What Kind Of People Do You Want to Work With?

There’s an old adage: people buy from people. It means that the quality of the relationship is the most important thing, in making a sale. The customer has to trust in the seller and buy into their story. The seller’s story needs to be credible and compelling. Artists that share their authentic narrative with their audience tend to sell more of their art than those that do not.

The quality of human relationships extends to working together. People work with people. The tools and processes are secondary. The materials are not even material, in your choice of who you work with. You don’t have to work with anybody offered. You have a choice. Even when you think you have no choice, you actually do. Working together only happens if there is mutual respect and a joint commitment to cooperate and perhaps even compromise. It’s never one-sided. If it is, it never works.

Given that you always have a choice, who do you want to work with? Will you gravitate toward rigid minds, with fixed, unchangeable viewpoints, or will you seek flexible forward-thinkers? Do you enjoy working with straight-jacketted, conservative rule-followers with an unshakeable belief in their own infallibility, or intellectually-agile, open-minded, innovative, curious, experimental, imaginative folk, willing to revise their views as new evidence comes to light? Do you want to march or dance? Both require co-ordination, but the latter is freer.

When you step forward to do your most important and meaningful work, do you want to do that encumbered by the dead weight of somebody else’s archaic, obsolete, discredited mindsets and systems of belief, or is your purpose better served by joining up with people keen on exploring possibilities courageously? Why would you waste your time working with the wrong kind?

Are you looking for a collaborator or a competitor? Both can spur you on to do better, but which one contributes to your success and which one undermines it? Do you want to burn your productive hours away pointlessly, fighting against what another person says you can’t do (or hopes you can’t), or with somebody sincerely committed to seeing you flourish?

It’s not a very difficult choice, is it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sham Counterculture

It has been a while since I posted. Major life changes, a short illness and a sad loss. Starting again from square one. That sort of thing. Onward and upward. Resilience is a learned skill.

With the Beatles’ Sargeant Pepper album turning fifty, this month, the sixties counterculture is back in the news and the album itself once again at the top of the charts, bathed in a thick layer of rose-tinted nostalgia. While undoubtedly a great work of art, what it presaged may have been a campaign of pure population manipulation, for political and commercial ends, according to the book “Drugs as Weapons Against Us” by the author John L. Potash. Some of the artists may have been unwitting tools in a deeper plan with a darker agenda; caught up in it, rather than the orchestrators of it. Others were evidently knowing accomplices who regarded their fans with pure contempt.

The hippie counterculture meant something to me. It represented hope for a more peaceful, harmonious, inclusive world that respected diversity, rather than tried to eliminate it. The prominent musicians of that period were heroes of mine and I aspired to make music for people, just like they did. It was a guiding light and a goal, in my life. To be confronted with substantial evidence that all may not have been as it seemed is pretty uncomfortable. All the more reason why it should be taken seriously.

The idea of social justice seems so obviously, self-evidently desirable, to most rational human beings, so it’s hard to imagine anybody could actively, tenaciously pursue social injustice, yet that’s precisely what the oligarchs in our society do and they’re serious about it. They’re willing to apply much more violence, to uphold inequality, than any leftist activist group would ever dare contemplate. Their targets? Any activist with leftist, humanist views – the sorts of positions that most would regard as virtuous common sense. The oligarchy’s project is to farm us like domestic animals, for gain, not protect us from harm and allow us to live good lives, to our fullest human potential. Their project is essentially insane and this is the reason most rational people fail to give it its due credence.

According to Potash, the sixties hippie culture was CIA sponsored, organised and funded. Far from being a grass-roots movement of enlightened idealists, it was a covert, purposeful campaign to neuter threats to the reigning, privileged oligarchy, replacing activism with apathy. Because these oligarchs are “old money”, obtained initially from the opium trade of the eighteenth century, they know the power of attacking the collective mind with psychoactive, addictive drugs, they have no qualms about doing so (having gotten away with it for over a century) and they profit from the extended distribution and consumption of the opiates they still control. 

Far from wanting people to eschew drugs, as was the official government line, the counterculture was little more, in truth, than a big marketing campaign, on behalf of the oligarchy, to make mind-altering drugs mainstream, which is what they have become. Consequently, an entire generation has subjected themselves to induced psychoses, rendering them compliant and ineffectual at bringing about genuine social change. Meanwhile, the power and wealth of the oligarchy families has amplified exponentially.

The mainstream media played along, having long been infiltrated by the CIA, almost universally, as evidenced by revelations that have emerged about Project Mockingbird. They played their dutiful part in glamorising drug use, by their adulation of the rock stars that appeared to promote it. It was the advertising wing of the big opiates marketing campaign, all orchestrated by the CIA. Its sole purpose was to get an entire generation hooked and de-politicised.

The implications are staggering and sobering. The music of the counterculture wasn’t offered to you because it represented innovation, fresh ideas, revolution, mind-expansion, imagination, quality or edification of the audience. Those pulling the strings treated rock, jazz and folk musicians of the period and their devoted audiences with sheer contempt, as if they had a legitimate right and licence to do so; smug in their assumed, conservative, opulent, privileged superiority. Here was a class of wealthy and powerful people asserting their sense of their own self-importance over an entire population of ordinary young adults. They’re still doing it.

When you consider the documented degree of influence the CIA exerted over the record companies, radio stations, even the promotion and organisation of music events like Woodstock and Monterrey, you come to understand that successful artists weren’t selected and promoted on the basis of their artistic merit and their ideals. Instead, their designated role was to promote mind-affecting drugs. What was never admitted was that the mind alterations were long-lasting, fast-acting and permanent, leading to life-long cognitive impairment and disability. We were being programmed to eat substances that would turn us insane, by degrees. Why? So we wouldn’t make trouble for the oligarchy, while simultaneously enriching them.

The only reachable conclusion is that the music industry was and is a wholly rigged game. It has nothing whatsoever to do with artistic merit and never was. For those of us aspiring to make exciting, original, contemporary music, unless we could bring audiences closer to drugs, we were never going to get a break. Thinking we might be successful on the strength of our musical output alone, it turns out, was delusional. Art was comprehensively hijacked and subverted.

We were sold a false bill of goods. The marketing campaign promised that mind-altering substances would lead to enlightenment and contentment. Where did all the peace and love go? Where are the fruits of all the LSD-fuelled consciousness expansion? The cupboard is bare. We got nothing. We’re as subject to right-wing, conservative, reactionary ideas of conquest and machismo as we ever were – perhaps even more so. The wars haven’t ended, but the scale of civilian atrocities has markedly increased. The wealthy and powerful are wealthier and more powerful than ever.

The book is full of credible evidence. Take this direct quote from Los Angeles Police Department narcotics detective Michael C. Ruppert, for example: “As a matter of national policy, set at the National Security Council—the White House—elements of the CIA, in concert with elements of the military, and other federal agencies, have dealt drugs to Americans for at least three decades. Major defense contractors have also engaged in such traffic.”

