Cloverfield, the movie

I watched the film for entertainment, expecting nothing other than mind-numbing entertainment and suspension of my reality. I came out of the cinema, though, with a very deep feeling and bunch of thoughts.

The movie was excellently produced, and it featured many various excellent locations and scenes. The special effects and graphics were precedent-setting and fantastic. Yet because of these good aspects, the negative aspects were even more obvious and were accentuated in the audience’s minds: some shoddy acting, a terrible – nay, appalling – screenplay, and some very poorly directed chapters. At certain times my fellow cinema-goers and I scoffed as we witnessed improbable-car-jump after improbable-car-jump as the movie did nothing to suspend our disbelief.

2012, the movie

The amount of money that was spent on making the film was an obscene $200 million USD (c. £100m GBP). [Source]

Reverse thinking

The money could have been spent making a film which depicted the actual effects of a real climate change; one that we know has already started. So, at some point one or more persons made a decision to make the film 2012.

If I had the money and resources that the 2012 creators had I would have made a film, more like Cloverfield, only it would be depicting the impact of ‘climate change’ as it is contemporarily called.  2012’s story is that of an event which isn’t foreseeable. Instead a film could have been made about the foreseeable horror of what is going to happen (and is indeed already happening in some parts of the world): the wrath of man-induced climate change.

Man stands beside a tree as he watches the 'king tides' crash through his families sea wall, and the sea spills onto his family property, on the South Pacific island of Kiribati.

Imagine what a change could have been effected. The opportunity to open such a large audience’s eyes before Christmas 2009 by shoving in people’s faces a visualisation of the likely effect of global climate horror was foregone. Instead, a corny, almost comedy-like film is screened at cinemas worldwide.

The special effects orchestrators et al. could have been working towards a film and a cause which could have made a real difference to better humanity. The animators could have been put to work making the most fantastically realistic and powerful portrayal of what is happening and what will happen even more to the planet if we continue on this path as we know it – horrendous climate change and human inactivity in solving it.

Climate politics

Instead the film, and I intend not to foster ideas of conspiracy, made a point out of the earth’s natural trends, its own will, and our inability to affect it. This very point is one of the main arguments put forward by those who deny climate change as being man-made and our acting to redress its effects. Interesting. Very interesting.

So when people go to sleep at night having watched 2012, their subconscious dreams about all they’ve seen that day. It dreams about moments from the film, the story they’ve viewed, the characters they’ve empathised with, and it dreams also of how all of this effects the dreamer’s life. Then, remarkably, as it does every night, it makes a logicalisation, rationalisation, categorisation, and organisation of these ideas. Some of the dreamers’ minds will conclude in such a way as to reinforce the idea, belief, message, and portray of reality of those which deny man-made climate change. If this isn’t the case with all the viewers, which I expect it isn’t, it must be the case with at least a few. What a tragedy. What a tragedy that the opportunity to effect such change, such change on peoples hearts and minds has been wasted in such a pathetic way in making 2012.

Qualification

The film does, of course, open people’s eyes and minds to the issues of death, the human race’s survival, and destruction on planet earth – and this is good –, but the points I’ve made afore override this benefit, I believe.

Conclusion

An amazing movie could have been made. There could have been a heroic act, but no heroic act took place. Instead, in 2012, just ‘another’ crappy film was made.

Whereas I chose to use my vote in the elections, many people chose not to, leading to a generally low average turnout. This low turnout is normal. The traditional analysis largely says that low turnouts are due to laziness and ignorance. This is the received wisdom within our society, pushed and perpetuated obliviously by the education system and mainstream media. The truth, though, is that much of the apparent disinterest in voting is due to abstinence - people simply choose not to vote.

‘Voting’

I recently watched a movie about climate changed called The 11th Hour. Toward the end of the movie, when it begins to advocate action, a woman called Gloria Flora talks about how citizens can take simple steps to help stop climate change:

“You can also vote - and I don’t mean voting at a voting booth. Anybody of any age can vote because you vote everyday that you pay for something. Every time you lay money down on a counter to buy something you are saying that: ‘I approve of this object, I approve of how it was made, the materials that are in it, and what’s going to happen with it when I no longer need it and throw it away’.”.

We have much more power than just the conventional vote at the voting booth. We have the power to ‘vote’ and effect change in so many other ways, everyday: when we buy things, in the way we treat others, and in the way we treat ourselves.

Indeed, we could say that those who chose not to vote at election time are even ‘voting’ not to vote.

In my past I have ‘voted’ in extraordinary ways sometimes. I originally applied to University to study Politics and Philosophy. I received offers from some wonderful and prestigious universities. I ended up refusing all the places I was offered. Looking back now, one of the effects of my decision was to ‘vote’ against the political system as a whole. How, you ask? Well, I suddenly realised that I was not going to let myself be a product of the system and be part of the ‘excess’ and ‘mass’ that our system spits out. I told a friend: I just don’t want to be taught other people’s understandings of world events and international affairs in an academic environment. Ultimately, I didn’t want my moral consciousness to be sucked out of me by the system.

