Under Exmouth skies (Part 53)

 UNDER EXMOUTH SKIES (Part 53)

Italian cruise liners and cargo ships taking shelter from the Covid storm off the East Devon coast.

Ghost ships...

9 -11 - Noam Chomsky

 9-11 - NOAM CHOMSKY

Remember 9/11? It's a bit after the fact now but what was all that about then? Actually, it's a bit like in twenty years time us peering out upon the smouldering wreckage of civilization from our candle-lit caves on the Mendips and asking 'Covid-19? What was all that about then?' And just as now with Covid-19 you can seek the opinion of an expert such as a virologist who's spent their whole adult life studying viruses or you can ask some bloke who once watched a video on YouTube. Or you can ask someone like Michael Gove who's told us before that we're all a bit fed up of experts and their opinions so as an elected representative of the general public here's his opinion instead. It's a democratic society, however, and apparently there's still such a thing as free choice so I know where I'd go. But as I can't find the link right now to Michael Gove being interviewed by Piers Morgan on GMTV let's have a read of Noam Chomsky instead, shall we?

I remember watching on the news the live footage of the first fire on the morning of 9/11 and the unconfirmed reports of it having been caused by an aeroplane flying into the tower. The assumption was that it was some mad accident but when the second plane flew into the second tower incomprehension took hold. Was this a series of incredible accidents or was America under attack? Nowadays there has only to be an explosion at a waste recycling plant on the outskirts of Bristol and an announcement is made to say 'the incident is not thought to be terrorist related' because the immediate assumption is that it might be. That's how far we've come since 9/11. An immediate knock-on effect of that day.

I remember going to the Anarchist Bookfair in London that year and a meeting being held, hosted by Chumbawamba's Alice Nutter, to discuss the meaning of 9/11. The conclusion was that 'my enemy's enemy is not my friend', which seems kind of obvious now but at the time it genuinely needed to be thrashed out. All of this was at the time we should not forget of mass worldwide protests against corporate globalization. For the first time in decades the term 'capitalism' and more specifically 'anti-capitalism' was back on the agenda. In London there had been the J18 riot in the heart of The City, followed by Seattle. The G8 were being hounded and everywhere they met there were huge riots. The stakes were ever-rising and in Genoa the first death was recorded with the murder of Carlo Guiliani by the Italian Carabinieri.

On the morning of 9/11 itself, a protest was being held in London Docklands against the DSEI World Arms Trade Fair and on being informed of the attacks upon America and the Twin Towers, the protesters packed-up and went home. The decision to do so was a signifier of what was to follow - a near complete collapse of the burgeoning anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberalism movement.

In the book 9-11 (which is to all intent and purpose another collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky culled from various sources) Chomsky is asked: 'What consequences do you foresee for the Seattle movement? Do you think it will suffer as a result of 9/11, or is it possible that it will gain momentum?' to which Chomsky replies 'It is certainly a setback for the worldwide protests against corporate globalization which - again - did not begin in Seattle. Such terrorist atrocities are a gift to the harshest and most repressive elements on all sides, and are sure to be exploited to accelerate the agenda of militarization, regimentation, reversal of social democratic programs, transfer of wealth to narrow sectors, and undermining democracy in any meaningful form. But that will not happen without resistance, and I doubt that it will succeed, except in the short term.'

Chomsky, however, was wrong. The fall-out from 9/11 dealt a near death blow to the 'Seattle movement' as the interviewer calls it. When protest finally started to pick up again almost ten years later the focus had shifted almost exclusively upon environmental issues and identity politics, seeded by the Occupy Movement leading subsequently to Extinction Rebellion. 

According to Chomsky, one of the most noticeable and startling things regarding 9/11 was the way in which the mainstream media and the intellectual classes in general lined up in support of power and mobilized whole populations for the same cause. Dissenting voices were stifled or even when broadcast were accused of 'siding with the terrorists'. Tony Blair made his famous speech about the kaleidoscope having been shaken whilst in America the presiding chant drowning out everything else was 'USA! USA!'

According to Chomsky, the major explanation for the attacks upon the Twin Towers put forward by the media was that the perpetrators acted out of hatred for the values cherished in the West such as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage. As well as being at variance with everything that was known this also further stacked up the uncritical support for power.

From the mouths of the likes of Osama bin Laden himself, it was indeed a Holy War that was being fought but not against globalization or cultural hegemony but against corrupt, repressive and 'un-Islamist' regions of the Middle East and their supporters.

