Bohemian Rhapsody

We Con The World (WCTW) is a successful YouTube-video with 900.000 views already, that mocks the terrorists, naive apologists and rabid anti-semites, that was onboard Mavi Marmara. The video can be seen here.

Mavi Marmara was the Peace Flotilla, that the brave men and women of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) boarded a few days ago. And if you believe Mavi Marmara to be a Peace Flotilla, then I have an Antifaschistischer Schutzwall I’d like to sell you. Anyways…

Let’s get a few things clear right off the bat:

I back Israel in this conflict.

That doesn’t mean, that Israel can do no wrong. It means, that I believe that Israel only does the kind of wrong things, that highly moral people will do from time to time, when they are forced by external pressure to live entire lives in ethical gray areas.

I have yet to pass judgment on the actions of IDF following the opening of fire aboard Mavi Marmara. Footage vindicates the IDF as far as the initial opening of fire is concerned, but as for the duration and amount of live fire aboard Mavi Marmara… I’ll pass that judgment on a later date, or I may never pass that judgment at all.

With that being said…

We Con The World – what a load of crap!

The success of this video speaks volumes about… Well, actually I have no thoroughly thought through reflections on the meaning of WCTW’s success. Therefore I shall limit myself to explaining, why this friend of Israel can’t stand the latest expression of Israeli wit and wisdom.

I’ve got two minor gripes, that I’d like to move out of the way, before I proceed in the process of tearing new assholes for the the well-intentioned people behind WCTW.

Minor Gripe no. 1

There comes a time
When we need to make a show
For the world, the Web and CNN
There’s no people dying,
so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all

No people dying – my ass!

10 people died.

I know that is 10 people, who most likely aspired to martyrdom.

I know that is 10 people, who probably showed no reluctance to yell Khaybar as they headed towards the sovereign state of Israel.

I know that it wasn’t Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, Gandhi and seven other luminous dignitaries, that the world lost that day.

But I do know one thing; they were people. They died. It wasn’t a bluff.

Minor Gripe no. 2

We must go on pretending day by day
That in Gaza, there’s crisis, hunger and plague

Crisis in Gaza

There is a crisis in Gaza.

I know it isn’t Darfur or Afghanistan.

I know it is to a large extent a moral crisis.

I know it is primarily self-inflicted.

But there is a crisis, and it is not a pretend-crisis, like the pretend-wrestling-career I am having in my head right now. It is a real crisis. Real.

And with my minor gripes, thus being moved out of the way, it is time for our main event:

Lyricist Tal Gilad channels Bridget Jones

Bridget Jones contains an iconic scene, where Bridget goes way overboard in a ridiculously self-pitying performance of All By Myself.

Tal Gilad apparently channeled that scene, when he wrote some of the whiniest lyrics I can recall to have encountered through a long life of loving music. And that’s coming from someone who listened to a fair amount of Soul Asylum and Radiohead back in the day. Tal Gilad has them all outdone:

We’ll make the world
Abandon reason
We’ll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa

The world has not abandoned reason

It is an expression of a victims mentality to take the tiny fringe, that is violently and irrationally against you, and dub it “the world”.

The vast majority of world leaders have called for investigations, or has used reasonable arguments (which you and I may not agree with) to call for the sovereign state of Israel to choose to change their policies on Gaza. An on-going dialogue is not an abandonment of reason.

Hamas is not Mother Theresa

…and practically speaking nobody believes they are. Both the US and the EU has (rightfully) designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Hamas is all over the western world (rightfully) condemned in all but a marginalized fringe within another marginalized fringe.

You really have to actively want to see yourself as a victim, if you promote the notion, that Hamas is getting popular in “the world” on the back of the Mavi Marmara-disaster.

We care a lot!

Ooooh, we’ll stab them at heart
They are soldiers, no one cares

…

We’ll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper

…and this is the bit, where Thom Yorke might as well consider retirement, because he’ll never top that bit of loathe-projecting, whining cry-baby-rhetoric.

Humans generally speaking have empathy for other humans. Humans generally speaking have empathy and understanding for young men, who are put in gray spots, where white gets you killed and too dark a shade of gray gets you vilified.

They are soldiers, and a lot of people care.

In conclusion:

I like Israel.