The paradigm and belief that we have no real power other than the conventional vote is extremely destructive. It sustains disintegration in our society, disregard for others, and the general “lack of moral consciousness” which is increasingly prevalent. This has all led to a general lack of a sense of community in our country which is ultimately the biggest social problem in our country today.

Why the disillusionment? Examining the system

It’s not difficult to see why thousands of people are disgusted and disillusioned by our political system and how great power treats people. People feel that politicians, their actions and policies are often disconnected from reality, humanity and morality, and distrust them.

In taking a look at some key people who have risen to the most powerful places within our society - if we look at the top of the food chain, so to speak - we can see the general principles that are inherent throughout the system.

For instance, we can look at Tony Blair, Prime Minister for a decade - a very long time in politics. Blair is considered by most of the world as an instigator of an illegal war of aggression against the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq, or even as a war criminal. Yet, Blair ended up becoming Special Peace Envoy to the Middle East, representing the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, and Russia. The fact that Blair started a war in the Middle East in 2003 was clearly forgotten when great power evaluated his aptness for being a Peace Envoy to the region in 2007. The people didn’t choose Blair for this position, the system did.

As if this wasn’t enough, Blair was even awarded a Presidential Freedom Medal by George Bush in January 2009. The medal is said to be the “highest recognition of devotion to freedom and peace” in the US political system. The fact that Tony Blair helped the United States wage a war in Iraq was clearly forgotten when he was given the commendation for his devotion to peace.

Of course, Blair’s wars and criminal acts were not forgotten though - they were, and are, simply irrelevant according to the principles inherent in our political system and that of the US’.

It is these glaringly immoral principles which cause disillusionment.

Examining the media

We can also look at the media output within our society to see the principles inherent throughout our political system. The BBC’s “flagship” current affairs programme, Question Time, has been the subject of much (valid) anger in recent weeks, particularly surrounding Nick Griffin MEP. Question Time’s modus operandi, style, and tone are a true representation of those within our entire system. In last week’s episode, we were told that we should be “rejoicing” that Tony Blair is now likely to become the President of the new European Council. We were even told that Blair is “a pleasant sort of chap” by one panellist, a Member of Parliament, Cheryl Gillan. (It’s comforting to know that if I ever become one of history’s epic liars, I will still be regarded by some Tory MPs as a “pleasant sort of chap”.) David Miliband MP, Foreign Secretary, said, “the EU President must be someone who is well known on the world stage”. Tony Blair certainly meets that criterion - war criminals do tend to stick in the mind quite well.

It’s not only the UK’s war leaders which are paradoxically heralded for being peaceful. US President Barack Obama was recently awarded a Noble Prize for Peace. This is also typical ‘output’ within the UK and US political systems.

The prize, of course is a farce, not least for the fact that Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize having only sat in office for 11 days. Clearly, the Nobel Committee believed that his words and orations were more important than his actions.

Perhaps someone should tell the Nobel committee that unfortunately sweet words don’t mean anything unless they come with sweet actions. Words don’t stop people from dying, Mr. Obama.

The principle which says that words are more important than actions is also often adopted by the UK system. For instance, Tony Blair took us to war with Iraq in 2003 because of the threat that was apparently posed by Iraq insomuch as it could blow us to smithereens within 45 minutes. Yet the “impartial” BBC clearly subscribes to a different reality than most of the world:

[In 2006] the BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden, was asked to explain how one of her “embedded” reporters in Iraq… could possibly describe the aim of the Anglo-American invasion as to “bring democracy and human rights” to Iraq. She replied with quotations from Blair that this was indeed the aim. (Pilger)

The media’s coverage of Obama’s Peace Prize was actually quite critical but most of this was superficial (false contention). However, there were a few notable exceptions to the superficiality. Russia Today, for example, renamed the prize the “Nobel War Prize” in its coverage.

The reality is not just that Obama is not a President of peace, but he is positively the antithesis, as Peter Lavelle, commentator, explained, “[Obama]’s a war president right now; he’s not a president of peace… He’s a president of a country at war.” The actions taken by President Barack Obama since his arrival in office certainly show that he is not interested in peace, and he is a president of war. He has perpetuated and escalated the immoral practices of the previous administration. To name but just a few stories:

• Guantanamo bay is still open
• Usage of secret prisons worldwide has been allowed to increase
• Usage of unmanned drones has increased. Drone bombings have killed hundreds of civilians recently in Pakistan, for example. Such attacks by un-manned aircraft have been recently condemned as so “cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance”, even by the most mainstream figures.
• War in Afghanistan has been escalated by sending thousands of more troops to the country to fight a war of unknown objectives against an indefinable enemy who’s casually called the Taliban.

I ask you, please, to think for a second and ask yourself: how can a man who is responsible for war and death be given a prize for his contribution to peace?

In our system, the truth when it comes to ‘peace’ is clearly not important.

What of Compassion and Empathy in our system?

While Bush, Blair, and Obama’s wars roll on, sustaining killing and injustice, these very leaders are awarded with Peace titles.

