Why Government is Antithetical to Freedom

"When two people meet in a political discussion, regardless of the political affiliations, there are bound to be a number of issues that they agree on. For example, a socialist and a free-marketeer - despite having completely different opinions on how an economy should be run - are likely to agree on a dearth of issues including ending foreign military interventions, the war on drugs, reducing government surveillance into the private lives of citizens, and ending corporate welfare from the government to rich business issues. Nevertheless, under the political system which most people favour - parliamentary democracy of some description - both are almost completely powerless to fight back against these (real or perceived injustices) because they have to simply accept one of the "package deals" of policies offered by one of the parties that can win. If none of those parties offer the option of ceasing to sink state funds into nuclear weapons, for example, these supposed political enemies alike will both be forced to pay for them through the tax system - regardless of their personal values. It is the power to divest which is the real basis of political freedom. The power to say "no, I don't believe in this, I don't want to pay for it, and so I am going to spend my money elsewhere." That is the freedom that the non-state sectors of society (be they businesses, charities, cooperatives or other non-government organisations) offer, but the state does not, and fundamentally why the state is antithetical to freedom." - Antony Sammeroff

 I think if you use this argument when you get into political debates with statists, "even where we both agree - and there is lots of common ground - we are still powerless to make change under the system you support, which is parliamentary democracy" - the penny might drop.

It looks like this: "Both you and I agree on lots of issues, for example against the wars, against the war on drugs, against corporate welfare. But under the system you support, we are relatively powerless to change it because even if we vote - we can only vote for the package deals of party x or party y - if those issues are off the cards on both platforms, we will still have to pay for it whether we like it or not through the tax system - even if one is one platform, another one is not likely to be on the other platform. "

Capitalism an inherently Statist system?

It has been alleged by persons on the left that capitalism is an inherently statist system. That there has never existed any kind of stateless capitalism or "free market" in any real sense, and that therefore 'to contrast the state with "the market" is just silly.' That under capitalism, statism and the market economy are just two facets of the same hierarchical, totalising system of class rule.

I have heard those propositions put forwards before and I would urge you to reconsider: are the actually - or necessarily - true?

Firstly, I agree that "there are not free markets," but to say there never existed any kind of stateless capitalism or "free market" in any real sense is of no substance really. There had, perhaps, once never been a slave-free statist society, or one where women had the same rights and responsibilities under the law, or one that was not feudal, or a monarchy. So what? Society is a garden where we reap what we sow.

What is silly is not to contrast the state with "the market" but define the free market and the complete opposite of the free market capitalism at the same time! I point, naturally, to corporate welfare, legislations that offer preferential treatment to one service provider over another, subsidisation of domestic producers or protectionist tariffs – all interventions in the market that are not based on the market forces of supply and demand. The state is responsible for almost 50% of the spending in the economy in the UK, and 19% of the population is employed in the public sector. The state controls the money supply, sets the interest rates, and is responsible for regulating each and every facet of the economy from the provision of energy, to the conditions under which someone can employ another person. The state runs the schools, and a great deal of the hospitals. It decides when a road is to be built, and when we are to build a railway. It hands subsidies to tobacco farmers, then taxes the tobacco we smoke. It hands welfare to the wealthy in the form of contracts and preferential legislation, and to the poor in the form of entitlements, free services and food stamps.

The state does not exist because of capitalism, but because the state exists then capitalists are going to exploit it - it would be irrational for them not to do so if it provided more value than serving their customers, just as it would be irrational not to claim housing benefit if you were eligible - but to define the free market (the voluntary exchange of goods and services) and the complete opposite of the free market (state interference in the market) is simply rhetorical sophistry.

It is fallacious to conflate economic power with political power, they are not the same thing. Economic power does not equate to the ability to use force with impunity to achieve your goals. Otherwise Starbucks would lobby McDonalds, and McDonalds would lobby Coca Cola, who were at the same time lobbying Microsoft and Apple. They do not do this. Why? Because the state is the only institution that is able to pass preferential legislations, hand out subsidies and use force and the tax system to enforce them.

If you have a lot of economic power, then even absent the state you can buy a lot things from voluntary sellers: property, factories, machines, natural resources, products, services... but you will soon run low on assets if you are not also creating things that other people want to voluntarily purchase from you. If people are voluntarily purchasing things you produce then you are providing value to them. You are making them better off. Otherwise they would not purchase your goods voluntarily, you would have to coerce them to do so. This is one of the reasons why we voluntarists, anarcho-capitalists, or libertarians (call us what you will) do not want the state. In the market, if you don't like a service you have the power to simply stop buying that service: you don't have to vote for anyone, you don't need to get everyone to agree with you - you just buy something else instead. Not so with government - because you've already bought it. You don't have any choice in the matter. The state it has the power to violate your conscience and force you to pay for it through the tax system, while claiming that you tacitly consent to this violation of your free will to support those causes that you support and divest from those that you do not simply by virtue of living in a particular geographical area.

My Vulgar Hatred of The '90s

I was glad to hear that I am not the only person I know who hates the 90s.

I don't know what I find more annoying about the pop music of the 90s, the fact that they constantly shat out lyrics that would be insulting to the intelligence of even the ditzy 14 year old girls that bought it, cases in point: 

• "oh baby you're so fine, I'm gonna make you mine, your lips they taste so sweet," 
• "you are my fire, the one desire, believe when I say, I want it that way," 
• "you drive me crazy, I just can't sleep, I'm so excited, I'm in too deep, crazy, but it feels alright, baby thinking of you keeps me up all night" 
• and etc. ad infinitum. 

Or rather, the fact that all these idiots went out an bought copies of this crap by the millions. I mean what does that say about the level of sophistication of our culture? 

The 2000s was definitely better. People who played their own instruments dominated the charts even if it was boy-band-metal such as Linkin Park or pop punk stars such as Sum 41 and Bowling for Soup.