The extent to which psychoactive substances have been used to further political and wealth accumulation agendas has been historically severely underestimated. Best-selling author Norman Ohler has unearthed a little-known element of WWII history: how drugs like cocaine and crystal meth played a crucial role in the successes and failures of the Third Reich. Adolf Hitler was hailed by his admirers as an exemplar of good health – a non-smoking, teetotal vegetarian. In fact, he was receiving regular injections from his doctor, Theo Morell. These injections contained a cocktail of methamphetamines, animal hormones, and opiates. They kept Hitler in a continuous state of chemical euphoria, and his war generals became convinced their Fuhrer had a secret weapon that would win them the war. If this could be done to the ruler of what was supposed to be a thousand year Reich, you have to wonder who really pulled the strings. Is it beyond imagining that the old money dynasties, whose wealth was built on opiates, were somehow implicated? Author Antony C. Sutton has written extensively on the matter.

If drugs have been used as weapons against us, as Potash asserts, then it follows that there is no sincere, well-intentioned war on drugs. That’s a big marketing campaign to bamboozle us too. There is only a war on drugs users. At the top of the drug pushing heirarchy, the oligarchs are to be found, according to the author. 

Another quote from the book, attributed to the late investigative writer and political analyst Carl Oglesby, states: “What we have to contemplate nevertheless is the possibility that the great American acid trip, no matter how distinctive of the rebellion of the 1960s it came to appear, was in fact the result of a despicable government conspiracy.… If U.S. intelligence bodies collaborated in an effort to drug the entire generation of Americans, then the reason they did so was to disorient it, sedate it, and de-politicize it.”

When I was a kid, one of my favourite bands was from Melbourne; a place I barely knew. There was a song on their debut album “Living in the Seventies” about the protests concerning the Vietnam war. The song was “Whatever Happened to the Revolution?” The response to the titular lyric call is, “We all got stoned and it drifted away”. In the context of the Carl Oglesby quote, the lyric has a disturbing ring of truth.

It came to light that the FBI also ran a programme of domestic counter-intelligence against musicians. The following quotation Is taken from a section on the FBI Cointelpro strategy. The memorandum detailed many tactics used against political musicians. It instructed agents: “Show them as scurrilous and depraved. Call attention to their habits and living conditions, explore every possible embarrassment. Send in women and sex, break up marriages. Have members arrested on marijuana charges. Investigate personal conflicts or animosities between them. Send articles to the newspapers showing their depravity. Use narcotics and free sex to entrap. Use misinformation to confuse and disrupt. Get records of their bank accounts. Obtain specimens of their handwriting. Provoke target groups into rivalries that may result in death.”

If that FBI quote doesn’t in some way characterise the story of the vast majority of bands and musicians that have made it big, since the sixties, I don’t know what does. It says something about how the authorities, under instruction from the oligarchs, view both the artists and their audiences. Their contempt is barely concealed. Can you name a single music artist, with activist leanings, that hasn’t been enmeshed in one (or many) of these psycho-drama traps? Are you sure that those disruptive events happened to those musicians’ lives as pure happenstance, or could agents provocateur have had something to do with it?

The middle, heavy section of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody says:

“So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye? So you think you can love me and leave me to die?”

Quite.

Perhaps it was an unintended consequence of the brain-damaging CIA drugs marketing campaign, but the result of providing a means for drug-promoting or debauchery-positive musicians to create their music is that they somehow created artistic works of genuine, lasting beauty. Far from being disposable heroes, making ephemeral, worthless art, they instead, against the odds, left us with some monumental works of artistry that have stood the test of time.

What remains, after all the dirty tricks, manipulation, thought control and debilitation, is the love and passion. Their work had integrity and authenticity. Dead rock stars are admired for that. We came together, as a community, in appreciation of that art. The music, against the script and unexpectedly, gave us solidarity, which we have so far failed to use in the service of obtaining social justice. Shame on us.

The faceless, secret agents, on the other hand – losers to a man (or woman); mere tools of wealth and power – are largely forgotten, having left no creative legacy whatsoever. They’re the real nowhere men, who wasted their lives in the service of upholding illegitimate privilege. They have blood on their hands and nothing to show for it. They might as well have never been born, for all they made of their potential.

The trail of dead musicians, whose suspicious deaths, at the prime of their lives, were never thoroughly investigated, because people were only too willing to believe the “hopeless junkie” stereotype promulgated by the mainstream media, is quite chilling. Think of the artists we lost. Imagine the art they might have yet produced. Consider that they may have, in fact, been murdered, to keep us all in line, craving security and protection from people that were actually a mortal threat to us. This never ended. It’s with us still.

Potash has written quite a chilling and disturbing book, which changes forever how we regard popular culture and the music industry. Even if shown to be true, though, few would believe it. Even writing it down makes no difference. It seems too fantastic to believe, despite the weighty evidence presented. Most just don’t want to know. People simply want to be left in peace. The oligarchs, in reality, have won. They’ve achieved what they wanted. It all turned out the way it was planned.

As an artist confronted with an industry whose sole purpose appears to be to create widespread political apathy and cognitive impairment, in order to keep us all under control, living in comparative misery, what should you do? Fight it? Comply with it, for fame? Can you dance with this devil? Many literally died trying.

My advice is to make your art for the joy of sharing an aesthetic experience. Forget stardom. It’s not worth being seen as a threat to entrenched interests. Leave them to it. Make your music, share it and call that your accomplishment. Don’t become a marketing tool for a dark agenda.Young artists ought to have a reasonable expectation of their lives and careers not being interfered with, or ruined, by people determined to protect their wealth and privilege. Sadly, if the book is correct, that’s not an expectation that can be met by the present-day music industry. You’re best off avoiding it altogether.

In response to a question about a particular high-profile groupie, the musician Julian Cope said, “Free us from Nancy Spungen-fixated, heroin A-holes, who cling to our greatest rock groups and suck out their brains.”

Australian historian Carl Trocki, an expert analyst of South East Asian affairs, noted: “Opium created pools of capital and fed the institutions that accumulated it: the banking and financial systems, the insurance systems and the transportation and information infrastructures…. Drug trades destabilized existing societies … they have the power to undercut the existing political economy of any state. They have created new forms of capital; and they have redistributed wealth in radically new ways.” This is the true business of the oligarchs and why they spend a small fraction of that wealth to control popular culture and the mainstream media completely. This is why they need to convince you to both consume their product and leave the entire business edifice they have created alone. This is how and why they farm you.

At some point, the oligarchs will overplay their hand, without anybody else doing anything. Nobody will even need to lift a finger. The revolution will inevitably come because their plan is unsustainable, given its scale. They’re trying their luck. Attempting to quell rebellion against the unacceptable, through violence and subterfuge, only delays the inevitable. Their time is running out and all the rest of us need do is watch and wait. They’re on a path to self-destruction.

