Last post I metioned Christopher Hitchens excellent No One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton. This is an interview on Charlie Rose about the book and subsequesnt controversies. I would highly recommend it, especially in light of the fact that we have a presidential election right now featuring the Clintons. 

Hitchens argues that Clinton's personal immoral conduct, and his abuse of state power to do it and conceal it, make him a worthy target of the impeachment proceedings that occured, even if they did occur for slightly differing reasons. One of the main values of the work is to see a rational critique of Clinton, that doesnt come from a Clinton-hating right winger. I find it slightly strange that the Clintons do engender such hatred from conservatives, as Clinton carries through a lot of their policy positions. Equally strange is that many on the American left still like him.

I also happened to mention that I would like to see a critique of the Dalai Lama from someone such as Hitchens, and as fate would have it, he wrote one ten years ago! His Material Highness was written for Salon, and is rather short but sweet. Hitchens rightly criticises Buddhism as a religion not that different from more negatively percieved religions as Islam and Catholicism. The cult of reverance that has developed around Eastern religions is one that often fails to recognise that the pitfalls associated with all religions do in fact occur within all religions, including buddhism. Hitchens, as I did, criticises the feudal nature of Tibetan society and the role of the spritual elite in it. 

Organised religion, of any kind, has yet to prove itself as a good thing for humanity. And the leaders of such cults deserve the utmost scrutiny and criticism of their positions of power, just like anyone else in a position of power. Just because someone claims to have divine backing doesnt make them any less of a human, with all the personal curruptions that that can entail.  

On a lighter note, the article also highlighted the fact that action man himself, Steven Seagal, is officially a reincarnated Lama and sacred vessel within Tibetan Buddhism. What?

And people seriously worship this thing?

OK, so i just finished the movie ( Zeitgeist) and it was fantastic. Some of it got a little too conspiratorial, but overall the message was really positive and quite accessable.

The Film was divide dinto three parts, the first is on religion, the second focussing on 9/11 and the war on terror, and a third one focussed on the 'men behind the curtain', and bringing the whole thing together.

Part I. really interesting, but it didnt really relate to the rest of the movie, though a good film to watch even in isolation. documents the evolution of religion is different, ancient and modern, societies, and how essentially they are all the same. apparently Christianity s essentially just plagiarised from Egyptian pagan beliefs. eventually it related back mroe to the central tenet of the film, and how religion is used by those in power to control society.

Part II. began with a focus on September 11 theories. realistically i agree more with Chomsky on this issue, that conspiracy theories about 9/11 are essentially a distraction from the real issues of war and power. people in a position of power would probably encourage disscussion about conspiracy theories, as they can detract from the real discussions. Its more likely, and plausible, that the Bush administration and the US government more generally just didnt care about any large civilian targetted terror attacks rather than actively planned or were involved in them. 

But, with that said, this film certainly casts a huge net of suspicion over the whole case. The fact that at least six of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive is reason enough to doubt, and the documentary throws up a whole lot more interesting facts and observations of the case. not the leats of these is the role that september 11 can play in creating fear within the civilian population, and pushing forward a particular agenda.

Part III. began with a look at the whole system of central banking, and the cycle of debt that is associated with it. the central banking system established the rule of a small elite over the workings of government and the population (but then who controls the central bank, remember China?). The documentary shows the cycles of boom and engineered recession, and how the largest most powerful compainies and dynasties (Rockafeller features heavily) control and profit from these events.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws"- MA Rothschild

clearly some of these parts are specifically relative to the USA, but the idea of big business and international finance controlling the state is not a new or unbelievable idea. The use of war as the most profitable business activity, and the role of business in actively seeking out war, was explored well. As was the collaborative role of corporations and big business in funding and profitting from both sides in WWII. (including Presscott Bush, grandad of the current Bush). The idea of the continuous war was raised, as Vietnam was used as an example of a war that was never meant to be won, just sustained. obviously this relates even better to the current war on terror, as this war doesnt even have the remote possibility of being won, as there arent even any identifiable enemies (beyond cliches and symbols) to defeat. This idea has been explored before, and even US presidents have kinda acknowledged it, in the idea of the military industrial complex espoused by Eisenhower. War fought on a continuous basis for economic over political reasons. The comparison to the Nazis is probably the most overused analogy in history, but it was actually used well (kinda) here, even if in a cliched way. 

Alot of the final section of the film has similar themes to 'Manufacturing Consent', with control of thought a prime weapon of those in power, and the only weapon necessary. the 'men behind the curtain' idea is good, but it gets too conspiratorial again when it gets to the ideas of 'world government' and planting identity chips in everybodies arms to monitor and control them. these may be ideas, but i dont think they would be readily argued by those in power on any rational basis, a bit too utopian i would think. although it also offers a scary vision of the future, and shows how that sort f future could readily become apparent with the decisions we make now (think the governments current proposed identity card). 

The film comes to a wanky ending with music and endless quotations, but overall, absolutely fantastic. i recommend it to anyone to watch. I will hopefully do a rough check of sources, as the website readily divulges them, and truth is to be discovered, not told!

Try it for yourself.