At least the 2010s risque and unashamedly id, hedonistic and indulgent (Gaga, Kesha, Nicky Minaj, et al.) All right, most of the pop music of our era it is a bag of balls, but at least it isn't the "oh we are so nice and innocent and sweet, and completely asexual" which was the staple of the 90s, and of course, completely disingenuous. There was nothing more satisfying than when these good little boys and girls were exposed for taking recreational drugs at parties or behaving indecently. It broke the façade. 

Much of the disco music of the 90s was simply 70s disco music less the typically well arranged horn and string elements, or 80s disco music less the variety of synth or which was by this point considered "cheesy." We also said goodbye to the overblown rockist power-ballad with attendant guitar solo in pop, also to be considered mawkish and dated. I remember remarking once that M People's single One Night sounded remarkably 70s, only later to discover that it bore a striking resemblance to 1975 number Highwire by Linda Carr and The Love Squad. Likewise One For Sorrow, a track by an innately disposable and all but forgotten 90s band, Steps, is a dead ringer for The Winner Takes It All by Abba. 

Of course  was a lot of great music in the 90s outside of the charts, although I have thought compared to 60s and 70s and to a lesser degree 80s it was on "The Downward Spiral."  For each Nine Inch Nails there were a dozen Stabbing Westwards, for each Nirvana there were six hundred Silverchairs, a thousand clone bands who tried and failed to carry the movement forwards by replicating the sound of what they liked. For each Alanis Morisette or Cheryl Crow a thousand chart-topping acoustic acts have to have been forgotten in time, and you really have to shake your head in dismay.  

I don't really listen to contemporary rock so I don't know what it going on with it, but nothing I have heard so far has really grabbed my attention so maybe I have simply stopped paying attention. The crucial difference is, thanks to the advent of the internet, I can listen to virtually anything I like the sound of, from anywhere in the world, at any time - and from any time. Regardless of whether you happen love or hate the music of the 90s, you have one distinct advantage over your 1990s counter-part (or former self.) You can always get access to whatever music floats your boat!

What is Islam?

So what is Islam? Is it what Muslims do?

No, otherwise eating pork or drinking alcohol could be considered Islamic, as some Muslims certainly do.  Clearly not all Muslims follow Islam, as not all Christians or Jews follow their religion. Actually what Islam is - is not all that open to interpretation. There are two statements that all Muslims agree with: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his profit." If you say that declaration in Arabic you become a Muslim.

Islam is the worship of Allah + the imitation of Mohammed as described in The Koran (of which there are two, one written in Medina and one in Mecca), the Siras, and the Haddith. The earlier Koran is not really a problem, it has the phrases about how "let there be no compulsion in religion", that "you have your religion and I have mine", &c. in it and was written by Mohammed when he was in Mecca. The later Koran is more problematic as it has the most intolerant and radical passages in it, "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Kafirs. Strike of their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" Unfortunately there is a notion in Islam that "later verses take priority of importance over earlier ones" (abrogation.)  Every tolerant verse in the Koran is later somewhere abrogated in the text.

Islam is a peculiar religion because you cannot actually practice Islam with its primary text, The Koran, alone. The Koran states in over ninety verses that every Muslim should live his life as Mohammed lived his life. If Islam were only the worship of Allah, then one could practice Islam simply by reading the Koran, however, because Islam is also the imitation of Mohammed we need to go to The Sira (an eight-hundred-page biography of Mohammed) and the Haddith - a collection of little stories about Mohammed called "The Traditions" - in order to find out how he lived.

Unfortunately, when we turn to these texts we find that Mohammed - who is meant to be emulated - was a conqueror who cut heads off and consummated a marriage with a 9 year old. In light of this the Islamic doctrine as a whole is not very friendly to non-Muslims or Muslim women. The Kafir can be tortured, raped, enslaved, deceived and murdered. Women are men’s “fields,” worth half what a man is; men can have sex with them whenever they want, marry them at a prepubescent age, or own them as sex slaves.  There is no notion of the golden rule in Islam, as pertains to non-Muslims, only other Muslims are under the protection of the doctrine.

While to us the "good Muslim" is the moderate Muslim, in Islam proper - the "good Muslim" is the one who best emulates Mohammed, therefore when we talk about radical Islam we are talking about a literal reading of the text (particularly the second Koran.) When we talk about "moderate Islam" that is actually also an accurate reading of the text - all those passages are in there. Both are true. It's not that one is right and the other is wrong. Open it up and you will find passages to support both interpretations.

Conservatives will say that radical Islam is caused by the doctrine, and Liberals that it is all the fault of Western foreign policy. Certainly, the US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, certainly in Afghanistan against the Russians, Saudi Arabia being the most obvious example, president Reagan supported Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan's dictators who carried out a programme of radical Islamisation (with Saudi funding). America has also infuriated the Muslim world by supporting Israel, stationing troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and propping up its dictators in spite of movements in various countries towards democracy or the adoption of socialistic governments, and waging war on predominantly Muslim nations. Since our 2003 incursion into Iraq, at least 151,000 and possibly over a million Muslims have been killed in that country.

It is ignorant for conservatives to turn a blind eye to the history of Western Imperialism, and naive for liberals to imagine that the Islamic doctrine has nothing whatever to do with how Muslims behave. The truth about why Islamic people of the world are, on average, more radical than Western religionists is more likely to be a combination of both, as well as other factors - particularly the very authoritarian parenting styles which are prevalent in Islamic countries and even amongst many Muslim families in Western countries. (We not that in the "bible belt" where we encounter a far more radical form of Christianity, the parenting styles are more retrograde than in the more secular parts of America - in some states corporal punishment is legal in schools.)

