to be angry about. There are loads of things that make me happy…. like Claudia Winkleman (she may have upside down eyes but I like it!)
• Dear people who oppose gay marriage because of their religion. I thought everyone was made in God’s image. And surely God would be too busy with war criminals, murderers, rapists and ITV executives to give a hoot about who you fancy or not. I’m not gay but I think being gay is just natural. That’s how people are made. Get over it. Its part of the rich platter of humanity! … not that I eat humans. I eat humus… that sounds like humans
• Dear people who are bored of this last bit. SO AM I!

I’m running out of nonsense to spout now so I’ll stop.

I’d just like to say, and sorry for being all lovey about it, thank you so much to everyone who reads this. It means so much to me and it genuinely gives me pleasure to have other people rattle around in my brainy space. Thank you to the general Tumblr community. You’ve given me a lot to think about. Thank you if you’ve only just read this one. Cheers! Thank you to Neil Kinnock who’s become a bit of a regular occurrence on this blog! Thank you to my friends who’ve given me positive feedback and for being amazing! 

Now, for not the last time

Fuckateebye. May your God bless you!

There we are!

(sorry if the pictures don’t quite work.)

Breaking from many post cold war theorists, Huntington does not have the view that America’s hegemony and the new world order is a force for good or even evil, instead he remains impartial about that as recognising that would be to recognise ideology. Instead Huntington starts by separating the world into how he sees it: there are Western, Orthodox, Islamic, African, Latin American, Sinic, Hindu, Buddhist and Japanese cultures, who all occupy the same globe.  Indeed Huntington tends to spend the book trying to find a replacement for the previous nemesis of the west and source of culture, the only clear conclusion as to who will clash with whom is that they will all clash with each other, though its more possible it will be the west clashing with Islam or China.

The world, as separated into the groups Huntington details.

An interesting fact about the thesis is that it was written before the iconic September the eleventh attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. This book has therefore been seen, in hindsight, as a quasi-prophecy to the Post 9/11 world.  What’s astonishing is that in the world of a war on an abstract noun, of high security, alienation of foreign communities and international tension, it makes a horrific kind of sense. I do not mean that in an aspiration way, meaning that society should work like that, but I mean that in an explanation of the way that world leaders think; if you were to map out the cultures that he describes you get a standard strong trade map for the world in the post 9/11 state of things, with some exceptions and anomalies. This may be a near Orwellian style to see the world, it breaks into major blocks, and while these are not Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia, these are still both cultural links and economic links. If anything, this is one of the best explanations of the paradigm shift of the post 9/11 world that has been published. You could be forgiven for saying that the world we live in is world of the ‘West v The Rest.’

That aside, There comes a point where his brand of realism, pessimism and cultural separatism becomes outdated, anachronistic and, in some senses, racist. At the centre of the book is the core belief that cultures cannot mix, that they remain separate and that, much like the old billiard ball imagery of old realism, the only time they will meat is when they collide.  What is more, while there is a sad reality into a possible outcome of the new world order, there is no remedy given. Indeed, there is not even a warning, just a blueprint for one kind of Armageddon, an incredibly vague Armageddon at that, possibly just the end to the new world order, which would, in fact just have been the 9/11 attacks. Was that it? If so the book is now truly defunct.

What is more, if 9/11 didn’t make the book truly defunct then the events after the global financial crisis certainly have. We’ve seen a global crisis that has left no corner of the Earth untouched in its wake. This has affected Hindu, Latin American, Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Buddhist, Sinic and Japanese cultures just as severely as each other. In a way this proves that neoliberal globalisation, as flawed and sinful as you may see it, has done what it said it would do, interconnect the world. What’s more, Huntington assumes that we’re happy with the cultures we have, and that ideologies are dead. If the news of the last two years has told us anything, it is that ideology is far from dead. In the political mainstream there may be consensus, but there is still a call for democracy, be it from the rebels in the Arabic revolutions from the Arab Spring, or the call to end crisis capitalism from the occupy protestors, even the mere existence of Twitter could scupper this thesis, just through the spread of ideas alone. The world doesn’t work as if it were cautioned off anymore, instead we have intermingled, and we have embraced new ideas that change everything, this is something that Huntington’s thesis doesn’t allow for.

To conclude, while it had a semi prophetical nature in hindsight and in terms of narrative, it’s always attractive to think of new global villains and threats to us, Huntington doesn’t take into account the reality of the situations that surrounded he wrote the book. To say that western capitalism had triumphed may be a simplistic way to look at the world, but in the most part, the world acted as if it did, and the planet has become truly interconnected, proof of this was in the failure of western capitalism in 2008 and how it dragged the rest of the world with it. We won’t have a war between cultures; it’s just not convenient enough, we’re even happier spreading ideas throughout the world. It now looks simply dated; the only time I would recommend reading this book is the year 2001 on September the 10^th. 

imsoindieihaveablog:

Tomorrow, I have an art exam, not that anyone cares, I’m making a guitar for it, not that anyone cares, fuck your crew crackooooor.