Meanwhile, the music they funded to distract and damage us has given us solidarity with each other. Fans are a community. As the fiftieth anniversary re-release of Sgt. Pepper’s so amply demonstrates, we are many and they are few. Share the love. We should take back our art and our popular culture and use it to edify and enlighten, rather than degrade, abuse and prey upon people.

Obsessed as they are with power, control and wealth accumulation, the day will come when the oligarchs will realise they need the rest us to save them. They need to keep us ignorant, entertained, divided and, above all else, subservient. What if we do the opposite and, through music, become aware, engaged, united and, above all else, sovereign and dignified?

We, the ordinary, common people, simply want to live in a peaceful world, where kindness, freedom, integrity and happiness abound, instead of corruption, deceit, scarcity, hatred and greed. We don’t have to take the drugs. We need not accept degradation as inevitable.

The choice is ours.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Expressing Authentic Emotions Through Art

People are actively shamed, when they show their emotions openly and honestly. Other people shower them with derision and scorn. They often feel intense shame and try to deny or excuse their outward display of feelings. They are ashamed. 

Society generally discourages emotions, through the application of open, cold opprobrium. Even though creative thinking (actually, any creative activity) is undoubtedly and inseparably linked with emotion, it has become an ideal to think and live without emotions. “Emotional” has become a pejorative term, synonymous with being weak, unbalanced, unsound and suspect. In short, when it comes to emotional people, they’re not to be relied upon, or left in charge.

We unquestioningly accept this behavioural gold standard, yet in accepting it, we are greatly weakened; our thinking impoverished and our experience of life flattened and muted. Even so, since emotions cannot be completely killed, they exist in spite of any efforts to intellectualise them away. As a consequence, we are served cheap and insincere sentimentality in its place, by the purveyors of popular culture. Mushy, banal movies and mawkish, clichéd songs feed millions of emotionally starved paying customers. It can be very lucrative and profitable. They get away with producing it because people hungry for feelings will accept any old inauthentic garbage.

As artists, we can do better than this, of course. We should do better. Just as a starving wretch deserves nutritious, delicious food, so too the emotionally hungry deserve nourishing, sustaining, uplifting and edifying emotionally affective art works. They should be touched deeply, rather than merely teased and taunted by ultimately unsatisfying superficial sentimentality. The quality of the emotional experience matters.

The same social disapproval applies to original thinking. As with emotions and feelings, from the very commencement of education and perpetually, thereafter, original thinking is discouraged. Pre-digested, ready-made, glib thoughts and explanations are installed in people’s minds instead. Young children, born with natural insatiable curiosity and wonderment, endowed with unconstrained imagination, want to grasp their world, both intellectually and physically. They want to know why. They seek truths, since that is the safest way to orient themselves in a strange, threatening, overwhelming world. 

Adults respond by not taking children seriously. Either they are treated with open disrespect, or subtle condescension. Indeed, this is how all people who are perceived to have no power (the elderly, infirm, disabled, unwell or poor, for example) are treated. 

Through this treatment, children (and the powerless) are strongly discouraged from thinking independently. Worse still, the often unintentional insincerity is even more damaging. Trust is eroded. Children learn that they cannot take anybody, even those they love and depend on most, at their word or at face value. They begin to see the masks people put on when interacting with them. The insincerity consists, in part, of a fictitious misrepresentation of the world, which is of no use to a child seeking understanding and factual certainties, to provide security and psychological comfort. It’s all rather unsettling and disorienting.

Adults also blatantly lie to children, to conceal facts that, for various personal reasons, they don’t want the children to know. Whether through shame or simply not wishing to confront uncomfortable subjects, fits of temper are rationalised away as justified dissatisfaction with the child’s behaviour. Their parent’s sexual activities and quarrels are hidden. The child is “not supposed to know” and his or her innocent inquiries meet with polite or hostile discouragement. They’re frozen out from their own actuality and observations, taught to distrust what they perceive. Reality is distorted and their thoughts and feelings thereby devalued. It’s a form of psychological sabotage.

Spontaneity, while rare in our culture, hasn’t yet quite become extinct. Everybody knows somebody who is, or has been, spontaneous – whose thoughts, feelings and actions were an unselfconscious, pure expression of their essential humanity and individuality. They stand out because they contrast markedly with people conditioned and resigned to just exist and to live their lives as obedient automatons, content to do as they are told, to meet other people’s expectations of them. These outstanding individuals, despised by those who lack the courage to live their lives with equivalent spontaneity, are mostly known to us as artists.

In fact, an individual who can express himself spontaneously is a pretty good working definition of an artist. Using this definition, all manner of creative people, philosophers and scientists can be classified as artists too. There are other people who, though lacking the ability (or perhaps the training, or application) to express themselves in a tangible medium, like an artist does, nevertheless possess the same quality of spontaneity.

The status of an artist is precarious and vulnerable, though, because only successful artists are respected for their individuality or spontaneity. If an artist fails to sell the art they make, they’re regarded by their contemporaries as neurotic, quixotic cranks. Their failure to find a paying market is taken as proof of their intellectual incompetence. In this respect, the artist is in a similar position to that of the revolutionary, throughout history. A successful revolutionary is a revered statesman, while an unsuccessful one is a criminal terrorist.

What you notice about your own moments of spontaneity is that they invariably coincide precisely with moments of genuine happiness. Whether you experience a spontaneous reaction to a beautiful landscape, the sudden realisation of some deep truth resulting from your thinking, an innovative idea that occurs to you, seeing the solution to a seemingly intractable puzzle, experiencing a sensuous pleasure, or feeling the welling up of love for another person, these ephemeral moments are the most memorable and the ones that give us the most joy. In these moments, we instinctually know what a spontaneous act is. We gain an inkling of what human life could be, if only these spontaneous experiences were not such rare, fleeting and uncultivated occurrences. We form a vision of tangible bliss.

Commonly, we think that art must challenge our ideas and shake us, or shock us, out of our complacent ways of thinking and perceiving. The greater need, arguably, is to have our existing good ideas given greater power and prominence in our lives. If art succeeds in creating spontaneous moments, or gives rise to original, individual thought, or helps somebody feel deeply and genuinely, then it will have fulfilled a noble and worthwhile purpose.

As artists, we must be prepared to express authentic emotions, through our art. Our spontaneity should be the inspiration for others to live spontaneously too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Creative National Security

My wife is an original thinker. Stunningly original, actually. One evening, while discussing the growing threat of nuclear war, we were disturbed by the fact that nuclear weapons are only a deterrent if the elected leader is perceived to be unhinged enough for people to believe that they could be plausibly expected to launch a nuclear first strike capriciously, thereby annihilating all life. Any more reasonable, life-loving leader wouldn’t be credible enough in their role as a vindictive, deranged maniac and so the weapons would be stripped of their deterrent effect. 