Whenever an aspect of Islam is unpleasant people will say “That’s not the real Islam” - but there is only one authority on what Islam is, and that is Mohammed. That is to be found in The Koran (both of them), The Sira, and The Haddith.


I would like to acknowledge Dr. Bill Warner, Sam Harris, and Dr. Noam Chomsky for being my main sources of education on Islam.

"I Want to Break Free" - an article by yours truly

My article I Want to Break Free has just been published on Waking Times

Check it out here!

on The Healing Power of Attention

My article The Healing Power of Attention has just been published on Waking Times

Check it out here!

the memory of his words

The memory of his words blaze and incinerate a brand in my heart. "It doesn't matter how long we stay together because we are growing with each other right now. The gifts you give to me and that I give to you will last the rest of our lives, that say you'll always be a part of me and I'll always be a part of you." Something like that. They seemed so positive, warm, life-affirming at the the time. Now scars seething tar into the cogs of my compassion, grinding their machinations to a halt.

What is the difference between Left and Right anarchism?

Left anarchism, which was the common usage of the term up until recently, is a political philosophy very closely related to communism, with the central socialist principle that workers should own the means of production. Having bosses run businesses or capitalists own the means of production is considered to be expploitative and hierarchical, wheras right anarchists see these relationships as acceptible so long as they are voluntary: if employees can agree to contractual terms, quit any time they like, unionise except where probhibited by voluntary agreements, etc. it is considered that the bosses are providing value by organising the work force, and capitalists are providing value by anticipating the market, organising production in terms of demand, and risking their investment (and also their property where uninsured, as the state would not exist to give them limited liability in the form of a Ltd. corporation  or Plc.) Right anarchists are not opposed to workers owning their own workplaces as long as this is organised by mutual agreements and voluntary interactions rather than imposed by violations of property rights (eg. workers getting a loan from the bank to buy out bosses and owners.)

Right anarchism is a more recent development but it can also be traced back to Baukunin who is seen as influential to both schools as an anarchist. It's more of an extension of American libertarianism, with the central principle being the NAP - ie. Thou shalt not initiate the use of force - no violence or theft, including taxation, as a rule, although levies for public goods could be extracted through a system of social pressure, ostracism, and refusal to engage in collective buying for people who did not pay their share (eg. If you don't pay your share for street lights you can expect to have to make your own arrangements for garbage collection as well.) Government regulation would similarly be be replaced by a system of insurance companies or cooperatives (often referred to as DROs - dispute resolution organisations) who were financially incentived to solve problems before they occurred instead of being called upon to respond after the fact (like police, government fines, universal sick care, fire fighters, climate taxes etc. and all government services which are called upon only when a problem has all ready arisen.) These companies would lose money through payouts when they failed to protect their clients from harm or loss of property, which would encourage them to develop preventative measures and disincentives to criminals which would be constantly optimised through competition on the free market - whichever organisation was most effective as preventing harm or loss would gain the greatest market share, if someone advanced on their developments they would become lucrative, and if any such company got "too big for its boots," or abused its authority, its clients would have the option to pick another service provider, rather than remain at the behest of a state monopoly for provision of this service.

Left anarchism tends to focus more on problems of capital and capitalism, much like state socialists do. Right anarchists tend to talk primarily about the problems of statism, those which are created or exacerbated by governemnt, and they therefor tend to have the most convincing arguments for the abolition of states.


Despite coming from different angles, both agree that the state is based on force or the threat of force for its existence, that the state is a tool wielded by the ruling class for unfair advantage over everyone else, and that corporations and corporatism are products of statism which allow the rich to privilege from privatizing gains and socialising losses, which is immoral.

All forms of anarchists acknowledge that where there are rulers there can be no rules, as rulers by their very nature, make themselves the exception to the rule. Anarchists are egalitarians, no special privileges for law-makers or corporations. If you kill, harm, steal, or damage someone else's property, you are to be held personally liable for it - not the state (tax payer) or corporation (consumer/share-holder) - you personally. There is to be no hiding behind institutions which are mere abstractions of the mind in anarchy. This implementation of this moral hazard for the privileged is meant to do away with much of the corruption, cronyism, and war crimes which are part and parcel of statist societies.

So some common ground between the two despite philosophical difference on very key points.

For example, left wing ideals such as workers running their workplaces are thought by some to be more likely under right anarchism that statism, since the public education system trains children for individualism and competition, but the evidence on how individuals learn best is in favour of a cooperative learning environment. Without the kind of schooling which is prevalent and imposed by the state (which right anarchists are strongly opposed to) children would be raised with lots of experience of cooperation and mutualism, and so would more likely to create workplaces that capitalised on those skills than top-down hierarchies which follow the prevalent pattern of schooling and parenting.

Discourse on Necessity

 on retreat 01/09/13

There has been a lot of talk in this circle about needyness.

Bu what about needed-ness? Is that not more important? To know that we are needed? 

Perhaps when we reflect upon this a question arises inside us: Do I really need to be needed or do I just think I do? Perhaps I shouldn’t have to feel like I am needed and that is just my insecurity talking or my ego trying to make itself important. 

Perhaps you do not even feel the need to be needed and think me projecting the fruit of my own self-examination onto you.

Needed perhaps comes from the same root as necessary. We love to know that we are needed, because we are. And since we are, better then, that it is necessary for us to be. That we serve some purpose.

The universe, in its perfection, wastes nothing - recycles everything, thus by its very nature all that exists must serve some purpose. To know that we are is in to know that it is necessary for us to be. Should we cease to be necessary then we are surrendered to the oneness of all things, just as leaves become the soil, which becomes the fruit, which becomes the pray, which becomes the predator, and so forth.

A conscious surrender, in eastern traditions, is known as liberation, escape from samsara, or the path to enlightenment.

Should we choose this surrender to a life in service of the whole then even death is welcomed as a gift. We have already surrendered our life and so nothing remains to be taken from us. We are all going to die, and so it is better we learn to welcome it. 