I care Niall Bays! I care

I did a post a few moths back where I went about hogwarts because I’m a horrible little man (check it out, there’s a reference to Alan Moore!). So I thought I’d come up with ways to kill the other great big childhood icons that my generation have grown up with. These are mainly made up so if something true does come out of it then it was completely unintentional.

1. Arthur Killed a man in Seattle. It was a horrific incident that the aardvark (was he an aardvark?) would rather forget, but one school trip to the city went wrong. The man in question was one mister Joseph Trodski (sounds like Trotsky, doesn’t it? Ha, what a coincidence), a father of three and loving husband. his wife, unfortunately went into a horrible spiral of depression which she is only coming out of. Arthur’s efforts to cover it up didn’t work on me. Arthur: I KNOW WHAT YOU DID!
2. Arnold from Hey Arnold was arrested by the Dutch authorities and that’s the last we know. He must have done something horrible, Holland is quite liberal!
3. The S Club have been found guilty at the Hague for crimes against humanity. It wasn’t their music, but they shat on several people. What complicates the crime is that they were all in custody… DID IT INCLUDE ARNOLD?
4. The Milkybar kid was a white supremacist. That’s about it. Nuff said.
5. The Rugrats theory  http://www.lovelyish.com/755125456/the-creepy-new-theory-about-what-really-happened-on-rugrats/ I didn’t make this but it is amazingly horrific!
6. The Chuckle Brothers were Islamist terrorists. They were found in a pact building with Semtex passing it to each other saying ‘To me, to you’. (Actually, I have heard that they aren’t that nice in person. Shame, I mean, it was obvious they were wankers, but I hoped it was just in the annoying but well meaning sense).
7. Every time you drank sunny delight you saw the devil out of the corner of your eye. You weren’t dizzy or hyper on sugar, it was Beelzebub… Curious? Well IF YOU HAVE OVER 50 PINTS OF IT YOUR SOLE IS STOLEN FROM YOUR FEET! (I couldn’t figure out if that was the correct sole - it could now be either - spirit or shoes)
8. The teletubbies were soviet experiment to create people who were physically connected to politburo! This was during the early days of the Khrushchev premiership and was leaked to NATO in 1979. There was a pause before they sold the rights to the BBC. The end product was the beloved children’s favourite… just remember - they were experiments made by ramming together human cells and that weird gloopy bit inside a TV (check if yours has one. Go on, open up the TV. Go on! What could go wrong? OH STEVEN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE TELLY? YOU MONSTER! CLEAR UP THAT GLOOP IT’LL TURN YOU RACIST! YES STEVEN, RACIST (sorry to anyone called Steven))
9. Grange Park was based on a Hitler Youth summer camp. It was modernised of course and they changed the setting, language and political message… still based on it (I think)
10. BN biscuits were actually BNP BISCUITS! YEP! WOW! Who’d have thought it? 
11. Scooby doo is Fenton! That’s why Shaggy was always so thin and jittery, he was afraid he’d run away. ‘ZOINKS SCOOB! JESUS CHRIST! SCOOBY! SCOOBY! JESUS CHRIST!’ He wasn’t running towards a load of dear, he was running from a vampire or some shit like that. Jesus Christ
12. THE NINETEEN NIGHTIES WERE FUCKING SHIT! NO SERIOUSLY! THE MUSIC WAS BORING REHASHES ON THE MOST PART, THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE WAS DEPRESSINGLY ONE NOTE, THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM ENDED, THE USA STROLLED OVER THE WORLD AND PISSED EVERYONE OFF, TV WASN’T THAT GREAT (some exceptions there actually - TMWRNJ) AND THERE WASN’T EVEN ANY DOCTOR WHO APART FROM THAT TV MOVIE!!!! MAJOR, BUSH SENIOR, BORING MUSIC (I just don’t like Nirvana - sorry) AND NO WHO! FUCK THE NINETIES!
13. Robert Mugabe worked on Dick and Dom in Da Bungalow - that sense of anarchic fun was down to his ideals of black supremacy (look it over! the messages are in there (I am back talking nonsense again, don’t worry))

THERE! THAT’S IT! THAT’S ALL YOU GET! … If you like this and want to think fondly back on this at a later date - just remember: I’M WEARING SIMILAR PANTS TO YOU (if you’re wearing a thong so no harm done… I don’t know why I said that)! 

Sorry. Fuckateebye. May your god bless you