'Bin Laden himself has probably never even heard of 'globalization,' says Chomsky 'Those who have interviewed him in depth, like Robert Fisk, report that he knows virtually nothing of the world and doesn't care to. We can choose to ignore all the facts and wallow in self-indulgent fantasies if we like, but at considerable risk to ourselves, among others.'

The attacks on 9/11 were unquestionably acts of terrorism but so too terrorism is - according to official definitions and as evidenced by the innumerable examples Chomsky is able to give - official doctrine and not just that of the USA. Terrorism most definitely is not, as is often claimed, 'the weapon of the weak'.

It's interesting when Chomsky is asked 'Should we call what is happening now a war?' to which he replies (and let it not be forgotten that Chomsky is a professor of linguistics): 'There is no precise definition of 'war'. People speak of the 'war on poverty', the 'drug war', etc. What is taking shape is not a conflict among states.' This is very true. There is, however, a perception of the meaning of the word 'war' that cannot be denied, just as there are also very real wars that are never named as such and thus forever denied or even acknowledged.

At one point Chomsky is asked 'Can we talk of the clash between two civilizations?' meaning between the West and Islam to which Chomsky replies 'Of course not, you silly arse'. Or not in so many words but words to that effect: 'This is fashionable talk,' he says 'but it makes little sense' before reeling off a precise explanation as to why, before finishing off with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: 'Western civilization? That might be a good idea?'

Chomsky's main focus of attention these days seems to be upon environmental concerns, declaring that if mankind doesn't do something quickly about global warming then we are heading for destruction.

The world turns.

The sun rises and the sun sets.

Al Qaeda is no longer on the agenda. The ISIS death cult has apparently been smashed with only rogue elements these days making intermittent appearances. Trump has blown hot and cold with his only real legacy (apart from Covid deaths) being entrenched division on both sides of the political spectrum with a lumpen, grey mass in between wanting only a return to 'normal', whatever that means? Where the world goes from here is anyone's guess and is, of course, the eternal question. 

It should be remembered that before 9/11 occurred the global anti-capitalist movement of which this book gives mention was developing into a major force to be reckoned with, growing steadily into a many-headed Hydra that was proving ever more difficult to bring to heel. It took something as massive as 9/11 to knock it off course and though dealt a near-fatal body blow it still didn't altogether slay the dragon. In the scheme of things it's important to apply unforgiving pressure upon the leaders and their representatives of the industrial nations wherever they might meet but so too it's important to be a catalyst for revolution within your own life and within your own sphere of existence. To quote Gandhi again: 'Be the change that you wish to see in the world.'

John Serpico

In Watermelon Sugar - Richard Brautigan

 IN WATERMELON SUGAR - RICHARD BRAUTIGAN

Back to Idiosyncrasy Central with Richard Brautigan and his third novel, In Watermelon Sugar, written in 1964 and published four years later in 1968. Firstly, is there any point in even trying to understand what it's about? The answer is 'no' because it's either far too complicated or it's not actually about anything at all. What should be said about it, however, is that it's set in a place called iDEATH which may or may not be some kind of idyllic hippy commune.

The significance of the name iDEATH is that it pre-dates the use of the letter 'i' as a prefix for Apple products such as the iPod, the iMac and the iPhone, etc. Apple co-founder Steve Jobs once famously stated that taking LSD was one of the most important things he did in his life. Raised in California, Jobs was very much involved with the counterculture of the early 1970s and without any doubt would have been aware of Richard Brautigan. So might this be the germ of the seed of the idea for the name of your favourite product?

Would smoking a copious amount of hashish whilst reading In Watermelon Sugar make it easier to understand, I wonder? Probably. Smoking hash certainly helps to decipher a lot of other things that don't make sense such as David Bowie song lyrics, for example. And therein lies the clue as to what In Watermelon Sugar is actually about. It's a hashish pipe dream. A reverie. It's a float down the river. It's a daydream where your mind wanders and for a moment you're suspended eight miles high above the earth and you don't even know it.

It's that moment when you step out in front of an approaching car because you're not thinking. It's that moment when you're looking out the train window and suddenly you're at your station without realising it. It's that moment when time has gone and you're suddenly late. It's where - according to Richard Brautigan - the sun is a different colour every day, where tigers can talk, where rivers are two inches wide, and where girls float across summer lawns at midnight.