This is the same leader, mind you, that people expect to be sane and balanced enough to rule for the benefit of the many. The ideal leader has to be both a model of sober benevolence and a crazed, psychopathic killer at one and the same time. People that believe in the existence of such a leader, who support spending trillions on nuclear weapons, are thought to be reasonable, sensible and moderate, while those that call the whole thing out as the insanely dangerous bullshit it really is are branded enemies of the people and risks to national security.

The theory goes that the only way to secure national security is to wield a weapon of such massively destructive potential, controlled by somebody psychologically unstable, that nobody else would dare make a move against us. It’s an argument that holds that only violence of the most extreme kind can keep us all safe. If that were true, kindergartens would train loaded, hair-trigger, automatic weapons at the faces of all children, at all times. (Some American kindergartens evidently do.)

Of course, our enemies (real or imagined) elect their own lunatic psychopaths too, placing their twitching digits on the destruction button, so the rest of us are left crossing our fingers that no single tweet sets them off into a fit of murderous frenzy, late at night. We’re essentially held to ransom collectively, dependent entirely on the impulse control of acknowledged maniacs.

How secure does that situation make us, in reality? These weapons did nothing to deter Syria. All they’ve accomplished is made it more likely that an accidental cock-up will start Armageddon. There are people crazy enough to think that this, too, would be God’s will, if it ever happened. No just and loving God would end all life through a screw up. Give me a break.

My wife’s very original thought is this: spend the money that would have been pissed away on nuclear armaments on finding cancer cures, new antibiotics and treatments to remedy thousands of currently incurable ailments instead. Become indispensable to the health and well-being of the world and not even the most crazed sociopath would bomb your country. Indeed, the necessity of electing such a misanthropic weirdo would disappear entirely.

The beauty of this solution – finding a creative way of securing life – is that invasion can’t captivate it either. You can’t steal ideas and human creativity like you can land or mineral resources. You can’t coerce a populace into producing original, innovative, spontaneous, creative ideas. Invasion would cause the flow of such ideas to end instantly. It’s something that simply doesn’t yield to violence and conquest. If you don’t treat it gently, allowing it true freedom, it vanishes. As a means of securing national security, it’s pretty strong.

People can overcome their basic fears and doubts about themselves and their place in life if they relate to the world by embracing it, in the act of spontaneous living. They gain strength as individuals and security as a society. To quote the psychologist, Erich Fromm, “This security, however, differs from the security that characterizes the pre-individualist (i.e. feudalist) state in the same way in which the new relatedness to the world differs from that of their primary ties. The new security is not rooted in the protection which the individual has from a higher power outside of himself; neither is it a security in which the tragic quality of life is eliminated. The new security is dynamic; it is not based on protection, but on man’s spontaneous activity. It is the security acquired each moment by man’s spontaneous activity. It is the security that only freedom can give, that needs no illusions because it has eliminated those conditions that necessitate illusions.”

To accomplish creative national security, through the arts and industry, a society needs to take full benefit of the uniqueness of each creative person. Quoting Fromm once more:

“The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality. The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike. Such a concept of equality is derived from the role that the individual plays in his economic activities today. In the relation between the man who buys and the one who sells, the concrete differences of personality are eliminated. In this situation only one thing matters, that the one has something to sell and the other has money to buy it. In economic life one man is not different from another; as real persons they are, and the cultivation of their uniqueness is the essence of individuality.”

In other words, if everyone were able to live creative lives, spontaneously pursuing their individual creative inclinations, they’d never feel insecure enough to need a big, bad leader with an insanely destructive weapon. Strength and stability come from unlocking the creative potential of the people. Why would anybody, fully engaged and immersed in their own creative pursuits, interrupt them in order to invade or attack people similarly engaged? What would be the reason and gain? Why would anybody need a psychopathic leader, if you were free to do with your life what you thought best?

Today, studies have amply proven that democracy is dysfunctional. The rich essentially get what they want, through the exercise of their power, wealth and influence. Government can be bought and while it is, the wishes and desires of everybody else don’t count. This is a regrettable fact. That being the case, why do the rich and powerful want the destruction of all living things? It’s pathological. It’s root cause is their own inability to live spontaneously, exercising their creativity in a security-enhancing way. These people are not well, psychologically.

So there you have it: true security comes from creativity. Those that put their faith in violence and destruction are so very wrong and the point we’ve reached in the nuclear arms race – essentially an insane stand off, costing trillions of dollars that would have been better spent enhancing life, with nobody able to back down from the extreme threats they make – is the unarguable proof. Isn’t it time we stopped believing in psychopaths and started believing in the power of our life-affirming creativity?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Love is All You Need

This article is based on my own speculations, perceptions, insights, opinions and conjectures. It’s based on first-hand observations, historical artefacts and my own life experience. If that’s not for you, stop reading now and go and look at something else. Begone with you! Go on! Be off! For other readers, I’ll share my story.

The Beatles had a big impact on my life and probably on all people my age. We were late baby boomers, growing up in a world in which our older bothers and sisters, the war babies, those quintessential baby boomers, had already begun to exert their influence. Now in their late teens and early twenties, they were already moving and shaking, via rock and roll, staking their claims to growing post-war prosperity and to positions as shapers of modern popular culture – so much so, that it was hard for us younger boomers to get a foothold or a look in. We were elbowed out long before we came of age.

The generations before them had been thinned and cowed by two global wars of such savage, industrial-scale brutality, that humanity could no longer carry on believing in what it had before. The old certainties had been worthless. The devastating aftermath of the protracted conflict was there for all to see. You could hardly avert your gaze and ignore it.

The musician, Ozzy Osbourne, described the arrival of the Beatles into mass popular consciousness as like waking up one morning and finding the world had changed completely. It wasn’t quite like that, for us baby baby-boomers. By the time we were socially conscious, in our early teens, that tumultuous change in culture was already an assumed part of the ambient landscape. All we knew of that former time were the older people, still clinging onto their now-discredited old ideas and ways, like ridiculous buffoons. To us, they represented out of touch fossils, worthy only of pity and contempt. 

One of my contemporaries put it best when he said that the sixties happened in the early seventies, in my home town. We grew up assuming the world was driven by peace and love. Therefore, discovering it still wasn’t, as we learnt during the Thatcher and Reagan eras, was doubly painful. Something precious was destroyed, over the coming decades. It still lies bleeding.

What mystified me, coming as I did from a heavy-industrial, maritime town, a place a bit like Liverpool, but in microcosm, was why the ideals of peace and love should have been so powerfully and persuasively espoused by four musicians from essentially non-descript backgrounds, in that city. What were the circumstances, the cultural and social conditions, that caused it to blossom? Why Liverpool, of all places? What set the stage and allowed it to grow? If you had to choose any epicentre, from which the Hippy counterculture was most likely to originate, would anybody have picked grey, grimy Liverpool.