An unconscious surrender is known as samsara, some believe this leads us to be born and reborn again in our habits into the material world of cause and effect, but it can be understood by the skeptic as a lack of willingness to change which leads us to have several similar unpleasant experiences occur and reoccur ad infinatum until we examine ourselves to find the root of the problem.

The practice of self-knowledge reveals to us our qualities, our qualities reveal to us our purpose, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the purposes from which we can choose to serve. Knowing our purpose shows us our value, which satisfies our need to be needed.

I'm a Professional

Why does everyone glorify being professional?

Being professional means you can't turn up with a hangover.
Being professional means you can't turn up late.
Being professional means you can't get drunk!
Being professional means you can't sleep with the actress, or the barmaid.
Being professional means you have to get in at a reasonable time.
Being professional means you have to get Up at a reasonable time!
Being professional means - you have to listen here - this is serious!
Being professional means you have to walk the walk like you talk the talk.
Being professional means you have to act like you know what you're doing, even when you don't! Which is most of the time.
Being professional means you have to act like everyone else knows what they're doing, even when they don't! Which is most of the time.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all just Stop!... this glorification of being professional,
then we can all enjoy... being unprofessional together...

- Hold on - oh, shit, sorry, I have to take this. It's a business call.

14/08/13

How long does it take to become a good critic?

So that's a new record for me. Writing 7 reviews in one sitting.

I reckon it takes writing around 100 reviews before you get the "hang" of it. That is, if you ever truly get the hang of it, which most of us don't think we ever do. At least it's likely to take writing that many before you can be consistently concise, get your point across, say everything that needs to be said, and of course - a most important discipline - to distiguish between what needs to be said and what you just fancy saying (because it's clever, or you noticed, or it's a bugbear, or..., or..., or..., - will the reader care as much as you do?)

Being a critic isn't mostly glamour and fun, what glamour and fun there is comes in exchange for taking care in, and caring about, your writing.

Perspective on "Tough Justice"

People become violent as a result of suffering severe trauma, such as childhood neglect, abandonment or abuse (physical, emotional and/or sexual) --- that is the conclusion of established social science based on the psychological data available to us. 

The latest science on nature versus nurture says that human nature is 70-80% adaptation to environment, particularly early childhood experiences. The idea that "tough justice" ie. inflicting more trauma on an already traumatised/abused individual, will make them better rather than worse, is the result of a primitive kind of thinking, ie. if you do something unpleasant to me then I will do something unpleasant back to you to teach you a lesson. The psychology shows clearly that It Does Not teach them a lesson, it makes them worse because they are now humiliated and want to get revenge. Since the trace of trauma can be tracked in the brain, Brain Scans Of Criminals Can Predict Recidivism (returning to prison.) If we want to rehabilitate criminals we have to understand trauma and learn how to reverse it.

The reason why people continue to believe in "tough justice" even though all the data shows it is a wrong-minded approach to deterring violence, is usually because they were treated punitively as children, exposed to punishments, spanking, "strict-discipline" and told it was "for their own good" - and so looking at the situation clearly for what it is would also ential having to reassess their own childhood for trauma and wounds inflicted on them advertently or inadvertently by their own care-givers. That can obviously be a very painful process for most people.

Harsh corporal punishment produces a dogmatic personality, meaning an inability to adapt and change opinions in light of new information. Evidence shows that people who receive corporal punishment are more likely to support punitive public policies such as the death sentence. These views are psychologically motivated, they are not based on reason and evidence, but avoidance of the suffering entailed in bringing childhood wounds into the conscious awareness so they can be dealt with, the benefit of doing so is being given the opportunity to overcome them, and go from seeing the world through irrational biases to seeing it as it really is.

When prisons were originally introduced as the weapon of choice in the fight against crime we did not know much about how to halt the cycle of prisoners reoffending. Now there are several methods which have shown to be effective. The recent science of rehabilitation shows that criminals who are able to study and attain a masters degree in prison are ecxeedingly unlikely to reoffend. Also, recidivism can be reduced by teaching Transindental Meditation to prisoners, as does teaching prisoners Nonviolent Communication - which stands to reason as in many instances violence is the only way that people who have not been taught to negotiate with others know to get what they want. One study conducted in a Nevada Prison showed that a technological process that appears to help the brain reverse the effects of trauma, Brainwave Optimisation, can rehabilitate violent criminals.

With enough will we can understand and end violence for good.

tired of being the bigger person

I get tired of being the bigger person.

I could be the biggest person, the fittest person, the richest person.

I'm admired for being more wired

than a business person.

That hires and fires the working person.

but I'm tired,

of being the bigger person.

I'd rather be the person that's worse than

a pig

in person

a wicked person

who casts aspersions 

on this disertion

as a subversive incursion:

The coercion of aversion as a diversion from the exertion I spent in this immersion of perversion.

I'm a bitter person!

Watch my conversion into disparate dispersion

my submersion in reversion

to a state that's immersed in

sin

I could be the tallest at the show, bro.

But don't you know, I'd still be tired.

Tired of being the bigger person.

Excerpt from the self-help book I'm writing

from "The Healthy Emotion Expression Handbook."

Preface

“Healthy Emotional Expression.”

What a wholesome sounding phrase!

We would all want what is healthy for us, of course, and yet embedded in the idea that there is a “healthy” way to express our emotions is also the suggestion that there is also an “unhealthy” way to express them as well.

I imagine that way is something that we’re all very familiar with. We have all been exposed to unhealthy emotional expression at some point, and most of us have been guilty of it ourselves. Shouting, berating others, blaming them for how we feel, making judgments of them, calling them names, being vicious or even violent. These are all tragic ways we try to express hurt feelings in order to encourage others to change their ways, and yet more often than not they do more to harm than to help.