Does anybody know why at the age of forty-nine Richard Brautigan took a .44 Magnum and blew his brains out? Does In Watermelon Sugar hold any clues? Again, it probably does. Particularly in regard to a character in the book by the name of inBOIL who taunts the inhabitants of iDEATH by accusing them of not knowing what iDEATH is really about.

'You people think you know about iDEATH. You don't know anything about iDEATH.' he says 'Not a damn thing. You're all at a masquerade party.'

The inhabitants take up his challenge. 'Come, then' they say 'Tell us. We're curious about what you've been saying for years about us not knowing about iDEATH, about you knowing all the answers. Let's hear some of those answers.' Whereupon inBOIL and his gang begin lopping off bits of their own bodies with jack-knives so that they literally bleed to death in front of the inhabitants.

Does it make any sense? Probably not. It must have all made sense to at least one person though, even if that was only Richard Brautigan himself. And tragically so.

John Serpico

Wise Blood - Flannery O'Connor

 WISE BLOOD - FLANNERY O'CONNOR

My excuse is that I've never really considered it before but I never realised that Flannery O'Connor was a woman. I say 'was' not in the sense of her once being a woman but is now a man but in the sense of her now being dead, having passed away in 1964 from Lupus at the age of thirty-nine. Too young. 

Have you seen the film Wise Blood, made in 1979, directed by John Huston, and if so did you think it any good? It starred Brad Dourif in the main role, who also played the stuttering patient Billy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; the guy who Jack Nicholson said should be 'out in a Convertible, bird-dogging chicks and banging beaver'. Right? Right. It's a strange, idiosyncratic film, the kind that could only have been made in the Seventies when Hollywood was a lot more experimental than it is these days.

Wise Blood, by Flannery O'Connor - the book on which the film is based - was written in 1949 and first published in 1952. Have you seen a picture of Flannery O'Connor? Have you seen what she looked like? You should never, of course, judge a person by their appearance (nor a book by its cover) but to look at Flannery O'Connor you might never imagine such a book as Wise Blood could have been written by her, particularly knowing she was born into a Roman Catholic family in Georgia, USA, in what would have been a very ultra-conservative era. But so it goes. 

The story centres upon a character by the name of Haze Motes who on returning home from active service in the Second World War, sets himself up as a preacher in the evangelical Deep South of America. His is no ordinary religious doctrine, however, but instead is his own personal religion given the name Church Without Christ. Under his new religion there is no such thing as sin or judgement, the blind don't see, the lame don't walk and what is dead stays that way. In particular there is no such thing as Redemption because there is no Fall because there is nothing to fall from. Nothing matters but that Jesus was a liar.

Interestingly, the term 'wise blood' is never really explained and when it is mentioned it's in regard to a young zookeeper who tries to befriend Motes only to be met by rejection. 'You act like you think you got wiser blood than anybody else,' the zookeeper says to Motes 'but you ain't! I'm the one has it. Not you. Me.' This accusation highlights the question of authenticity of religious conviction and suddenly throws into doubt who the main character in the book should be - the street preacher Motes, or the lonely zookeeper? As the story unfolds their lives entwine though in the end their fates head off in completely opposite directions with the zookeeper's (involving dressing in a gorilla costume and scaring people in the woods) probably a lot better than Motes'.

Flannery O'Connor's story is embedded in a comically macabre world of religious fundamentalism, ignorance, sex, violence, and twisted, near-gothic dialogue. You can see where Nick Cave would have got some of his influences from. On an even more sub-cultural level, it's the kind of book that Nick Blinko (of Rudimentary Peni) should have written rather than his Primal Screamer novel.

The Motes character would nowadays probably be diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder though of course back then the term wouldn't have existed. And curiously, even though the Motes character preaches a kind of anti-religion the book is in no way anti-religious or a case for atheism. Instead it raises the question as to whether once the idea of Jesus is introduced to a person (or in regards to Motes, as a child born into a deeply religious family) can that person ever be free of Jesus? Even when Jesus is viewed as 'a wild ragged figure moving from tree to tree in the back of your mind, motioning you to go off into the dark where you're not sure of your footing, where you might be walking on water and not know it but then suddenly know it and drown'? And if you were ever able to free yourself of Jesus then what might you gain from it? If anything, what might you lose? Of what benefit would it be? Where would it leave you? Adopting the guise of the very animals you guard in their cages as in the case of the zookeeper heading off into the woods in a gorilla costume? Or blind from self-inflicted lime to the eyes and dead in a ditch as in the case of Motes?

Wise Blood - as it says in the blurb on the cover - is a work of very strange beauty and totally original.

John Serpico