A closer examination of the history of the people and place actually begins to illuminate why this should have happened here, at the time it did. You can do this by visiting the city and its many cultural and historical attractions. A pattern and picture begins to form, as surprising as it is obvious, once you take everything into consideration. It had to start here, of all places, in retrospect. It was a wholly rational response to the circumstances of place and time.


One of the most enlightening things you can do, to understand Liverpool in the fifties and sixties, is to take the Magical Mystery Tour, from the Albert Docks. It tours the childhood homes of the Beatles, as well as various places that featured in the history of the band and in their lyrics. You begin to get a sense of the world that working class and middle class suburban families inhabited, at the time. The pressures, struggles, disharmonies and sacrifices become tangible. What comes across is the search for an answer and an escape from the mundane and limited horizons that post war conformity promised.  

To that generation, people who fell in with the project and did what they were told had been horrendously betrayed by the authorities. People had literally been killed in doing so. Trust in the stable, conservative, patriarchal project, with all its arrogance and condescension, was exceptionally low, for the right reasons. The elites in power had been unmasked as utterly incompetent, despite narrowly winning the war. People knew how close they had come to losing. Outright rebellion had been averted, but only just. This is the ambient climate of thought that the Beatles absorbed, perhaps unawares, in their formative years.

Other worthwhile glimpses into Liverpool’s history can be found at the Maritime Museum and the excellent Liverpool Museum, both located on the old docks, walking distance from the commercial heart of the city and the famous Cavern Club. One of the standout exhibits was a film entitled, “The Power and the Glory?”, If I recall the title correctly (https://vimeo.com/63156381 ). The question mark in the title is significant.

Liverpool became prosperous because it was a maritime trading hub. A disproportionate share of the wealth of the British Empire flowed through Liverpool. This was wealth obtained by force, violence and conquest, not the least of which was built on the back of the slave trade. All of the city’s fine old buildings and leafy avenues were bought and paid for with human exploitation and suffering. Penny Lane, in fact, was named after one of the city’s more prolific slave traders, commemorating his wealth and influence. The dirty little secret that taints the history of the city is that it was, in the main, enthusiastically complicit in the injustices meted out in the name of commerce.

That’s not to say the city’s inhabitants weren’t honest, up-standing, industrious and hard working. It was a place of exceptional initiative and innovation. The industries attracted to this trading hub exported the genius, design and craftsmanship of ordinary people throughout the world. With the spoils, the city developed a culture of its own, funding vast cathedrals, concert halls, orchestras and theatre. Upper middle class people could live as urban sophisticates, even as their workers eked out precarious existences in icy two-up, two-down terrace houses, with outdoor toilets.

Liverpool was the embodiment of hierarchy, where everyone knew their place. This it has in common with the miniature fiefdoms that exist onboard ships, from the captain down to the firemen. People didn’t dare step out of place, for fear of summary discipline. The whole edifice ran on hierarchy, which was stable and strong; the source of all the prosperity. But hierarchy, even one as strictly observed and maintained as Liverpool’s, failed.  

As the British Empire crumbled, the injustices and conquests were simply too difficult to enforce indefinitely, so the prosperity drained away. By the sixties, Liverpool was poor and getting poorer; bypassed and forgotten. The world moved on and the wealth flowed elsewhere. Mighty industries predicated on the strength of the trading port withered and died, as did the commercial port itself.

Like all faded glory, it never died entirely. Even today, the fine buildings still stand – hollow ghosts of a bygone age. Vigour, in the city’s people, was somewhat replaced by shame and despair, though the sense of dignity and pride in past achievements never disappeared. A strange self-confidence remained, even as people endured straightened circumstances and privations. They knew what they had been capable of producing, but also felt the taint of the suffering inflicted on the nations of the world, in the name of empire.

The die-hards always try to resuscitate a dying empire by doubling down on brutal authoritarianism, bullying the weak and blaming the victims. Indeed, this is what brought politicians such as Margaret Thatcher to power. The others, seeing the bankruptcy of their leaders’ ideas, organised in worker’s collectives, attempting to redress the imbalances, inequalities and injustices. Because Liverpool’s labour force had learnt that authority was illegitimate, duplicitous and powerless to stop the decay, they opposed the privileged and were punished by successive Conservative governments for their lack of compliance and reverence, right up to the present day, but all of this was in the future, relative to the sixties.  

People instinctually knew that when the going got tough, they were left abandoned, despite their previous loyalty and dedication to the cause of wealth accumulation. The wealthy simply betrayed their minions and moved on. Materialist Capitalism and Imperialism were fickle mistresses.

The problem with slavery, plunder, violence, exploitation, authority, brutal repression and conquest is that it’s antithetical to life. It preys on life, rather than enhancing it. The predators may flourish for a while, but life eventually reasserts itself, for sheer survival. This is reflected even in domestic hierarchies. Working people were preyed upon, by the leaders of commerce, almost as much as the so-called “inferior races” were, in far-flung corners of the empire at its height. Plunder leads inevitably to ruination and the taint of moral guilt, for the reprehensible, officially-sanctioned, unconscionable behaviour to other human beings. Calling it what it is, empire was built on theft with menaces, threats and murder.

Even the oppressed, hard-working and honest people of the lower classes were dragged down with the greedy. They shared in the pain of karma and divine retribution. As the prosperity left the city, every man, woman and child felt the effects. Those with no prospect of leaving felt it worst. This is why so many Liverpudlians harboured secret dreams of escape, I think, despite their undoubted pride in their city and their family ties.

They figured it out first here, in Liverpool. Nostalgia for empire is muted. Love is all you need. Despite the worst of circumstances, familial love can sustain you. Violence is a self-evident dead-end, as shown amply by the decay of empire. Authority is not to be trusted and respect for it seldom earned or justified. This is the intellectual undercurrent John, Paul, George and Richie grew up in. These were the ideas in the air.

When looked at in the context of the city’s story, it becomes clearer why peace and love should have found vocal, articulate devotees here. The forces and pressures that could cause such an eruption were all there, perhaps more so than in other similar places, experiencing similar events. Liverpool was perhaps the biggest and so felt the changes most acutely. Unlike London, there were few alternatives open to the city, once trade with empire dried up. It was the city’s raison d’etre.

Though they figured out the universal, unarguable, inevitable answer way back in the sixties, people from other places still haven’t gotten it. Perhaps the people of Liverpool, for all their self-assurance and no-nonsense plain speaking, have begun to lose sight of the answer, too. Peace and love are all you need. Indeed, it’s all that works. Everything else ends in disaster. Denial of these fundamental truths does not change the historical evidence or the facts.

Ultimately, every member of the Beatles just wanted to be left in peace, as do we all, I suppose. You can’t keep making the case for peace and love to people that respond to it with open hostility and even murderous violence. Their art stands the test of time, though, with its potent message, even if those that once made it are gone, or tired of evangelising it.