These approaches to self-expression erode the good will within our relationships, and make it less likely for other people to willingly help us meet our goals. Even if we can convince others to do what we want in these ways they are unlikely to do so happily. They may help grudgingly, with lingering feelings of resentment - and resentment is relationship carcinoma.

If we would all want what is healthy for us why would we continue to express ourselves in these unhealthy ways?

For all too many of us these are the only types of emotional expression we have the chance to bear witness to as children, and if we don’t replicate the model for self-expression we inherited we are as likely to: “If that’s what expressing feelings looks like then expressing feelings is not something I want to have any part of at all!”

Some refuse to express their emotions because they perceive it as a weak thing to do! (Nothing could be further from the truth – sometimes it takes extreme strength to express oneself honestly when it seems dreadfully scary to do so!)

Others don’t like expressing themselves honestly because they feel vulnerable, are afraid of intimacy, or within their history expressing how they felt in the ways they knew how scared potential partners or friends away.

In other cases our feelings were invalidated as children. “Don’t get angry.” “Life’s like that, you take the good with the bad, keep your chin up.” Or, “Stop crying, don’t be a baby” (which is the biological equivalent of telling a child not to urinate, because tears clear impurities out of the system.)

Or perhaps the feelings of our primary caregivers took precedence over our own, and our needs were seen as an inconvenience, and so we quickly learned not to feel anything at all!

How then may we have learned to identify what was going on inside us so we could express our preferences in ways which would help others to help us to meet our goals? How could we effectively offer others our willingness to help them meet their goals too, and develop the kind of fulfilling relationships that arise out of reciprocity, mutual trust and respect?

In the worst of circumstances, it holds true that in an abusive situation it is often safer not to feel anything at all than to feel all the effects of our abuse there and then. This is the mind’s defense against hopelessness. It learns to master the emotions by turning them off, and in doing so ensures its safety in the short term.

Sadly though, when we grow older and have the ability to remove ourselves from abusive situations these defense mechanisms do not always deactivate themselves lightly.

It seems all too true that if we were not shown a model of healthy emotional expression to follow then it is something we need to learn of our own volition, as adults, in the same way that were we not exposed to French as children it is something we would need to take it upon ourselves to learn.

Often our feelings are there to keep us safe, to teach us what we want out of life and about the way we think, to warn us away from those who might harm us, and draw us towards those who are nurturing and make our lives wonderful.

We are better not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This book forms a concise guide on how to use your emotions rather than let them use you. 

A Love Poem

I

My Dear One,

I come before you not as a beggar, to plead for your favour,

But as a wealthy man who, though born with very little, worked tirelessly to cultivate his riches, 

if only to know the pleasure of sharing that which he had never known.

My treasures, of course, are not material in nature, 

but they are as true, and more valuable, in my humble estimation, 

than those material things.

II

My own,

I offer you my virtue,

I offer you my strength, and even in doing so my vulnerability, 

(a small part of my courage, which you are also entitled to the entirety of.)

I offer you my honour, and also my desire.

I offer you all the kindness, warmth, 

and empathy of a heart that beats only to know love and to love.

I offer you that love, and that heart, 

with passion, and all the tenacity you have seen me show.

I offer you, of myself, all that I have to give,

In all my worthiness, and all my shortcoming,

And pledge to bring with it all the excitement and creativity 

which you have expressed your appreciation for so far.

III

You may not always find such qualities easy to come by,

And where they are found, offered with so little reservation,

But please do not be intimidated if I seem unreasonably brazen,

I credit this fact, 

that all you have to bring will always be shown to have at least as great a value as the eye that cares to look is keen, and never any less. 

(And as you are aware, I have regarded you with rather a keen eye ;) )

Wherefore? But on the account that there is so much to look to! 

In my sight, it would appear we have much to offer one another.

IV

What I ask of you in this respect, 

Is not to give, but only to share 

with me that which you already have in abundance,

Your own passion,

Your integrity,

Your sentiments and feelings,

                Opinions and insights,

                Thoughts and emotions,

Your curiosity, and sense of humour,

Your tenderness, and also your fortitude,

As much honesty as you can muster, 

                as and when you are ready to offer it,

All those qualities you have long since known I love and admire in you,

And adore you for.

To give of yourself, as and when is pleases you,

Whatsoever it pleases you to give,

In whatever measure it pleases you to give it,

And show me who you are,

In all your worthiness, and all your shortcoming.

V

Should you be willing to attempt this exchange,

As you know I am most certain that you should,

I will not give you reason to regret it,

Not for a single day,

Not even for a moment if I can help it,

Do not reject such a ‘wholesome’ offer lightly,

Such opportunities are rare to find, and rarer still are they ever realised,

Let us inspire ourselves with what could be possible,

Forever at your service,

Forever in your awe,

With love, and the deepest of affection,

Antoine. 

Campness, and the Music and Style of Queen

here is a paper I wrote for university.

                      Camp can be defined as a kind of aesthetic denoted by its tendency to provide sophisticated, knowing amusement by being self-consciously artificial and extravagant.[1] There is a very strongly effeminate[2] quality to campness and it regards something as appealing or humorous because of its ridiculousness to the viewer.[3]

Throughout the 70s and 80s the rock band Queen gained worldwide success with a unique blend of hard rock fused with countless other influences including ragtime, opera, gospel, vaudeville, and folk, which they delivered with theatrical bombast, sometimes attracting criticism for being overblown due to “histrionic vocals, abrupt and pointless compositional complexity.”[4]  A more admiring critic put it this way:

“Few bands embodied the pure excess of the '70s like Queen. Embracing the exaggerated pomp of prog-rock and heavy metal, as well as vaudevillian music-hall, the British quartet delved deeply into camp and bombast, creating a huge, mock-operatic sound with layered guitars and overdubbed vocals.”[5]