We must think to other lands where our brothers and sisters are on the receiving end of ‘our’ foreign policy and wars. For instance, if you were Middle Eastern and your family had been affected, how would you react in hearing on the radio that Blair was made Peace Envoy(?) - the very man that started a war against your country was heralded by his countrymen, decorated, and given more power and opportunity to cause more human suffering?

Would you sink into despair? How desperate would you become? Can you imagine yourself feeling so betrayed by humanity and other peoples, so desperate and so hopeless that you felt the only thing you could do was to blow yourself up? Jenny Tonge MP in 2004 admitted she could imagine herself being that despairful:

“I think if I had been a mother and a grandmother in Palestine living for decades in that situation, I don’t know, I may well have become one [a suicide bomber] myself”

For empathising with the Palestinian people, a people betrayed by the rest of humanity for over 40 years, Jenny Tonge was thrown out of the Liberal Democrat party, amidst news coverage that she had “sympathised with terrorists”.

Jenny Tonge transgressed a principle within our system, a boundary which dictates which human beings are and which are not worthy of understanding and empathy. She was thrown out of the mainstream. This is no isolated incident.

George Galloway MP was thrown out of his party too for empathising with other human beings. In 2003 he was thrown out of the Labour party for saying that a country “which is invaded illegally by foreigners has a right to, will, and should defend itself”. The Labour party and the media reported this simply as: Galloway “told Iraqis to resist British troops”. He also advocated that British troops disobey illegal orders, as is their obligation under international law. The Labour party and the media simply reported that remark as Galloway telling British troops to “disobey orders”.

Many of the great principles in our system are morally repugnant and most of the world does finds them disgusting, and this is what causes disillusionment, hence low turnout. We must remember that we have much more power than the conventional vote.

From the Tonge and Galloway cases, we can see that truly empathising and understanding another people is not acceptable without our system. Indeed, as Tony Blair once admitted:

“I have learned that in politics, caring isn’t really about caring”

For instance, regularly the mainstream media subordinates climate change stories to what newspapers editors clearly think are more important issues - these issues can range from ‘celebrity bullshit’ to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

A perfect, crude example of such a thing occurred today.

At 11am this morning, the BBC News front page appeared like this:

How, I asked myself, could anyone think that Barbara Windsor quitting EastEnders is as important as “Six foreign UN employees and three Afghans” being killed. How could anyone think that the EastEnders story is of the same calibre as that of a car bomb killing scores of people in Peshawar, Pakistan, and therefore put the two stories on the same page?

As Bruce Jones said on Famous, Rich & Homeless, “society is fucked up”. Clearly the BBC is quite ‘fucked up’ too.

Iraq vs. Iran

If I was to moralise the BBC News site’s front page, the first recommendation I might make is that they replace the EastEnders story with a story that The Guardian newspaper covered on its front page today: Iraq goes nuclear with plans for new reactor programme.

According to The Guardian, the news in brief is that Iraq has approached France, the UN, and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to obtain nuclear power. Why this is a notable story, of course, is that Iran is ‘not allowed’ to have nuclear power. Therefore, it will be interesting to see whether Iraq is or is not ‘allowed’ to have nuclear power. When I say ‘allowed to’, I don’t refer to IAEA rights or international agreements, nor do I refer to moral law or economic practicability, but I refer to Western elites’ comprehension of a just world order.

If Iraq ends up with nuclear power, then an overt, crude case of hypocrisy will have developed. If they do not end up being allowed to have nuclear power, it will be very interesting to hear the elite’s justification for denying Iraq’s right. After all, the puppet government of Iraq was instigated by the USA. Iraq clearly isn’t a threat to national security since thousands of American troops are still in Iraq, parked there in psuedo-permanent military bases.

In the context of political issues, I ask myself, should we rate political issues with importance? I have arrived at the conclusion that, yes, of course we should and we should judge importance as being based on the severity of the human suffering involved.

Climate change

In June I wrote the following:

I’m ‘progressive’, but not so much so that I think huge global temperatures changes are acceptable. Nothing is more essential than the world around us. The environment capacitates the fundamentals of life.

I stand by this.

We are told that about 4 billion people out of the current world population of about 7 billion will die as a result of the climate catastrophe that we are en-route to. The truth is that the surviving 3 billion will mainly be the rich in the West, I would like to add.

If we judge the severity of the issue of climate change in terms of potential human suffering that is due to arise, it does seems that climate change is the ultimate issue of our time - for the 4 billion people who would pay with their life, death would be the ultimate affliction.

Reality

I am not advocating that we forget all other issues and focus on climate change solely, of course. However, I believe that climate change simply isn’t on the agenda enough (in government and in the media) as it should be. For instance, regularly the mainstream media subordinates climate change stories to what newspapers editors clearly think are more important issues - these issues can range from ‘celebrity bullshit’ to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 60% of articles in mainstream media newspapers are brought into existence as a result of government’s actions - press releases, public announcements, chamber debate, and Westminster rumours.

But I ask you…

What of foreign policy in a world where more than half of the population have been killed? What of human rights? What of transport and education? What of gay rights, women’s rights, minorities’ rights in a world where 4 billion people have vanished?

It seems to me that these issues would be dwarfed in comparison to the catastrophe that would have shaken humanity if we continue on our current course.