War is over, if you want it, but apparently not enough want it. We were encouraged to imagine there’s no countries, even as we close the borders to those in genuine need of asylum.

Incidentally, the Penny Lane fire station, so evocatively portrayed in the famous eponymous song, has closed – a victim of savage austerity budgets. There is no clean machine or firemen to keep it clean, any more. Even today, Conservative governments are disciplining the city with unnecessary, ideological punishments, singling it out for the more excessive cuts. There is no peace or love offered.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dissemination Cascades

Talking about art and spending your time doing it can feel ineffectual and inappropriate, in these times. With so much political and economic turmoil and so many senseless wars in the current human consciousness, how can anybody, in all conscience, prioritise making pictures, songs or stories? Isn’t this a case of pure head-in-the-sand denial? Are we artists just running away and hiding from the horror? How can art have any effect on Sarin gas and those that would gleefully use it on babies?

A sign of our times is the Internet meme. These have come to symbolise the zeitgeist. It was with wry amusement that I encountered this meme, today. It’s germane to what I want to talk about, in this article.


If the relevance isn’t clear to you yet, let me tell you a true story. It was once the case that wolves lived prolific lives in the Yellowstone National Park, but farmers, seeing them as a threat to their livelihoods, had argued that they were a menace to human life, thereby rationalising their lust to hunt them to extinction, in that locale. Over time, wolves were, indeed, wiped out by government predator control programmes and so, no longer inhabited that particular wilderness. The last grey wolf in the park perished in 1926.

To quote Wikipedia, “Once the wolves were gone, elk populations began to rise. Over the next few years, conditions of Yellowstone National Park declined drastically. A team of scientists visiting Yellowstone in 1929 and 1933 reported, ‘The range was in deplorable condition when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then.’ By this time many biologists were worried about eroding land and plants dying off. The elk were multiplying inside the park and deciduous, woody species, such as aspen and cottonwood, suffered from overgrazing. As elk populations rose, the quality of the range declined, affecting many other animals.”. The extirpation of the wolves had caused an environmental catastrophe.

Wolves were reintroduced in 1995, relocated from Canada. This changed the behaviour of the elk population, halted overgrazing in the valleys and allowed the woodland to recover. This, in turn stabilised the river banks, changing the course of the river itself and thereby providing viable habitats for birds, insects, beavers and otters. Much of the decline was reversed by the reintroduction of a small pack of predators.

Ecologists refer to these chain reactions in the environment as “trophic cascades”. They relate to food chains, specifically, but the concept has applicability in the world of ideas too, I think. There are many situations where a small group of people can bring original ideas to the fore and these ideas subsequently cascade throughout the population, sometimes with unpredictable consequences. In ideas, and in art, your behaviour and habits change other people’s behaviour and habits and this changes the whole environment and ecosystem. There are many vivid examples. Here are some of them.

We (humanity) thought the goal of fruit growing was to produce larger, sweeter fruit. Apricots were once tiny, dominated by their stone and with flesh that wasn’t very sweet, but over hundreds of years, they were cultivated to favour larger, sweeter fruit. Now, they are so full of fructose, they adversely affect our livers, our waistlines, our brain function, blood sugar and insulin. These effects foreshorten our lives. We’ve turned our apricots (and many other foods) into a toxic substance. Unintended consequences. A cascade of things we didn’t want.

Farmers thought (and presumably still think) the main issue facing them was insects destroying their crops, so chemical weapons were developed to kill the insects. That, in turn, starved the birds and poisoned the bees. Monocultures became susceptible to the effects of the insecticide, so scientists genetically modified the crops, with genes borrowed from who knows where, so that they could be saturation-doused with chemical agents, killing even the most resistant insects, but not killing the plant. Now, a soup of insecticides can be detected in newborn babies and in mother’s milk. Nobody knows the consequences, but evidence is beginning to mount of severe long term harm. Bigger crops, but a degraded ecosystem and toxic food. That’s a trophic cadcade nobody really wanted or predicted. Yet, in the absence of behavioural changes, it persists.

Researchers are discovering that the most efficient means of real-time signalling, in distributed computer systems, is to employ cascades to disseminate the information. Block chain distributed ledgers, a technology predicted to become as ubiquitous as the Internet itself, works best when information cascades. There is no central, master controller. That architecture can’t work and won’t scale. Dissemination cascades turn up everywhere.

We find dissemination cascades in social media, too. Flickr photographs, viral videos and memes all have a cascade quality about their spread. Most of the time, we don’t even know who posted the item first. Authorship is obscured and this, too, is an unintended consequence of social dissemination cascades. They start with an act of creativity, however and this fact should excite all artists.

The source of the cascade is always an original, creative work. Block chain may, in time, preserve the authorship of such digital works, throughout the ensuing cascade and could serve to protect the originator’s rights, give artists recognition and maybe even compensate them fairly for their contribution.

Revolutions begin with information cascades. Ideas that resonate, whose time has come, disseminate like wild fire, out of control and with their own velocity. When the present regime has had its time and lost the support of the populace, deposing them can take no time at all. By the same token, it’s easy to replace the incumbent with something just as bad, or worse, at equally breathtaking speed. This is where we are today. It won’t be long until the next dissemination cascade displaces this regime too. Dissemination cascades are a powerful force.

Depression is now the leading cause of ill health and disability worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), with more than 300 million people suffering. Rates of depression have risen by more than 18 percent since 2005, but a lack of support for mental health, combined with a common fear of stigma, means many do not get the treatment they need to live healthy, productive lives. What are the cascading consequences of this epidemic? Nobody knows, but we are going to find out.

Depression is a common mental illness, characterized by persistent sadness and a loss of interest and lack of ability in everyday activities and work. It affects around 322 million people worldwide. That’s nearly 5% of all humans alive and even this may be a gross underestimate of the true number of those afflicted. Depression also increases the risk of several major diseases and disorders including addiction, suicidal behavior, diabetes and heart disease, which are themselves among the world’s biggest killers. WHO has expressed concern that, in many countries, there is little or no support for people with mental health disorders, and said only around half of people with depression get treatment in wealthier nations. On average, just 3 percent of government health budgets is spent on mental health, varying from less than 1 percent in poor countries to 5 percent in rich ones, according to the WHO. If we think this won’t end worse than exterminating the grey wolves in Yellowstone, we’re deluding ourselves. It will change the course of history, at a minimum.

Of course, rather than “treating” depression, addressing the root causes could be more effective. There is a growing body of thought that depression frequently has its roots in abusive behaviour towards the individual, a diet heavily biased toward carbohydrate consumption (which exacerbate the inflammation often correlated with depression), and the combination of increasing income inequality, the rising real cost of living and the dismantling of social safety nets. It’s all evidence of the effects of some massive dissemination cascades and the source of many others, downstream. Abused people tend to abuse people. Cascades can self-perpetuate in perpetuity.