I like the idea of confronting the Jew-bashing, imperialist, terrorist, homophobic, racist, genocidal, misogynist douchebags, that compromise a large section of Israels enemies (and yes; Hamas was represented aboard Mavi Marmara).

I like the idea of using song, humor and parody to confront the counter-enlightenment (heck, that is one of the main-themes of this blog).

I don’t like it, when political commentators from the mainstream can’t resist the urge to position themselves as outsiders bravely taking a solitary stand in defending an unpopular decision.

Why “Me Against The World” won’t get the job done…

In politics the mainstream is a good place, that we should all reach for and be proud to settle in. Being an outsider is a bad position, that we should strive to move away from. When people who reside in the mainstream insist on designating themselves as outsiders, they are effectively abandoning the entire purpose of politics and political debate.

Politics and debate is there to change the world for the better. People in the mainstream are in a position to do just that, but they have to embrace the fact, that they reside in the mainstream to truly take advantage of the opportunities that the mainstream offers. You’ve got to be aware of and acknowledge your power, before you start using it.

Holding on to your mainstream-opinions, while taking up position on the outside of the mainstream, reduces politics to posing.

Jesus & Mo pretty much says it all…

*****

My headline is unashamedly ripped off from The Postmans entry in the comments-section. You can see his blog here.

The latest update to my Facebook-profile:

Today is the 5th anniversary of the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh. His “crime” was that he shot a movie based on a Islam-critical manuscript by the ex-Muslim Womans Rights-activist Aayan Hirsi Ali.

His last words directed at his assailant was “surely, we can talk about this…”

If Azadi Square is the new Tianenmen, then TehranLive provides the new ‘Tank Man’-image:

Hat-tip to TwitPic

Recommendations:

#iranelection at Twitter

Another powerful TwitPic

Green is the designated color of the protests, but that ain’t easy

Inspired by fail-blog:

Islamandbuddhism.com is a website dedicated to exposing the erroneous beliefs of Buddhism, thus proving that Islam is indeed the one true religion. I guess you could characterize that as a Message Fail, but this blog-post is not about the Message Fail, but rather the websites brilliant contribution to the art of Communication Fail:

You can read all about it here:

Oh, no… wait a moment, you can’t… The text is gone…

Oh, now it’s back. You can read it here…:

Oh crap. It is gone again.

*****

Islamandbuddhism.com has decided that the best way to get their message across is blinking text.

Yes, that’s right… Blinking text. As in a text that blinks. Blinks as in disappears and reappears at a high frequency. Blinking text as in… oh, crap – just go and see for yourselves.

Blinking Text – an idea so simple and yet so revolutionary, that only a true genius could have thought of it.  …or maybe not.

To put it in other words:

FAIL!

Inspired by this post on CAPAC’s blog:

Top 3 worst cross-overs from Wrestling into Music

*****

No. 3

Ultimate Warrior vs. Phil Collins

The Ultimate Warrior has the highest ‘exposure to talent’-ratio of any wrestler in the long and glorious history of the industry. The guy had tons of charisma and a complete inability to understand the nature of a wrestling-match. The only reason that this man ended up competing in excellent matches is because his opponents worked their asses off to make Mr. Charisma look good.

So what happened when Ultimate Warrior squared off against opponents, who did not have the ability to make him look good? Let’s watch this match between Ultimate Warrior and The Phil Collins, and we’ll find out. The video starts off with a Warrior-less and Collins-less comedy-skit, but the attention turns to wrestling about 30 seconds in.

*****

No. 2

Hulk Hogan vs. Dolly Parton

Dolly Parton is one helluva gifted song-writer. I am a Dolly Parton-fan. Hulk Hogan is the biggest superstar in the history of professional wrestling. A meeting of these two greats is bound to be magic.

Magic turd with vomit on top, that is.

This is Dolly Partons 1987-video for ‘Headlock on my heart’.

The first time that I saw him
Was in a wrestling magazine.
Then I watched him on TV,
Then I bought a ringside seat.

His name was Starlight Starbright,
The greatest in the land.
He sprinkled stardust in my eyes
I was his biggest fan.

He’s got a headlock on my heart.
It was a takedown from the start.
He’s a master of the art.
He’s got a headlock on my heart.

I’ve got two things to say about these lyrics:

1) His name was Starlight Starbright… Starlight friggin’ Starbright? Are you kidding me? …you sure you’re not kidding me? Who the fuck would want to wrestle under that moniker?

