I may be biased on this subject and am pretty sure of at least one dissenter to this view. I have been thinking on what would be the music best suited to support a popular uprising against this current authoritarian government should it somehow manage to obtain power in the upcoming election. I shall list as many genres as I can think of an attempt to argue both sides for each genre.
House/Techno/Garage... the rave/club music.
Pro: When the rave scene first came about Thatcher made laws to stop it such was the fear the establishment felt of it. Connected with a disregard of authorities.
Cons: Disconnected from politics, its disregard of authority is through apathy and ignorance rather than deliberate.
Classical
Pro: Music that can inspire people to great deeds, from a time before current politics, disconnected from politics
Con: Seen as an elitist genre of music, can be too complex for many people, too long
Musicals
Pro: Written for groups songs, some very connected to the people's struggle against power 'Les Miserables', populist and catching
Con: Popular contemporary musicals are mechanically produced, contrived, escapist and fail to engage with any principles of a liberal revolutionary.
R n B (rhyme n beatz)
Pro: Large popularity base to access
Con: Complete absence of politics, escapist, contrived by suits
Hip Hop
Pro: Politically motivated music genre, real passion in music, about struggle against authoritarian power
Con: Modern version (krunk) is contrived and removed from politics, struggle was not just liberal but also racial
Pop
Pro: Popular
Con: Contived by men in suits, only apolitical if no threat to status quo that wasn't contrived by the suits
Jazz
Pro: Apolitical
Con: Elitist, lacking emotion necessary for revolution
Blues
Pro: Music of political struggle, extremely emotive, popular not populist
Con: Already music of a political struggle, struggle more racial than political
Punk:
Pro: Very political, extremely passionate
Con: Used in prior political struggle, declined since end of Thatcher
Metal
Pro: Sometimes political, extremely passionate, continuous hard-core large fan-base over all generations
Con: Lacks huge support, politics vary
The last three genres are listed in order from 3rd to 1st.
I believe that metal would be the correct candidate. Blues was for the black man against the white master. Punk was the middle finger at Tatcher. Metal has yet to really have its fight against the authority. The lyricists of metal bands may vary from left to right, but when you tell them what to do they will casually light up a fag, flip the fingers at you, blow smoke in your face and tell you in so many words to "go away and leave us alone or unpleasant things will happen to your body." Metal does have its softer side, its remorseful side, its melancholic side. The songs that are sung to remember the beloved deceased, but come battle what other genre is there to compare. There is no 'Battle Punk' or 'War Blues'. I doubt there are any other genres so popular that are so inclusive either. How many popluar/significant genres had their 'dress code' decided by a gay man. This is a genre that simply demands respect, give it and you shall be shown an equal measure, show intolerance and you shall be scorned.
Please do disagree, this has been written when tired and tipsy, and I know that I have forgotten rock, I shall do it as an editorial tomorrow or something. But in the war of the liberals against the authoritarians, I know which genre should own the anthem for the liberals.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Friday, 12 March 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
Where will the war end?
I have just read a brilliant blog post about climate change by Brian Micklethwait of samizdata.net. I feel that there is a fantasy/war fiction/steampunk novel in this post. I have no idea if their was any intention to create this feeling of an epic in waiting. Being a climate sceptic I agree with a lot of what is said, so that may help in what I felt as I was reading...
A small village, that keeps itself to itself, in a small county of a giant nation governed by a weak ruler who hides behind his trusted advisors. Slowly the evil and malice of these advisers starts to pollute the nations minds. This once liberal land starts being crushed under the heelof the ruler's name. The majority, unthinking, just continue with their lives slowly being subverted by the lies of the propoganda machine, ignoring the quiet disappearances of those who start to question. The lord of the small county, who was a reasonable man preaching of understanding and accomodation, is summoned by the ruler to be brought to heel.
For some time an intelligent, presumed mad, and badly tolerated member of the isolated village has been trying to tell the village of what is happening, of these malicious forces bent on domination, determined, and monstrous these shadows. It is not until the summons of their Lord does anyone seek to question the old man on his opinions. In questioning a part yet not the whole of the group of people whom question him come to doubt and investigate. In the questioning they begin to realise the danger of this misinformation and start to work to build a point of defence from where to attack the chinks in the armour.
Slowly, word starts to reach the advisors of this redoubt of hope, by this time expanding slowly to encompass most of the small county. Upon the obtaining of this information a force is sent to swat them away, to arrest and slaughter the higher echelons of this free-thinking collection. As this force moves to crush this rebellion of thought word of these secret actions start to spread throughout the nation, with more people flocking to the banner.
This primary force meets with a small amount of success, but fails to destroy the uprising, merely containing it. Reinforcements are requested, again the advisor's misjudge the power of the movement sending in sufficient support. When battle is next enjoined, the forces of the ruler are crushed. The support for the resistance grows rapidly. Elite soldiers and commanders flock to the banner of the rebels and the truth they stand for.
The rebels consolidate their gains and prepare for the next assault. The ruler's advisor's are in disarray, all arguing with no leader. Finally a group of the more extreme members of councillors gains control. They summon the army and prepare for total war.
Meanwhile small elite groups of soldiers have been sent to prepare for the assault of the castles, keeps and hill forts of the enemy. The remaining troops ready for battle knowing the cost of failiure and willing to sacrifice. The armies of the enemy draw near the battle lines are drawn and the nation holds its breath for the first charge. Unknowingly, in skirmishes being fought all around the armies, a convoy containing correspondence for the upcoming fight, and the long running campaign of propoganda is captured. This, the commanders of both sides hide one waiting for the time to strike, the other in the hope it was destroyed and was not captured. Intelligence is recieved on the planned date for the first offensive by the coucillors. The signal releases the, now much duplicated, correspondance to be released to the enemy.
The clash of arms the following day is a hard fought victory for the warriors of the county, but the defeat causes large amounts of desertion from the councillors ranks. Battle after bloody battle is fought in a rear gaurd action, with the extreme councillors often entering the fray to rally troops. Soon one is lost, the others start to cause dissent in the ranks of the councillors army causing the more reasonable councillors to leave with the majority of the army and retreat further to other strongholds. The tide of the county' army unstoppable marching through scorched ground littered with bodies, few from their own side, eliminating pockets of resistance with clinical effiency.
The uncontrollable advance of the counties troops extends near to its limits. The commanders upon seeing this call for a halt and regrouping, some heed the call, others still with the bloodlust carve out the remaining of the extreme councillors forces.
This shattered land now lies still, in the eye of the hurricane. An uneasy and unnatural calm that onl makes those whom observe fret and fear. Where will the fight continue... Can the councillors be overcome...
A small village, that keeps itself to itself, in a small county of a giant nation governed by a weak ruler who hides behind his trusted advisors. Slowly the evil and malice of these advisers starts to pollute the nations minds. This once liberal land starts being crushed under the heelof the ruler's name. The majority, unthinking, just continue with their lives slowly being subverted by the lies of the propoganda machine, ignoring the quiet disappearances of those who start to question. The lord of the small county, who was a reasonable man preaching of understanding and accomodation, is summoned by the ruler to be brought to heel.
For some time an intelligent, presumed mad, and badly tolerated member of the isolated village has been trying to tell the village of what is happening, of these malicious forces bent on domination, determined, and monstrous these shadows. It is not until the summons of their Lord does anyone seek to question the old man on his opinions. In questioning a part yet not the whole of the group of people whom question him come to doubt and investigate. In the questioning they begin to realise the danger of this misinformation and start to work to build a point of defence from where to attack the chinks in the armour.
Slowly, word starts to reach the advisors of this redoubt of hope, by this time expanding slowly to encompass most of the small county. Upon the obtaining of this information a force is sent to swat them away, to arrest and slaughter the higher echelons of this free-thinking collection. As this force moves to crush this rebellion of thought word of these secret actions start to spread throughout the nation, with more people flocking to the banner.
This primary force meets with a small amount of success, but fails to destroy the uprising, merely containing it. Reinforcements are requested, again the advisor's misjudge the power of the movement sending in sufficient support. When battle is next enjoined, the forces of the ruler are crushed. The support for the resistance grows rapidly. Elite soldiers and commanders flock to the banner of the rebels and the truth they stand for.
The rebels consolidate their gains and prepare for the next assault. The ruler's advisor's are in disarray, all arguing with no leader. Finally a group of the more extreme members of councillors gains control. They summon the army and prepare for total war.
Meanwhile small elite groups of soldiers have been sent to prepare for the assault of the castles, keeps and hill forts of the enemy. The remaining troops ready for battle knowing the cost of failiure and willing to sacrifice. The armies of the enemy draw near the battle lines are drawn and the nation holds its breath for the first charge. Unknowingly, in skirmishes being fought all around the armies, a convoy containing correspondence for the upcoming fight, and the long running campaign of propoganda is captured. This, the commanders of both sides hide one waiting for the time to strike, the other in the hope it was destroyed and was not captured. Intelligence is recieved on the planned date for the first offensive by the coucillors. The signal releases the, now much duplicated, correspondance to be released to the enemy.
The clash of arms the following day is a hard fought victory for the warriors of the county, but the defeat causes large amounts of desertion from the councillors ranks. Battle after bloody battle is fought in a rear gaurd action, with the extreme councillors often entering the fray to rally troops. Soon one is lost, the others start to cause dissent in the ranks of the councillors army causing the more reasonable councillors to leave with the majority of the army and retreat further to other strongholds. The tide of the county' army unstoppable marching through scorched ground littered with bodies, few from their own side, eliminating pockets of resistance with clinical effiency.
The uncontrollable advance of the counties troops extends near to its limits. The commanders upon seeing this call for a halt and regrouping, some heed the call, others still with the bloodlust carve out the remaining of the extreme councillors forces.
This shattered land now lies still, in the eye of the hurricane. An uneasy and unnatural calm that onl makes those whom observe fret and fear. Where will the fight continue... Can the councillors be overcome...
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Legalising Mass Murder
I am sitting at a desk in the offices of BBC worldwide, getting paid to watch Blue Peter and generally feeling very bored. Out of the corner of my eye I can see the Iraq inquiry going on, which I can't watch as I have to pay attention to Blue Peter, or hear, I am in an office. The whole concept of the Iraq war got me thinking, how can one legalise such a terrifying act as war and in whom should the power to make this decision be placed?
On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.
Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.
The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.
The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.
Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.
In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!
I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.
Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.
So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?
On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.
Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.
The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.
The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.
Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.
In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!
I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.
Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.
So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