Because of decisions made by long-dead politicians, in far-away, remote, war rooms, I came to be born in Australia, decades after the conflict known as World War II began in Europe and finally ended. My people brought their culture, ideas, ideals, life experiences, outlook, history and recipes, which profoundly changed Australian culture. The conflict spawned the Cold War, which affected my young life in myriad ways, being descended from a country then regarded as a sworn enemy of the one I was born in. I’m a living, breathing result of dissemination cascades. Interestingly, I’ve moved to a different country to the one I was born in, which shaped me into who I am. Now my very presence, both in this land and on-line, reshapes others in ways that nobody could have expected. The cascades never end.

Science is only now beginning to discover how our gut microbiome infuences our health, our state of mind and our well-being. For most of my life, its role was discounted, dismissed and ignored, but that cascade of ideas was wrong and the consequence was needless suffering and premature deaths. Our gut microbiota actually comprises a metabolome – it creates metabolites that interact with the host organism: us. We are co-dependent.

Even the effect of daylight saving changes the equilibrium of the bacteria in our digestive systems. It turns out the bacteria have circadian rhythms of their own and disturbing them, even by an hour, causes a cascade of metabolic consequences to both us and them. This new field of study is called chronobiology. Daylight saving was originally championed by a builder from Farnham called William Willett, who had no knowledge of the metabolome. The cascading of his idea caused significant consequences to our health, by a mechanism of action unknown to humanity, when his campaign was first propagated. Yet, we persist with it, over a century later, as well as shift work and a flirtation with frequent jet lag. We know not what we do.

In fact, so little was known about the composition of the microbiota in our guts, it wasn’t until 2012 that a highly heritable bacterium, with a strong correlation to the incidence of obesity, was identified and named. Christensenellaceae were not studied at all, practically, until then. It will be interesting to see how this dissemination cascade plays out. Fat shaming might turn out to be predominantly toward people with a particular bacterial infestation, which they got from the mothers. Who knows? Punitive health policies, rationalised on the belief in the fecklessness and moral turpitude of the obese, could prove to be without basis.

Another recent finding is that antibiotics, used to treat infections in people, act like a forest fire in the gut microbiome. The harm may turn out to be significant, as it affects gene expression, disrupting human biological processes, rightbdown to endocrine signalling, creating metabolic dysfunction. Antibiotics still have obvious net health benefits when used clinically, but inadvertently consuming them through foods and drinking water is not as safe as once assumed. The antibiotics contribute to their own trophic cascades. The behaviour and adaptation of infectious agents, in response to the ambient prevalence of antibiotics, leads to antibiotic resistance, thereby imperilling us all.

I’ve already discussed the use of glyphosate on genetically modified organisms (i.e. food crops), which reinforces monoculture, subsequently killing wild animals, which have nothing to eat, due to the disruption of their food chain. Glyphosate also kills wildflowers (“weeds”, in farming parlance), leaving nothing for the bees, other than the food crop itself. That’s not enough to sustain healthy gee populations and so crops begin to fail, due to the absence of pollinators. The yield is supposed to go up, yet it ultimately goes down.

Glyphosate also kills gut bacteria by the same mechanism it kills weeds – disruption of the shikimate pathway, by removing vital manganese. Mineral uptake in plants is also reduced, affecting its nutrition. What we eat is, consequently, less nutritious than it would have been without glyphosate. This greed-driven stupidity and insane pursuit of an idea that cannot fundamentally work, to deliver net benefit to humanity, is a classical example of a malevolent trophic cascade, in which humans are both unwitting victims and bad actors.

Cellular manganese content is developmentally regulated, in human dopaminergic neurons.  It affects our brain function. Dopamine dysregulation can be implicated in depression, which we’ve also already discussed above. Manganese depletion affects multiple biological processes and causes disease. Why would we grow good that is deliberately deficient in manganese, when this mineral is vital to our health? Yet that’s the very mechanism used to kill the weeds. The cascade, disseminating a bad idea, carries on like a juggernaut.

Here’s another trophic cascade, due to the invention of man-made fibres and the washing machine: the weight of plastic microfibres in the ocean, shed from our clothing when we launder it in our washing machines, now exceeds the weight of all the fish. The fish eat the microfibres, it passes into their bodies, making them sick. Then, we catch and eat the fish, ingesting thousands of these plastic microfibres (from our clothes) in every portion.

Here’s one more: because of industrial processes and the exhaustion of agricultural soils, due to over exploitation in farming, wind erosion of dry soils and industrial smoke put tiny 2.5 micron particles into the atmosphere. We breathe these in, but they’re small enough to enter our blood stream and cross the blood-brain barrier. The dust we cause, we breathe in and it ends up in our brains. It’s not supposed to be there. The damage its presence causes to our health is still largely unknown, but we’re going to find out. Trophic cascades are often insidious.

Incidentally, it has recently been discovered that lungs make blood platelets. Our very blood cells are created, in part, by an organ we’re contaminating with tiny PM2.5 dust particles, which may disrupt those platelets. Prior to this discovery, it was thought that the lungs only served to oxygenate blood, not to actually make it.

It is one of those peculiarities of consumer culture that we come to believe that Italian tinned tomatoes are the only acceptable kind. Tomatoes in tins from elsewhere remain unsold indefinitely. Nobody wants any other sort of tinned tomatoes. Only Italian ones will do. Consequently, tomatoes from all over the world are sent to Italy, to be tinned. The consumer is none the wiser. It says “made in Italy” on the tin. The added food miles are never counted, but the transport emissions put more tiny particles into the atmosphere.

Of course, some people want real Italian tomatoes in their tins. To meet this demand, great swathes of Tuscany have been given over to growing tomatoes for canning, thereby exhausting the already dry soils, adding to the atmospheric particulate burden, while simultaneously polluting the rivers with the aggressive pesticides, necessary to maintain tomato crop yields. The fish suffer, the tomatoes are tainted with pesticides and for good measure, the internal surfaces of the tins are lined with endocrine-disrupting epoxy coatings, to prevent the acidic tomatoes from corroding the tins. The tomatoes you eat contribute to metabolic signalling disorders, which probably exacerbate depression and obesity. Some cascade.

To your liver, starch is treated the same as sugar. It’s readily converted into a substance that spikes your blood sugar concentration and insulin. A primary source of starches, in our diet, is anything made with wheat flour, potatoes and other grains, such as white rice. Your liver just responds to them as sugar. However, the action of yeast on starch is that it breaks down the long molecular chains, partially digesting it.

Sourdough bread, which takes something like 36 hours to make, gives the yeast time to work, resulting in bread that doesn’t cause quite as drastic a spike in blood glucose and insulin. This is a little safer for those with insulin resistance; a widespread affliction in modern, carbohydrate-saturated populations. Within living memory, this used to be how all bread was made (though it was adulterated in several other horrendous ways).