2) A headlock is a move that is popular with wrestlers, as the headlocked wrestlers mouth is not visible during the headlock, thus allowing communication. In other words, it is a move that is often enforced by inexperienced rookie-wrestlers, who get stumped in the middle of a match and needs the advice of their opponent (read: partner). Oh, well…

The song is actually OK, but it has to be ruined by Hogan cut… Erhm, I mean Starlight Starbright cutting corny promos over the song, and Hog… I mean Starlight and Dolly taking their wedding vows in the center of the ring. Here goes:

*****

No. 1

Vince McMahon performing ‘Stand Back’

What would you do if you were the most successful promoter in the history of professional wrestling, a billionaire and had no singing talent whatsoever?

Well, obviously you would display your complete lack of musical talent at the cheesiest award-show in the history of cheesy award shows; The Slammys. A short-lived wrestling award-show from the 80′ies. How cheesy was this show? Well, in 1987 one of the awards wasn’t awarded because Sika (a Samoan savage) ate the envelope with the winners name in it.

If you always wanted to listen to a billionaire who can’t sing, but has reserved a slot on American prime time TV to do so anyways, then this clip is for you:

Without any vain hopes of writing in the vein of the two great atheist treatises that inspired my headline, Bertrand Russels ‘Why I am not a Christian’ and Ibn-Warraqs ‘Why I am not a Muslim’, allow me to introduce:

Why I am not a Buddhist

Unlike Russels and Ibn-Warraq, whom no one would accuse of either Christianity or Islam, it would be not be entirely unreasonable to call me a Buddhist. Allow me to explain;

I do try to follow the teaching of the Buddha on many points. I have gone for refuge, I try to observe the 5 basic moral precepts and I meditate two hours every day and have done so for about 12 years. I regularly go on meditation-retreats and I have volunteered and even organized scores of such retreats over the years. In the 12 years I have gone from being a mentally disturbed, borderline clinically depressed, drug-consuming, law-clashing unsettled bohemian traveller to the reasonably mellow and quite happy bohemian traveller that I am today. Some people might say; ‘hey, that’s pretty damn Buddhist behavior right there, you moron…’ Well, I beg to differ. Allow me once again to explain:

I do try to follow some of the teachings of the Buddha, but I do not equate that (or even consider it similar to) practicing Buddhism. You must by now be familiar with my refrain; allow me to explain:

What is Buddhism?

Buddhism is various things to various people, but most commonly (in the Theravada-traditions at least) Buddhism is considered to be a package. This package contains a set of beliefs believed to be taught by the Buddha, and a set of practices. The rebirth-doctrine, refuge, respect for the order of monks, various moral obligations, various teachings on human nature etc. Even though it is rare to see coercion used in the promotion of this package, Buddhism is certainly widely considered to be the whole package and not just select bits of it. That doesn’t mean that a Buddhist can’t pick and choose though.

Consider Buddhism to be a pizza with many great toppings, amongst them olives. Say you don’t like olives, what do you do? Do you throw away the entire pizza, and pronounce damnation upon the day that you bought such a horrible pizza? …or do you act more wisely and simply remove the olives and enjoy the rest? Well, Buddhism generally allows you to unsubscribe from certain beliefs or practices. Most Buddhists would allow you to remove the olives from Buddhism.

You don’t believe in rebirth? Fine, don’t believe it… You can still be a Buddhist and enjoy the rest of the package.

You don’t believe in the value of the 5th moral precept which obligates you to abstain from intoxicants? Fine, don’t believe it, have a beer… You can still be a Buddhist and enjoy the rest of the package (as and when you are sober enough to do so).

So in this ridiculously simplified manner I’ve told you that a) I follow a lot of The Buddhas teachings, and b) Buddhists are usually very free to pick which parts of Buddhism they follow. Which probably makes it even more dumb-founding that the question kicking off this article is the question of why I am not a Buddhist.

Why I am not a Buddhist – this time I’ll actually answer the question…

Buying a pizza and removing your least favorite topping is the wrong way of going about the thing. In life you have to select your own toppings, not approve or disapprove of another mans choices. Let me relate this pizza-analogy to the teachings of The Buddha:

The Buddha once gave a sermon, which to later generations got to be known as The Buddhas Charter of Free Enquiry. It pretty much ends with the following famous quotation:

* Do not accept anything on mere hearsay
* Do not accept anything by mere tradition
* Do not accept anything on account of rumours
* Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
* Do not accept anything by mere supposition.
* Do not accept anything by mere inference.
* Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances.
* Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.
* Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable
* Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (i.e. do not accept anything based on authority, not even any authority you might accord to The Buddha)

But when you know for yourselves – these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to ruin and sorrow – then reject them.

When you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness – then live and act accordingly.

Pretty cool discourse, eh…?

Now if The Buddha were merely trying to make a point about intellectual independence, then certainly he was making a dumb fuckin’ point.

Do not accept stuff because wiser men who have gone before you advocates it? Well, that would be society’s collapse if ‘accepting stuff’ wasn’t our default-mode. Not to mention a sure guarantee that tons of children won’t live to see adulthood, because they didn’t accept their parents advice of not playing amongst the cars on the highway.

Do not accept stuff due to your intellectual reasoning, but wait until you have gained experimental knowledge of the field yourself? Well, that would throw the entire field of theoretical astrophysics out the window. Not to mention that it would force me to question the existence of Australia, as I have no experiential knowledge of said continents existence.

Obviously the ‘don’t accept it until you’ve experienced it’ is not a universally applicable principle. I am convinced though, that it does apply to mental diciplines. It is a mental blockage to receive preconceived notions of morality, human nature, your own nature, the universe and your place in it. This is stuff you should strive to develop yourself.

Now such striving could – of course – be easily undertaken by a Buddhist. It can just as easily be undertaken by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, or whatever. Certainly no philosophical perspective, metaphysical convictions or nominal sectarian identity is a hindrance for stepping onto a path of self-development. But as for the progress on that path…

Building up to the conclusion

If you strive to get a grasp of morality, while subscribing to a set of morals, then your striving could very well be stunted by your intellectual and devotional commitment to those morals. You will be less equipped to intuitively practice that morality, because it will not be based on your own experiential understanding of its worth.

If you strive to get a grasp of your own humanity, while subscribing to a view of existence, then your striving could very well be stunted by your intellectual and devotional commitment to that view. You will be less equipped to intuitively live according to that view, because it will not be based on your own experiential understanding of its worth

The Buddhas Charter of Free Enquiry (not to mention common sense, the feeling in my gut, the thoughts in my brain and – oh, so ever importantly – MY EXPERIENCE) encourages you to go D.I.Y. Do It Yourself.

Do it yourself, and you can’t possibly be a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever. And that, my friends, is why I am not a Buddhist.

Conclusion:

In my experience, D.I.Y. is the way forward. I am so convinced of this point, that I am not even going to argue it further due to my conviction that your intellectual conviction is irrelevant to the point that I have been trying to make.

If you choose to accept my larger D.I.Y.-point, then it should follow that teaching any -ism within the field of mental or moral growth is counterproductive to said growth. Whether you are a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever… Whether you are a ‘master’, guru, lama, imam, preacher etc., you’d be better off giving simple instructions as to how your student might choose to work on his own. The aim should be for the student to reproduce – as opposed to copy – whatever results you feel you have attained, and gives you an entitlement to teach. From there on, you can only hope that he or she ends up with whatever benefits, that you have gotten from your own practice.

And if you do that, whatever you are teaching can’t be labelled as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc. without violating the very thing, that you are teaching.

At a recent trip to the cinema I saw a trailer for The Reader.

It looks like a great movie, and I’ve already downlo… I mean; I can’t wait for it to reach the Danish screens.

Now one major thing about the trailer did bother me:

Why do all the main characters speak English with a funny accent?

I can understand why a profit-seeking movie-producer would opt to portray historical events in English, despite the obvious historical inaccuracy of having English as the language of a German court. But…

Does anybody really feel that this historical inaccuracy is somehow rectified, if the characters speak with a funny accent?

Does anybody think that English spoken with a slightly German accent sound anything at all like German?

Does anybody have a visceral experience of ‘the Germaness of it all’ because of that funny accent?

If so, would those people have had a less fufilling experience if Kate Winslet just spoke with a British or American accent as we all know she is capable of?

It is just one of those… Things that make you go HMMM…

Before I address Mos Def, let me address my readers:

Is English your native language?

If so; congratulations!

Congratulations on winning the first prize in ‘The Great Global Lottery of Languages’. While some us are raised with a language spoken by a mere 5 million people, your birth bestows upon you a great privilegie. You will speak the dominant language of this world as your mother tongue, while the rest of us struggle to learn it through equal parts education and osmosis (osmosis because the English language is all around us, even in far flung Denmark).

Speaking English will open up doors to career-opportunities, travel-experiences and a world of litterature, movies and arts (more movies, books, artworks get translated into English than any other language in the world). But like any lottery-winner, you must also heed a warning:

DON’T FRIGGIN’ SQUANDER AWAY YOUR WINNINGS

I just saw the most recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. His guests were the Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, the British secularist Christopher Hitchens and the American rapper and political activist Mos Def. It was sort of like the old song that used to eminate from Sesame Street: One of these things is not like the others…

Maher, Rushdie and Hitchens were all wise and witty. Mos Def… Well, half the time I didn’t know what he was saying. Don’t get me wrong; I understood every single word he said. But still I had a very limited idea about what he actually aimed to say by combining those exact words in the manner he did.

Mos Def applied alternative grammatics and terminologies in a way, which I as a European only get exposed to in some pockets of African-American culture. I am sure there is a politically correct term for this language, and I know that the politically correct term is not ‘talking black’. I will happily use the proper term in the future, if anybody informs me what that term is.

I’ve got nothing against transforming the English language for artistic means, and it must be said in Mos Defs defense that such a transformation is his job. He is a rapper after all. Likewise, I have nothing against pockets of society developing their own twist on the prevalent language. And finally, I have nothing against bilinguals having a less than stellar grasp of the English language. But…

When you have a chance to get your message out to a global audience…

When you are debating with people who speak standardized English…

When you have an idea that you wish to promote across cultural and linguistic lines…

When your primary audience is a country full of immigrants, who are having a hard enough time learning English in the first place…

Please do your audience, yourself and your message the favor of speaking a standardized version of the English language…

Dearest Mos Def;

You are a Grand Prize winner in ‘The Great Global Language Lottery’. By virtue of your blessed birth you will be raised to speak English. You will be educated in the standardized use of the English language by teachers who are themselves native speakers of English.

Not only did you win that priceless Grand Prize. Your succesful career as a rapper is indisputable testimony to your gift of linguistic intelligence.

Now as a rapper, you should by all means keep on reinventing the English language. But when you appear before a worldwide audience as a political activst, then please… plesase… PLEASE…

Please apply your linguistic intelligence to mastery of the standardized version of the English language.

During the two of your Real Time-appearances that I’ve watched, I’ve managed to catch a few of your points. You’ve voiced doubt about Muslim involvement in 9/11. You’ve objected to Bill Mahers jokes at Islams expense. You’ve advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament as a response to the Iranian nuclear programs.

Those are all very interesting points to be advancing. In fact those points are so interesting, that by now I’d really, really, really like to listen to and understand your argument in favor of these outlandish positions.

So please do this pentalingual listener the favor of speaking standardized English the next time you appear as a political activist in front of a global audience.

********

Will you be my Valentine?

Really? You will…?

Well, I don’t think so INFIDEL SLUTS!

********

So if anybody out there imagines that I am going to ask them to be my valentine, I’ve got seven words for you:

Read the poster and repent your sins.

Nah, seriously…

I took this picture last year at Hussain Sagar Lake in Hyderabad, A.P., India. The sweet little twist to the story is that the poster was posted right outside the park adjacent to the lake, a park was full of adorable Indian couples doing their best to ignore the poster and enjoy a bit of privacy.

So to everybody who will spend this Saturday with a loved one; I wish you all the joy in the world…

…because the afterworld will bring nothing but torment upon your wrteched, little heathen-souls.

B.t.w.: Anybody and everybody should feel very free to copy this poster, and post it wherever they want. I think the poster has potential to be an internet-meme. The full-size-picture is here.

Update: Hat-tip to Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen for suggesting this update:

Unilke Winston, she has grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex-instinct created a world of it’s own which was outside the Party’s control and therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship. The way she put it was:

‘When you make love you use up energy and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn about anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If your happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?’

George Orwell, 1984