When the usage of the word camp appeared, in 1909, it denoted: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, and effeminate behaviour[6] which Queen certainly conformed to in their music, and also their style:

The “pure excess” described above could easily be substituted for the “‘shocking’ excess”[7] which American writer, Susan Sontag, in her essay Notes on Camp (1964), stated as one of the features which defined campness. “The essence of Camp is its love of the unnatural: of artifice and exaggeration”[8]… an ironic and parodic appreciation of an extravagant form that is out of proportion to its content.[9] Queen were certainly not at odds with her analysis, never taking themselves too seriously while penning with subtle humour parodic tracks the likes of Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon whose flighty intro resounds as follows, with ultimate camp:

This far from humourless style, paired with the whimsical lyrics (which follow) along to the swooning wall of harmonised backing vocals which intersperse the lead line (shown in brackets) certainly conforms to the “artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness”[10] which are key features of campness, and of Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon. There is certainly something shamelessly highbrow and pretentious about the song, but it is carried with humour.

Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon Lyrics (Freddie Mercury)

I go out to work on a Monday morning,

Tuesday I go off to honeymoon,

I'll be back again before it's time for Sunny-down,

I'll be lazing on a Sunday afternoon.

Bicycling on every Wednesday evening, [a bicycle bell rings, camply]

Thursday I go waltzing to the Zoo.

I come from London town, I'm just an ordinary guy,

Fridays I go painting in the Louvre,

I'm bound to be proposing on a Saturday night (There he goes again)

I'll be lazing on a Sunday, (oooo)

Lazing on a Sunday (ooooo)

Lazing on a Sunday (Sunday) Afternoon.[11]

Deriving from the French slang term se camper, meaning “to pose in an exaggerated fashion,” usage of the word camp has always been linked in English to a theatrically effeminate style associated with homosexuality or pertaining to the characteristics (real or perceived) of homosexuals. As Dyer puts it, “[Camp] is just about the only style, language and culture that is distinctively and unambiguously gay male. In a world drenched in straightness all the images and the words of society express and confirm the rightness of heterosexuality. Camp is the one thing that expresses and confirms being a gay man.”[12]

The gay liberation movement of the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s urged homosexuals to publicly reveal their sexuality in order to counter shame with “gay pride” and used camp to confront society with its own preconceptions and their historicity. Freddie Mercury, the famously homosexual lead singer of Queen, has been considered a gay icon by some, in no small part because he neither tried to hide his sexuality throughout the band’s career, nor did he overemphasise the fact in a way that would lead to it fully defining him as an individual or an artist.

In illustration of this, while on one hand Freddie would famously refer to himself (camply) as, “Gay as a daffodil,”[13] in December 1974, when asked directly, “So how about being bent?” Mercury replied, “You're a crafty cow. Let's put it this way; there were times when I was young and green. It's a thing schoolboys go through. I've had my share of schoolboy pranks. I'm not going to elaborate further.” This showed him at ease with his sexuality but not wishing to make it the focus of great attention. He was a private person in that respect, but he could still bring humour to his response. As John Marshall of Gay Times expressed it: “[Mercury] was a 'scene-queen', not afraid to publicly express his gayness but unwilling to analyse or justify his 'lifestyle' ... It was as if Freddie Mercury was saying to the world, 'I am what I am. So what?' And that in itself for some was a statement.”[14]

Certainly the effete, ‘fey’, camp style long since associated homosexuality and camp is relevant to Queen. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language refers to the term as “homosexual jargon”[15] which denotes any of banality, mediocrity, artifice, ostentation, etc. so extreme as to amuse or have a perversely sophisticated appeal and the music of Queen can certainly be categorised as “perversely sophisticated.” One scathing critic wrote in Pomp Without Circumstance (1975): “Best of all was [guitarist, Brian] May's big moment: an immensely likeable, totally silly "virtuoso" guitar solo which somehow managed to suggest the filigreed fussiness of "Flight of the Bumblebee" being played by somebody who'd just fallen in love with feedback.” [16] Another, Bart Testa, wrote: “Queen makes elaborate music from shards of nostalgia for the British Empire. They push boys' public-school chorales and English martial music through the funnel of hard rock, aiming carefully at romantic crescendos embellished with heavy echo. “[17] Or as Brian May put it himself, “Most of our stuff, particularly Freddie's songs, was in oddball keys that his fingers naturally seemed to go to: E-flat, F, A-flat. They're the last things you want to be playing on a guitar, so as a guitarist you're forced to find new chords. Freddie's songs were so rich in chord-structures, you always found yourself making strange shapes with your fingers. Songs like Bicycle Race have a billion chords in them.”

But while Queen were “referred to as 'pomp' rock by British critics,” [18] owing to their use of “theatricality to the hilt…” not everything about queen was effeminate, “they are also popular with heavy metal fans” (the suggestion being that heavy metal is a particularly masculine genre.) “They could be discussed as a progressive metal band,”[19] and progressive rock was a genre overly dominated by all male bands, The Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Yes, Rush, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Gentle Giant, Electric Light Orchestra et al., plus the vast majority of fans of the genre were white males.[20] As one biographer wrote, “Queen's music was a bizarre yet highly accessible fusion of the macho and the fey.” [21]  

It is worthy of note that in contemporary culture both the effeminate, or the overly macho, in a man, can be construed as in some way ‘gay’, as though there were some form of Aristotelian Mean of masculinity versus the fey which constitutes ‘straightness.’ Leaving moderation aside, Queen, at points, had it in them to fully access both ends of this spectrum. Certainly the “mock-operatic sound” referenced by the allmusic.com biography of Queen can be seen as representative of the campness of Queen, as opera has long since been adopted by queer culture in which “music and drama do not seem to exist for their own sakes, but rather for the opportunities they create for performance.”[22] (Freddie Mercury would in 1988 collaborate on an album with Spanish operatic soprano Dame Montserrat Caballé, whom he was a great admirer of.)[23]

The contrast between the heavy metal and prog-rock machismo of Queen and their effeminate side is further exemplified by contrasting the eerily lady-like falsetto that begets the track Brighton Rock versus it’s later heavy chorus and guitar solo, or the hard rock force of tracks such as Hammer to Fall, or Princes of the Universe, which was written for the swords and sorcery feature movie Highlander. The music video for this single had Freddie Mercury duelling with his microphone stand against lead star of the movie, Christopher Lambert, who wielded a sword. While swordsman ship is classically perceived as a man’s game, often even entered in the hope of winning a woman’s favour perhaps even this caricature of the power of music versus the blade can be construed in some way as camp. As a prelude to the guitar solo Freddie declares: “Come on! Come on! Come on!... Bring on the Girls!” in a strange fusion of camp with implied straightness.

           

While it has been stated that “Vocalist Freddie Mercury brought an extravagant sense of camp to the band, pushing them towards kitschy humor and pseudo-classical arrangements, as epitomized on their best-known song, "Bohemian Rhapsody.”” And that  “… his sexuality was apparent throughout Queen's music, from their very name to their veiled lyrics -- it was truly bizarre to hear gay anthems like "We Are the Champions" turn into celebrations of sports victories. That would have been impossible without Mercury, one of the most dynamic and charismatic frontmen in rock history.”[24] It cannot be fairly stated that the campness of Queen owed it’s quality solely to Freddie alone. As Jennifer Anne  de Boer wrote in her dissertation, “Lead singer Freddie Mercury's stage persona, the types of music on which Queen drew, and Brian May's guitar playing all serve to "feminize" the band…”[25]

In this way May could bend his broad virtuosic style to conform to the campness of Music Hall-influenced numbers such Bring Back Leroy Brown (which he also played a section on ukulele in, another expression of overblown versatility and flamboyant dedication to idiom) Killer Queen, Seaside Rendezvous – in which Freddie and Drummer, Roger Taylor, went to great lengths to imitate woodwind and brass instruments, as well as a kazoo, using only their voices for the instrumental section, and even went so far as to record an outrageously camp tap dancing breakdown by recording the sounds of thimbles on their fingers tapping on the table, and ends, camply, with the line spoken, “Give us a kiss.”

Taylor was also known for hitting the highest notes in Queens sophisticated “wall of sound” vocal arrangements, a C6 in Seaside Rendezvous. His long falsetto melody which takes the lead line in instrumental section the sci-fi skiffle ’39, described by May who penned the song as a “Tour de Force,”[26] also exemplifies Taylor’s contribution to the overall campness of the Queen aesthetic.

 The peak of camp expression from the band probably culminates in the hit single Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy, the last example of Mercury's vaudeville/musichall influenced pieces, which I have heard described as “a bit far even for Queen” by more than one fan. It includes “Queen's trademarks: catchy melody, playful arrangement, nice harmonies, a guitar solo with the distinct guitar sound and style, and high built-in lead melody content… The non-model-like song form has a long non-repeated content, while we have four choruses (one of them is instrumental).[27]

Classic Rock Magazine, in October 2006, described this song as “quaintly British… one of several Queen songs to be inspired by the tradition of Music  Hall… this song sits perfectly next to Seaside Rendezvous. Full to the brim with camp innuendo from wonderful vocal and harmonies thick enough to beat a whale to death, even the multi-layered guitar solo seems lathered in saucy seaside postcard humour. Lyrically it’s never clear whether Mercury is referring to himself or an object of his desire as the titular man about town but, just as it’s difficult to be insulted by Bon Scott’s red-blooded heterosexuality, you find yourself drawn effortlessly into Fred’s own world.” [28]

In praise of a style earlier berated for “pointless compositional complexity.”[29] Classic Rock’s analysis continues: “The vocal textures and arrangements are on a par with the infinitely more familiar Bohemian Rhapsody, with one break-down mimicking a clock striking nine [camply]. Has a rock band ever done this? We doubt it and Queen’s ability to seamlessly fit such a count into a 4/4 time signature beggars belief: you try dividing eight by nine and see how far you get...“[30]

A particular analysis of the Campness of the 2976 Queen single

“Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy” (by the author.)

During the heart felt Intro which plays as follows:

 Freddie Sings with pure romance, “I can dim the lights and sing you songs full of sad things, we can do the Tango just for two. I can serenade and gently play on your heart strings, be your Valentino just for you.”[31] It could be said that this lyric is “shmaltzy,” meaning overly sweet and sentimental in American slang,[32] but something of this full blown “cheesiness” is very fay and effete. Yet the heart of the campness of this song, which begins with the flighty turn around in the ultimate bar of the passage above, takes heart during the chorus which begins the body of the song:

Chorus:

            The bouncy staccato which leaves the left hand hanging on all but the last offbeat in the first six bars gives the song a buoyant, campy feel as it is accompanied by the lyrics, “Ooh love, Ooh lover boy, where you going tonight, hey boy!”

            Variations on the lyrics continue throughout in a camp style over this passage: “Set my alarm, turn on my charm, that’s because I’m a good old fashioned lover boy”,  “Write my letter, feel much better, and use my fancy patter on the telephone”, more so “Everythings alright, just hold on tight, that’s because I’m a good old fashioned lover boy” because of the inescapable sexual innuendo in the lyric ‘hold on tight’, but probably most so in the line, “Driving back in style, in my saloon will do quite nicely, Just take me back to yours that will be fine,” because Freddie declares “Come on and get it” with immensely exaggerated pomp before doubling the chorus.

One can’t help but remark upon the continual repetition of the word “boy” throughout the song when analysing it from this angle.

There is also a Bridge (which appears surprisingly early in the structure) which takes the piece briefly into the minor of chord iv, Ab minor:

            Freddie sings “Ooh let me hear your heartbeat” and the rest of the band sing a chorus of, “Grow faster, faster,” with unambiguous camp as Freddie continues, “Can you feel my love heat, come on and sit on my hot-seat of love…” with thick sexual connotation which is only neutralised and made less shocking by the innocent fey style in which it is delivered, and perhaps also because it is followed by the line “and tell me how do you feel,” given that the term ‘hot-seat’ is used in slang to denote a situation where someone is sat down on a chair and given the opportunity to speak (deriving from the expression’s original meaning for a high-pressure situation in which a great deal of attention and scrutiny is focused upon a person.)[33]

Finally, there is also the Midsection, which begins in Fm and has the rest of the band questioning Freddie in moody tones,

“Hey boy where do you get it from?

Hey boy where did you go ?”

To which he gleefully responds, “I learned my passion in the good old fashioned school of loverboys.” One can’t help have in mind the English boarding schools which for a long time, perhaps unfairly, have been associated with acts of homosexuality in England.

As discussed, Campness, as a form of aesthetic, was an inextricable part of the music and style of Queen, although it would be unfair, owing to their diversity of their styles and music throughout their twenty year career, to dismiss the band’s style and music as camp alone. Their embrace of the effete alongside credible pure hard-rock, heavy metal, and progressive styles, could perhaps be construed as part and parcel of the band’s broad range of influences, exemplified by Mercury citing as two of his heroes, Liza Minelli, whom he described as “oozing with sheer talent… which she gets across the stage, and the way she delivers herself to the public is a good influence,” and Jimi Hendrix whom he described as his “Idol.” Continuing to say “He sort of epitomizes, from his presentation on stage, the whole works of a rock star.”[34]

While on the face of it these two influences seem broadly diverse, one embodying the feminine, the other the masculine, there is certainly one ingredient in common to what they were admired for, and that is their stage presence. Clearly this aesthetic, which, while spearheaded by vocalist Freddie Mercury was fully embraced and brought to bear by the entire band, must have been the their motivation in their embrace of campness, the fact that at its core, camp as a performance style is something that entertains by being larger than life. This has contributed to Queen’s enduring popularity and legacy as one of the greatest performing bands in the rock cannon.

---

[1] (2013) “The Random House Dictionary” Random House, Inc. 2013, Noah Webster.

[2] (2009) “Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition” William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979

[3] Babuscio, J. (1993) “Camp and the Gay Sensibility” In Camp Grounds: Style and Homosexuality. Ed David Bergman. Amherst: U of Massachusetts, p.19-38.

[4] Barnes, K. (June 20, 1974) "Queen II," in Rolling Stone, p. 52.

[5] Alllmusic.com biography of Queen (accessed 2013) http://www.allmusic.com/artist/queen-mn0000858827

[6] (2011) “Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Main edition”, OUP Oxford.         

[7] Sontag, S. (1964) “Notes on "Camp"” in (2009) Against Interpretation and Other Essays, Penguin Classics.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Rodriguez, E. M. (2012) Lecture Notes (Accessed 2013).

[10] Sontag, S. (1964) “Notes on "Camp"” in (2009) Against Interpretation and Other Essays, Penguin Classics.

[11] Queen (1975, 1993) “A Night At The Opera” CD Sleeve Notes, EMI Music UK.

[12] Dyer, R. (2001) “The Culture of Queers” Routledge.

[13] Webb, J. (December 1974) “Freddie Mercury Interview” in New Musical Express.

[14] Urban, R. (Not Dated, Retrieved 01-08-2010) "Ragged Blade Reviews: Queen's Freddie Mercury and his Legacy" Urban Productions, NYC

[15] (1976) “Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language”, Prentice-Hall.

[16] Nelson, P. (April, 1975) “Queen: Pomp Without Circumstance,” in Rolling Stone, p. 78.

[17] Testa B. (Februray, 1978) "News of the World," in Rolling Stone, p. 96.

[18] Brown, C. (1992) "The Art of Rock and Roll" New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p. 189.

¹⁹ Ibid.

[20] Planer, N. (2008) “Prog Rock Britannia: An Observation in Three Movements”,  BBC Four.

[21] Alllmusic.com biography of Queen (accessed 2013) http://www.allmusic.com/artist/queen-mn0000858827

[22] Rodriguez, E. M. (2012) Lecture Notes (Accessed January, 2013).

[23] BBC Four (29-12-2012) "Freddie Mercury: The Great Pretender - Directors Cut" Available online at the time of writing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p012tfl4

[24] Erlewine, S. T. “Queen Biography” (Not Dated, Accessed  January 2013)  All Music Guide.

[25] de Boer, Jennifer Anne (1999) "On the Margins of the Mainstream: Queen, the Rock Press, and Gender"  McMaster University, Open Access Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3651, abstract, p. iii.

[26] (2008 DVD Release)"The Making Of A Night At The Opera - Classic Albums" Eagle Rock Entertainment.

[27] Independent Analysis by unspecified author “Queen Songs, Recording and Songwriting”

 (Accessed January 2013 at http://www.queensongs.info/index.php)

[28] Author Unspecified (2006) "Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy" in Classic Rock, p. 31.

[29] Barnes, K. (June 20, 1974) "Queen II," in Rolling Stone, p. 52.

[30] Author Unspecified (2006) "Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy" in Classic Rock, p. 31.

[31] And all following lyrical quotations, Queen (1976, 1993) “A Day at the Races” CD Sleeve Notes, EMI Music UK.

[32] Spears, R. A. (2007) “Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions”,  McGraw Hill.

[33] (2009) “Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition” William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979

[34] Cohen, S. (April 1975) “Queen's Freddie Mercury Shopping For An Image In London” in Circus Magazine.