Industrial (and even artisanal) bakeries think the 36 hours needed to make a loaf of genuine sourdough is uneconomic. They need to produce a loaf in one tenth of that time, to remain viable. Yet, people aware of the terrible health effects of starchy white bread have expressed a clear consumer preference for sourdough. Faced with this problem, bakery supply companies found a way to add sourdough flavouring to factory-made bread, to meet the consumer preference, without taking the time needed to let the yeast digest the starches. So, you get a loaf that tastes like sourdough bread, but full of unmodified, long-chain starch (i.e. sugar).

Consequently, bakers succeeded in making what is marketed and sold as “sourdough bread” dangerous to those with blood sugar dysregulation, while simultaneously making it hard to tell and trust real sourdough bread from sourdough-flavoured starchy bread. Insulin dysregulation is a killer. You need both low blood sugar and low insulin, for long life and optimal quality of health They both need to not spike wildly. It’s no joke, but while the trophic cascade remains unacknowledged, bakers recklessly endanger a significant portion of humanity, without even knowing it. Dissemination cascades sometimes spread ignorance.

Crushed by the weight of student loans, Millennials don’t want to take on any more debt. Now they are teaching their kids, Generation Z, to shun borrowing. How will traditional lenders survive, if two consecutive generations spurn credit? Who cares? Lending always was a con. Debt is a guilt trip imposed on moral people by the amoral.

The fact is that the money loaned was invented, out of thin air, the moment you signed the loan agreement. It didn’t exist, prior to your signature. There never was a moral justification to pay the lender anything, let alone the interest. The money loaned simply represents your pledge to produce enough economic value to equate to this nominal amount. The lender is just the thug that will hurt you, if you don’t. Why you should repay them for their powers of deception and intimidation is anyone’s guess. Your real obligation to produce something of value is to the community you trade with.

The lender, instead of producing something of value, parasitically gets you to do that for them, which they reap as interest payments. You produce more value than you borrowed, so that they don’t have to produce anything (other than needless, bamboozling bureaucracy, sleight of hand, threats and menaces).

This idea of spurning debt is spreading. We’ve been under the spell of one sort of dissemination cascade for generations. Will this new dissemination cascade take root and displace it, for the right reasons? Time will tell.

Why do neurons die, in brain injury cases? Nobody knew the answer, when I was young. These vital brain cells kept mysteriously dying off, long after the injury incident, resulting in terrible brain damage, observable as loss of mobility, language, comprehension, memory, sensation, personality and intellect. There are other structures in the brain, other than neurons. Astrocytes and exosomes also react to brain injury. These structures play a role in controlling the concentration of free, neurotoxic glutamates in the brain.  

Astrocytes are glial cells that moderate neural transmission. It has been found that after a brain injury, they reduce their glutamate uptake, leaving more glutamate around to kill neurons. Nobody quite knows why astrocytes react this way in response to a brain injury, but the effect is readily observable.  

Exosomes, first discovered in the 1980s, modulate cell to cell communication. It is believed that exosomes can regulate the bioactivities of recipient cells by the transportation of lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids, while circulating in the extracellular space.  

People have discovered that microRNA in the exosome can be used to push astrocytes to resume normal glutamate uptake, thereby protecting adjacent neurons. Get the exosome to send the astrocyte the right chemical message and normal functioning resumes. How miraculous! This information has not yet been widely disseminated, but it could save a lot of stroke victims from severe brain damage, for example. Let’s hope this dissemination cascade flourishes.

The political vision for society that venture capitalists are funding and building is hollow and dystopian, but that won’t change the deal flow. And they don’t believe themselves accountable to the vast majority of present and future humanity in any way. It never even enters their heads that maybe they ought to be. This is yet another dissemination cascade with profound consequences, but which few people are paying much attention to. The world you build has an inevitable political dimension. While the default vision is anathema to the rights and freedoms of the majority, a minority should not be permitted to manifest their self-serving vision unchecked. Yet, it’s happening.

Nikola Tesla said everything is connected. “Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them.”

We’ve all got to grow up and take responsibility for the cascades of idea dissemination we start and propagate. We’re the medium through which these ideas spread and many spawn trophic cascades. Spreading positive messages and doing the necessary work to arrest the destructive cascades is going to take a lot of creativity and application. That’s why making the pictures, singing the songs and writing the stories really matters. These are the tools we have to shape those dissemination cascades. This is how we make a difference.

Art is life. Creativity affirms life and counters destructiveness, in destructive times. It’s not a futile, quixotic hope to cling to art; it’s a way of reinforcing and starting beneficial dissemination cascades.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Anybody Still Interested in Art?

Serious question: does anybody care if art disappears entirely from daily life? We all seem to assume that there will always be art and music available, on demand, in abundance, for free, but who is going to make that art and how?

It has now reached the point where there is so little funding or monetary support for artists, there are practically no opportunities to get good at making it. The art that gets made suffers from the fact that artists can’t afford to dedicate and devote the time to make it really good, unless they suicidally volunteer to starve and perish.

Even if the financial incentive for making art was argued to sully the purity of the artist’s motives (an argument that never seems to be applied to financial speculators), the practical necessities for making art still have to be paid for. Who willingly pays for that? Increasingly, society is saying, emphatically, that they don’t want to. They find every which way to take the art from artists, but give nothing back. It’s nothing less than abusive.

When we consistently abuse those that care enough to produce works that spread joy, eventually, despite the noblest of intentions, they just cannot go on making them. Cannot. And so, the net stock of joy, in the world, steadily declines. Existence becomes joyless. For everyone. 

That seems to be the kind of world our leaders and the general populace wants, if judged by the actions they (don’t) take to protect the steady flow of joy being brought into the world. Their every action is to deny it’s importance, to steal it, to denigrate the artists and to actively dismantle its support structures, in the interests of economic prudence, efficiency and savings.

Well made art is substantially disappearing. It’s happening under our very noses and nobody appears to care. If anybody cares, then the actions they take to stem the tide are largely ineffectual. The destroyers are getting a free ride, with widespread public support and encouragement. Artists are being mugged. What profits there are go elsewhere; not to the artists and producers.

It’s your world. If you want it filled with badly made art, or no art, with no new songs or records, keep doing what you’re doing. Keep voting for anti-art candidates and support businesses that industrialise the cannibalisation and pillage of the artist community. Behave abusively toward authors, musicians, painters and other creative, like you do today. Encourage them all into bullshit, bureaucratic, soul-destroying jobs like yours, out of jealousy and spite. Destroy your own means of escape from the torment and drudgery. Volunteer for your own emotional enslavement. Submit.

You’ll reap what you sow. Maybe what you want is a joyless, austere world, where all that matters is material wealth, but where there are no fine things to spend it on. That might be your comfort zone. Conservative, controlled and colourless. This is the world you’re creating, by how you’re behaving. Now. It’s your present reality.

You can have it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments