Hat tip: Derek Wall

So, there’s been a huge amount of pixels spilt on Lady Gaga. I don’t want to get into every aspect of the debates, but there’s one aspect which I find strange, and it isn’t just relevant to feminism. To quote one blog in particular, here’s Gender-Agenda:

She is also an innovator. Working with famous fashion designers and her own Haus of Gaga, she has infiltrated the fashion world, disseminating shoulder pads, robot-like body structures, underwear as outerwear and surrealist forms throughout the glossy magazines and high street clothing racks of the land” [which is taken to contribute to] “stretching gendered boundaries, and presenting a form of sexuality which clashes with accepted notions of the feminine.”

One of the strange things about high fashion, like art music, is that once something has been done, it can’t be done again and called innovative: instead, it becomes derivative, retro, vintage, something ‘coming back into fashion.’ But it’s not genuinely innovative, even if it is reflective of the contemporary world. Wearing a lobster on the head is obviously a strong nod to the original Surrealists, and the big shoulder pads are just an 80s throwback. Of course these contain comments on what our world has become, but they don’t make a comment on themselves and the fashion world, or at least nothing beyond Zoolander (and certainly not as insightful as the still-vapid Devil Wears Prada).

All this is simply a hit at the idea of Gaga as a great artist or innovator. But there’s a bigger problem here, which is the ignoring of Gaga’s total objectification of the female body through fashion, and the use of ‘high fashion’ and innovation as an excuse for this. What I think is going on here is a confusion between fashion as fantasy and as reality.

Leeloo in the Fifth Element - Art.

Fashion as fantasy is probably best shown in the film Fifth Element, costumes by Jean Paul Gaultier. The heroine (‘Leeloo’) has an unforgettable bondage outfit; the aliens swan around in huge cloaks with appendages and ribbons; the camp acts at the space-cabaret are unbeatable for expressing the idea that the future is ‘out-there’ in style as well as distance. But all the while, the fashion isn’t meant to be imitated or sold; there is no market which the film kicks off. Arguably the costumes could have sparked off a big artistic shift in the fashion world, but while they’re inspirational, the real hero of the piece – Bruce Willis – is dressed in your standard sci-fi rogue t-shirt, jeans and gun-in-holster number.

Gaga’s fashion, however, is made to be sold, either as the ‘Haus of Gaga’ (an interesting bit of pseudo-European schlock more reminiscent of Häagen-Dazs than Sophia Loren) or as a part of the Gaga-product. While the Fifth Element’s fashion was an expression of fantasy, of a world come and not one in the here-and-now, Gaga is designed as a model of imitation.

Now, while I’m sure an argument could be made that Gaga is so much of a commodity that she’s outside of market forces, I think that would be a load of bull. It’s a product, a theatre piece – and as such, working purely in the realm of spectacle, is not about some free part of desire or liberation, but is just a high expression of the subsumption by capitalism of every part of life. The writhing bodies and sex-slave fashion of Telephone is not only offered up to be imitated and sold, but this is completely emphasized through the rampant product placement. Here, buy your mayonnaise alternative, and while you’re at it, would you like an alternative woman with that?

Miracle Whip & Lady Gaga - commodities

Spirit Level Film is offering a special deal exclusive to readers of The Third Estate. You can now get their two hit films The Fear Factory and Ministry of Truth together for a special discount price of just £9.95 (RRP £24.90)

To take advantage of this special offer, simply click on one of the links below and enter the following discount coupon at the checkout when you buy both films together: 3RDSECT

www.spiritlevelfilm.com/the-fear-factory.html/

www.spiritlevelfilm.com/ministry-of-truth.html/

The Fear Factory

Manufacturing fear into reality isn’t cheap – especially on a national scale. For decades the media and politicians have played the “law and order arms race”, the Fear Factory reveals how, why and the price we’re paying.

“An important piece of work… terrific. Makes the case for change urgent and unarguable” Lord Puttnam

“Five stars!” Helen McNutt, The Guardian

“Exposes our criminal justice crisis with forensic precision.” Chris Huhne MP

Ministry of Truth

Dom (Trigger Happy TV) Joly’s “Professor of Deceit” takes apart Ministers and MPs as only he can – separating the men from the boys in this highly irreverent, exposé. Lead to the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill being introduced into Parliament.

“Utterly compelling… never have so many politicians ducked and run for cover” The Daily Telegraph

The Right Honourables – Jack Straw, George Osborne, Alan Duncan and a who’s who of Westminster as you’ve never seen them before.

Pick of the Week/Day in 18 national newspapers and magazines.

If you would like to advertise with The Third Estate, drop us an email at: thethirdestateadmin@googlemail.com

Guest post by Richard Symons

We came to “The Fear Factory” via an unusual but (as we discovered) incredibly astute request.

The Nationwide Foundation’s steering committee brief was simple enough, “give us a tool to change minds” – a regrettably necessary first step in making the treatment of young offenders something you could convince the public they should want. The result was “The Fear Factory”, an hour long documentary that reveals how and why the politicians and media – despite the evidence, economics and expert opinion – have engaged in a tough-talking, law and order arms race which has effectively brought our criminal justice system into crisis.

Most areas of the 3rd sector face an uphill struggle for public and government support even when it’s easy to prove the work they’re doing is effective and much needed. Those working in the arena of criminal justice have to overcome additional hurdles – primarily public and media opinion coupled with the political implications of headline-grabbing controversies that can win and lose elections. If a government-funded charity asked the public to donate “Playstations for Prisons” imagine the ensuing tabloid frenzy and you get an idea of the communications work needed.

But Salman Shaheen hit the nail on the 3rd Sectors head in his review of the film, questioning whether it can change minds? In an e-mail to me he said, “I am slightly sceptical of the film’s – and indeed anyone’s – ability to influence the morally bankrupt bunch of writers and editors spreading fear, hatred and division for a living whilst pretending what they’re doing is real journalism”. I beg to differ.

I don’t blame Salman for his skepticism, it forms part of the reasoning behind the brief for the film. And he’s right to the extent that a film on it’s own can’t do the job, but that’s the case with any tool. I suspect that’s why an unprecedented 47 NGOs have formed a coalition off the back of the film – a hammer simply won’t drive in a nail by itself, and changing someone’s mind is infinitely harder – especially when they’re “morally bankrupt”. The key is realising they’re not.

Our burgeoning criminal justice crisis in the UK has worsened because crime is an incredibly emotional issue, centering on fear for your own safety and the safety of your loved ones. Newspapers commercially exploit this fear and politicians piggyback. Ultimately, the underlying logic behind the emotion is that when it comes to crime, especially violent crime, there can only be one certainty with a “morally bankrupt” offender – if they’re locked up, you and your family are safe.

Unless you believe in redemption, rehabilitation. In which case there’s no such thing as “morally bankrupt”.

Belief in redemption’s an issue I’d barely thought about before making the film – let alone whether society has the ability to redeem a killer. That was before we filmed ex-offenders like Erwin James and John Hirst. It was also before we’d filmed Chris Roycroft-Davies, for twenty years he was the executive editor and leader writer of The Sun. What quickly became apparent was that both Erwin and John had been rehabilitated. There can be no doubt they both make a positive contribution to society whereas 20 years ago this wasn’t the case. There was much more debate during the production over whether a man like Roycroft-Davis could ever change his mind, be “redeemed”. Salman’s skepticism says not.

Chris sat amongst an audience of 400 3rd sector workers at the film’s launch whilst they watched two decades of the “law and order” arms race unfold – in no small part as a result of headlines and leaders that he’d written. I figured at best, a quote from him would be useful for the DVD inlay to illustrate just how intractable the tabloids were on this issue. I suppose I was as cynical as Salman. Turns out I was wrong. The quote we ended up using was, “A wonderfully put together film that changed my mind”.

A hammer and nail coupled to a dose of skepticism won’t get your building work done, won’t make a change. The 3rd sector exists in the criminal justice arena because it cares, believes in human nature, believes in it’s value, believes we’re all capable of change and believes no-one’s born inherently bad – we know that includes offenders, but sometimes forget it can include journalists, judges, politicians and the public – it’s just a long haul and it’s going to need the energy and dedication of all 47 coalition members.

The 3rd sector getting cynical would be a terrible shame. It’d probably mean that what it is to be human has been dialed down a notch.

Richard Symons is the head of Spirit Level Film, producers of The Fear Factory

Additional Quotes

‘Were The Fear Factory merely a critique of youth justice policy it might not deserve close attention. But it isn’t. It’s more than that. It constructively builds the case for our taking a different direction. A direction which would make it less likely that we will all be victimised by a new generation of criminals.’ Rod Morgan,Chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. 2004-2007

“Exposes our criminal justice crisis with forensic precision.” Chris Huhne MP

“An important piece of work… terrific. Makes the case for change urgent and unarguable” Lord Puttnam

What were you doing in the summer of 2004? I was going to the gym alot (!), waiting for my a level results, and starting a relationship which ended abruptly when the girl in question took a holiday to France and made love to the entire male half of the native population. Yet a recent post at Socialist Unity has reminded of something else: the music video for Black Eyed Peas song “where is the love” was getting played over and over again. OK, so wikipedia has just told me that it actually came out a  year before, but since I don’t have a fucking clue what I was doing in summer 2003, I’m gonna stick with my original prose.

Anyway, with its constant refrains of “where is the love?”, this Black Eyed Peas song may not have been a new Das Capital in song form. Yet I would contend that the music video that accompanied it was indeed a rather excellent piece of politicized cinema.

The video reaches a crescendo from around 2  minutes 45. Band member alp.de.ap is chased by police – onstensibly for sticking a question mark on a moving vehicle. Just as he is about to be caught the story splits, and two alternate endings are interspersed with one another. In one alt.de.ap sits on the steps and challenges the calm and attentive police officer to consider some of the grander questions: “Whatever happened to the values of humanity whatever happened to the fairness and equality?…ask yourself”. Interspersed with this is a more common place ending to the narrative, in which the police officer pummels alt.de.ap against the bonnet of a car and arrests him. What emerges is a vivid picture of being human in The Present, of men marching to the rythm of the machine, while daring to ask if things might be otherwise. And thus I can forgive the appeals to god, and imagery of people looking towards te sky. It is an appeal to that which stands beyond and outside of the everyday grind – and should strike a chord with all of us who aspire towards the revolutionary transformation of society.

To contact Reuben email reuben@thethirdestate.net

When I received my review copy of Spirit Level Film’s latest documentary, The Fear Factory, through my letterbox a few days ago, I had little idea what to expect. A few seconds in, as the ominous music begins to play and the image of a foetus looms into view accompanied by the voiceover telling us that young offenders will be growing up in gaol and that we are heading for the largest prison population that any country could imagine having, it became clear to me that this was a film that was attempting to ask a number of crucial questions of deep moral and social significance. But did it answer them satisfactorily?

The timing of The Fear Factory couldn’t have been more appropriate, emerging as it has just as the return of John Venables to prison for an unspecified violation kicked up a media storm and a renewed public outcry over the murder of James Bulger. The central point that the filmmakers want to get across is that when it comes to crime and punishment, we are as far removed as one can possibly imagine from the evidence-based policy that this government claimed to represent. Instead what we have is moral panic fed by an hysterical media in which the public’s fear of youth crime is wholly disproportionate to any real statistics. What this has led to is an “arms race” between the main political parties over who can appear toughest on crime as both engage in a race to the bottom to bring in tougher penalties and build more prisons whilst the population behind bars soars.

These points are, for the most part, conveyed through a series of somewhat awkwardly cut interviews with prominent talking heads. Having managed to bag the likes of Cherie Blair, Dominic Grieve, David Howarth and an eloquent murderer who now writes for The Guardian, the filmmakers have clearly assembled an impressive roster. However, with very little else besides the odd flash here and there of what could be archive footage, a stereotypically deep and menacing narration and a second or two of questionably selected music, the overreliance on truth by authority makes for a documentary that is informative, but not terribly engaging. The most entertaining moment comes when the Deputy Editor of The Sun attempts to tell us that because politicians listen to the bullshit he puts in the editorial on a whim, they have no principles.

It is quite evident, of course, that The Fear Factory is not there to entertain, or even to inform, but to persuade. Whilst it features a few comments from oppositional figures, they are largely there to look stupid and look stupid they do. This is not an expose or investigative journalism. This is a propaganda film and it should make no apologies about that. Besides decrying the rising prison population and the media and political hysteria that have caused it, the film asks us to question whether people are born bad or if their crimes are a product of the society in which they grew up, and it touches upon the philosophy of prison itself – whether it should be a means of reform or retribution.

Where the filmmakers stand on this issue is quite clear, but my personal feeling is the message, which at times sounds like it is being shouted from a soapbox, will divide opinion. It is easy for bleeding heart liberals like myself who studied Foucault in their second year Social & Political Sciences paper at Cambridge to agree with everything The Fear Factory has to say. I very much doubt those who are paid £700k a year to demonise Britain’s youth in the country’s most odious tabloids will be swayed and for them this film, much like prison, will sadly be more retributive than reformative.

In any case, The Fear Factory is well worth a look and is available for pre-order on DVD now.

In Agatha Christie’s classic crime novel the ABC Murders, the detective Hercule Poirot comes up with the following formulation: “When do you notice a pin least? When it is in a pin cushion. When do you notice a murder least? When it is one of a series of related murders.” I would like to extend Poirot’s thinking to “When do you notice an extremely pernicious and dangerous conspiracy theory least? When it is set in a two hour film amongst many other conspiracy theories.”

Over the last year or so a number of people have told me that I should watch the film Zeitgeist: The Movie. All of these people have been lefties or liberals, and each tells me that the film supplies a good exposé of power in the modern world. These people have been from a wide range of backgrounds and ages, some of them environmentalists, some of them unionists, some of them socialists, some British, some American. The film has achieved massive viewing figures globally, with over 3,000,000 people having watched it on Youtube, and many more on DVD or Google Video. And of all of these people who have recommended the film to me, none has noticed its reliance on the old myth of the “world Jewish conspiracy”.

In this article I hope to expose the film’s relationship to older anti-Semitic texts and myths, and look more closely at how these theories are made to look left-wing or liberal. I wish to explain why this film has become so attractive to people who otherwise are engaged in good struggles against capitalism, against war, and to save the environment. I am particularly interested in the relationship between the film and a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with its use of other anti-Semitic tropes that have existed throughout modernity.

Zeitgeist: The Movie is split into three parts: The first focuses on the relationship between astrological symbology and the story of Jesus; the second on “the truth about 9/11″; and the third is about international finance. In all honesty the first part is neither here nor there. The argument is that Christianity is not original in its particular form of mythology, and instead is a reconfiguration of older myths focusing on sun gods. Whether or not we take this argument to be true has very little impact on how we understand modern society. The second section of the film expounds a theory that 9/11 was an inside job, committed by the American state. Many people do believe this, and much of the information is inaccessible, but the argument that I would like to make is that these two conspiracy theories are in many ways inconsequential to the overall meaning of the film. Rather they are used as a smoke screen to justify the dissemination of anti-Semitic material in the final section of the film.

What is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
The Protocols is a book first published by around the turn of the last century in Russia. It is a fraudulent and fictional document made to read as if written by Jews intent on ruling the world. It suggests that the Jewish people plan on world domination through a process of controlling governments, controlling the media, controlling banks, and swindling the populace at large. The claim is that Jews wish to enslave the world by creating a “one world government.” Of course the text is deeply anti-Semitic, and has been shown numerous times to be a forgery, but has been used consistently throughout the 20th and 21st centuries to justify atrocities committed against Jews. Furthermore it remains popular in parts of the world, and amongst certain right-wing and fascist organisations.

The relationship between two texts
It is easy enough to say that there is a large cross-over of content between Zeitgeist and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by plucking a few choice quotes. For example, where Zeitgeist says, “International bankers now have a streamlined machine to expand their personal ambitions”, The Protocols says “the wheels of the machine of all the states are moved by the force of the engine, which is in our [the Jews'] hands, and the engine of the machinery of our states is Gold .” But I would suggest that this sort of critique does not go far enough, rather I would like to show that the entire argument of the third section of the film has been lifted from The Protocols. It is the same argument, often in slightly altered language, and as such is just as anti-Semitic. I will focus on five particular aspects: The one world government; the use of war; manipulation of the populace; the focus on gold and money; and the idea of an all-powerful secret cabal.

The One World Government
One of the great fears of the conspiracy theorists is a one world government. This point is made explicitly towards the end of Zeitgeist in a discussion of a North American Union, an Asian Union, the European Union, and an African Union. And finally, they say “when the time is right they will merge together forming the final stages of a plan these men have been working on for over 60 years: a one world government… One bank, one army, one centre of power.” This argument is particularly related to he opening of Protocol 3 in which we read, “Today I may tell you that our [the Jews'] goal is now only a few steps off. There remains but a small space to cross of the long path we have trodden before the cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolise our people, will be completed. When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked into its coil as in a powerful vice.” The Protocols go on in Protocol 5, “by all these means we shall so wear down the goyim (non-Jews) that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that will enable us to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government.”

The use of war
There is a section in the film in which it is claimed that the justifications for America going into a number of world wars were orchestrated by “men behind the government.” We are told that the sinking of the Lusitania was planned, that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened, that Pearl Harbour was known about well in advance, and of course that 9/11 was an inside job. We are told that both sides of conflicts have been funded by the same “international bankers.” This section of the film is lifted directly from Protocol 7, which reads, “Throughout all of Europe, and by means of relations in Europe, in other continents also, we must create ferments, discords, and hostility. Therein we gain a double advantage. In the first place we keep in check all countries, for they well know that we have the power whenever we like to create disorders and to restore order… We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbours of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbours should also venture to stand collectively against us, then we must offer resistance by universal war.”

I am not going to say here that wars haven’t been entered into cynically, because of course they have, and I am also not saying that many wars should not be opposed, because again in many cases they should. The point though, is that the structure of this particular argument about war is based on the idea of Jews running the world, and should thus be thrown out.

Manipulating the populace
There are two branches to classic Jewish conspiracy theory thought about how the people are made stupid and swindled. The first, and in fact the one that has been most significant in the history of Jewish conspiracy theories, is the idea of Jews being in charge of the media. The second, which has become less widely used but still exists in Zeitgeist: The Movie is the idea of Jewish control of the education system to make it ineffective. The issue of Jewish control of the media is covered in Protocol 12 in which it is written, “Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours (the Jews’) and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.” And in Protocol 13, “We further distract them [the non-Jews] with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, people’s palaces… Soon we shall begin through the press to propose competitions in art, in sport of all kinds. These interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them.” In Zeitgeist identical issues are covered throughout but in particular there is discussion of a “culture entirely saturated by mass media entertainments.” We are told that the same people behind the planned takeover of society are “behind the mainstream media.”

In both Zeitgeist and The Protocols we see some discussion of the education system. In Zeitgeist we are told about the “downward slide of the US education system” and that “They [the government] do not want your children to be educated.” Completely unsurprisingly the same argument is made in Protocol 16: “When we are in power we shall remove every kind of disturbing subject from the course of education and shall make out of the youth obedient children of authority.” The narrator of Zeitgeist says, “the last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious, informed public”, echoing the sentiment from Protocol 5 that “there is nothing more dangerous to us (the Jews) than personal initiative.”

The focus on gold or money: the federal reserve, and Jewish usury
Both The Protocols (particularly Protocols 21 and 22) and Zeitgeist focus heavily on issues regarding money or gold. Both offer the theory that the problems of society are caused by money and systems of money being controlled by a small group of people of questionable morals. What is important here is the focus is on money rather than on capital or production. Instead of offering critical perspectives on the structures within society that cause oppression and poverty, the general view is society as it stands is benevolent and this benevolence is subverted by problems in the sphere of circulation.

Over the centuries, going back as far as the expulsion of the Jews from Britain in 1290, the charge of usury has been levelled against the Jews for anti-Semitic purposes. Zeitgeist says of the federal income tax, “roughly 25% of the average worker’s income is taken via this tax, and guess where that money goes? It goes to pay the interest on the currency being produced by the Federal Reserve Bank. The money you make working for almost three months out of the years goes almost literally into the pockets of the international bankers.” Again, for the sake of trying not to appear as racist as they really are, the word Jew is replaced with “international bankers.” This is once again a restatement of an anti-Semitic myth. Just as in all of these examples, the arguments here are lifted from older anti-Semitic theories. They are not offering an explanation of world or national political economic systems, rather they exist solely to foster an attitude of hatred to a certain pre-defined section of society.

A secretive cabal?
Ultimately, the argument that is being made throughout Zeitgeist is that the world is being controlled by a small secret society of individuals, and in the context of the history of conspiracy theories, they are talking about the Jews. When we are told by the film about meetings of these “international bankers” that are “secretive and concealed from public view”, discussions about “an accelerated agenda by the ruthless elite”, or “people behind the government” they are breathing new life into an old racist myth that we must try to do away with.

There is an insistence throughout conspiracy theories that someone or some group of people are personally responsible for all of the ills of the world, and this is very much related to anti-Semitism throughout modernity. For hundreds of years, Jews have been the officially sanctioned scapegoat of capitalism. Where systems of production have impoverished people, the Jews have been blamed; where people have felt taxes are unfair, the Jews have been blamed; where people have felt alienated by the structures of society, they have been told that they are in fact alienated because they are not part of secret meetings of Jews. Ultimately these theories lead us away from a critique of capitalism. Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek makes exactly this point with reference to Wagner’s anti-Semitism when he writes “He needs a Jew: so that, first, modernity – this abstract impersonal process – is given a human face, is identified with a concrete, palpable feature; then, in a second move, by rejecting the Jew which gives full body to all that is disintegrated in modernity, we can retain its advantages. In short, anti-Semitism does not stand for anti-modernism as such, but an attempt at combining modernity with social corporatism which is characteristic of conservative revolutionaries.”

Who was Senator Louis McFadden?
Louis McFadden, who is quoted at length in Zeitgeist, was a senator in the US in the first part of the twentieth century. He also happened to be a serious anti-Semite, and came out with lines such as, “in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money.” He is quoted twice in the film saying the following: “A world banking system was being set up here… a superstate controlled by international bankers acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure…” and “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair so they might emerge rulers of us all.” Within the context of McFadden’s world view, he is using “international bankers” as an epithet for Jews. What is notable is that the makers of Zeitgeist seem keen to omit this context, to suggest that McFadden is simply offering a critique of capitalism. The fact is that within conspiracy theories the labelling of Jews as “international bankers” and “international finance capital” is a common trope. These quotes would have been understood at the time, and is still understood by many now, to be anti-Semitic gestures.

The Case of Jeremiah Duggan, and the truth about Lyndon LaRouche
Another rather shady character who appears in Zeitgeist is American political activist Lyndon LaRouche. I felt I should include the following story as anecdotal evidence of quite how dangerous these people can be:

Jeremiah Duggan was a British Student at the Sorbonne who died in 2003 in extremely suspicious circumstances. In the months leading up to his death, Duggan had become involved in what he believed to be an anti-war organisation. In fact he had become entangled with a set of political organisations headed up by American political activist Lyndon LaRouche. In March that year, Duggan attended a conference of these organisations at the Schiller Institute (a site owned by LaRouche’s movement) in Wiesbaden, Germany. During the course of meetings Duggan revealed himself to be Jewish, and yet in such meetings of LaRouche’s movement, Jews are blamed for starting the war, reanimating the old conspiracy myths about the Jews encouraging wars as they aid social control. He said in his keynote address to the conference, “This plot to launch a new world war has been intellectually influenced by people who, like Hitler, admire Nietzsche, but “being Jewish, they couldn’t qualify for Nazi Party leadership, even though their fascism was absolutely pure! As extreme as Hitler! They sent them to the United States.[…] Who’s behind it? . . . The independent central-banking-system crowd, the slime-mold. The financier interests.”

At around 5am, after Duggan had revealed his Jewish identity at the conference, he phoned his mother. He said, “Mum, I’m in … big trouble … You know this Nouvelle Solidarité? ..” He said, “I can’t do this” … I want out.” And at that point the phone was cut. And then it rang back again almost immediately. … And then the first thing that he said that time was, “Mum, I’m frightened.” She realized he was in such danger that she said to him, “I love you.” And then he said, “I want to see you now.” She said, “well, where are you, Jerry?” And he said, “Wiesbaden.” And she said, “How do you spell it?” And he said, “W I E S.” And then the phone was cut.

The next day, Jeremiah was found dead, with members of LaRouche’s movement claiming that he had committed suicide. Inquests are still ongoing to determine what happened that night. In the last few weeks a second inquiry into his death has been announced.

LaRouche has been known as a Jewish conspiracy theorist for more than 30 years now. His organisation is cultish and dangerous (one of the reasons I choose to write this anonymously), and the content of much of what he says can be traced back to the sort of allegations put forward by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What, then, is a man like this doing in a film that purports to be a lefty-liberal critique of society?

Zeitgeist and the Left
What is in many ways most unsettling about this film is the fact that it purports to be left-wing or liberal. As the film ends we see images of three men faded in and out: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther-King, and John Lennon. Throughout the film we have quotations from left wing comedian Bill Hicks and a section is given to New Labour politician Michael Meacher. It is asserted once again that the aim of this film is the affirmation of the unity of humanity, of doing away with difference, whether it be class, race, or sex. We are made to think that the film is offering a radical left critique of power. Instead it is indulging in the sort of theories that are more at home with right-wing libertarians. I do not know entirely why the Zeitgeist group are particularly targeting the left. It is perhaps a divisive measure, but also possibly just an arena where they feel they can convert people to their way of thinking. What is clear, though, is that the suggestion that the ideas expressed are left-wing or liberal, and the deployment of quotations from well known lefties and liberals, is utterly cynical.

The positivist problem
There is one reason in particular that these conspiracies may seem compatible with left wing modes of thought, and that is to do with the philosophical problem of positivism. Stated in its simplest form, this is that ideas about transforming a society cannot be straightforwardly expressed in the language or accepted modes of thought of the society that they wish to transform. And this issue is common to all transformative theories of society. Probably the most influential branch of this type of thinking stemmed from Hegel to Marx, and then into Marxists of the 20th and 21st century. The solution for them is to talk in terms of a dialectic, that is, by comparing the consciousness of a society to the material reality. The significant conclusion of this type of thought is that one’s consciousness of society, up to a certain point is always false.

The conspiracy theorists take on this question in another way. They say that if our consciousness of society is always false, it is made to be false by a small number of powerful who make it false. They believe that we are consistently duped by an all-knowing cabal who control every aspect of our lives. And the solutions differ too. For the Marxists and socialists the problem is that society produces a consciousness that doesn’t allow us to fully understand our immiseration in work, in unemployment, or in powerlessness, and the solution is the radical transformation of society to a fairer, less exploitative world. For the conspiracy theorists the answer is the elimination of this so-called small powerful elite. They do not believe that society needs any more transformation than this.

This is difficult philosophical ground to tread. We run a huge risk if we are to criticise the conspiracy theorists for not being positivists, not working within accepted modes of thought. Instead, what we must say is that their particular critical mode of thought does not propose a correct solution for solving society’s problems, and furthermore is reliant not on unity but on division. We must show that inequality in society is structural rather than being based on the wishes of a small group of Jews.

What is to be done?
Zeitgeist: The Movie is ever growing in popularity, and furthermore they are building a movement. More and more people are being influenced by what the film has to say, without realising quite where it is coming from. It is important that as widely as possible we can expose the anti-Semitic subtext to this film. We must expose the film as being cynically positioned to influence liberals and lefties. In targeting the ideas presented by Zeitgeist it is not enough to just quibble over details, rather we must be trying to understand the politics that this film overall is trying to portray. We need to read through the many layers of conspiracy theories here, and understand that there is one in particular that they want us to believe, and that this one is, of course, the most dangerous and pernicious.

It is important to understand that the type of critique of society offered by the Zeitgeist movement cannot be separated from the Jewish conspiracy theory. One cannot take classic anti-Semitic texts, replace the word “Jew” with “international bankers”, or “international finance capital” and then believe that your theory is no longer anti-Semitic. Of course there are very good arguments that capitalism and indeed imperialism are extremely dangerous. There are very good arguments from a left or liberal perspective to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should never have been fought. And it is here that we must recognise that ends do not justify means. We cannot afford to support any cause that is simply anti-capitalist, or any cause that is simply anti-war, otherwise we run the risk of getting into bed with fascists. Rather, our positions on capitalism and of war must arise from thoroughgoing critique, rather than a rehashing and rebranding of old anti-Semitic narratives.

In order to spread this message as widely as possible I encourage you to republish this piece on your own websites, to send it to friends and comrades, to show it to anyone who tells you about “this fabulous new film you just have to watch.” One of the easiest ways is, if you are on twitter, to just click the tweet button at thee top of this post. If possible, do track back to us here at The Third Estate so we can monitor how widely this material is being disseminated. In coming weeks I will be recreating this article as a voice-over video, much in the style of Zeitgeist: The Movie in order that we can spread these views to even more people who may be influenced by this abhorrent film.

The Third Estate catches up with Lucy Bailey, director of the Oscar-nominated Mugabe and the White African

It may have been pipped to the post at the Oscars last night, but ‘Mugabe and the White African’ scooped Best Documentary at the British Independent Film Awards and was shortlisted for the award of Outstanding Debut Film at the Baftas. Arguably the most compelling British Documentary of the last year, The Third Estate caught up with director Lucy Bailey.

The film follows the story of Mike and Ben, two white Zimbabwean farmers who successfully took Mugabe to SADC (Southern African Democratic Community) Court in the face of horrendous obstacles.

Later this week we’ll be reviewing the film ― still on at some London cinemas ― as well taking a look at three very different films about South Africa in their momentous World Cup Year: ‘Beyond the Rainbow’, ‘Have you Heard from Johannesburg? The Bottom Line’ and Clint Eastwood’s Oscar nominated ‘Invictus’, a story about the greatest sport on earth and some politician.

But first our exclusive interview recorded in December 2009.

The Third Estate: Since the film was made what’s been happening in Zimbabwe? How are Mike and Ben?

Lucy Bailey: At the end of August, beginning of September the farm was burnt down. At moment the family are staying with friends in Harare. The thugs are still on the farm, they’ve disrupted the water supplies. In one sense they’ve lost everything, as have all the farm workers. They’re trying to get the linen factory running but it’s a real struggle for them. Ben is trying to get Outreach, to get national governments to help the SADC tribunal, that’s almost become a full time job for them. Mike is not well at all, he’s in a wheelchair now, he has some brain damage from the beating. He is definitely not the man in the film which is very sad.

In terms of the wider country there has been more in the news in the last few days. The coalition government between the MDC and Zanu PF basically isn’t working with lots of Morgan Tsvangari’s men being arrested, ministers unable to take up their positions. He’s Prime Minster on paper but in reality has no power. He has no access to the army or the police. Violence throughout the country is racking up. There are going to be more rows and political violence on the ground, it’s not looking good.

The Third Estate: Have British politicians done enough over the last few years? Is there anything you’d want to say to them?

Lucy Bailey: In our opinion it’s very difficult for the British Government. Mugabe plays the colonialist card on people, he makes out we are neo-colonialists interfering with his affairs. It’s difficult position but at the same time I don’t think they are doing enough. They’re scared of being called colonialists. Nevertheless the key remains the SADC countries.

The court was an African court, a black court. Africa needs to get its own house in order and other African countries need to say, ‘No we’re not having this. We need to take this new human rights court seriously and we’re going to sort Zimbabwe out.’ But the US and UK have a part to play. It would not be good if sanctions were lifted. Our government needs to make clear it will not work with a regime that works in a way Mugabe’s regime does.

The Third Estate: The title comes from something Ben says―that you can’t have a ‘White African’. Is this a problem that you see extending beyond Zimbabwe and across the continent? Is it intended as a warning on a larger front?

Lucy Bailey: We feel race does underlie a lot of what goes on in Africa, but the crux of the film is about human rights, the rule of law and democracy. There are other leaders in Africa who may view white Africans as Mugabe does but there are other leaders at the opposite end of that spectrum. We want to see Africa unite and put democracy and human rights ahead of anything else.

The Third Estate: There’s one particular moment in the film which is very striking, in fact quite frightening, when a Zanu PF Minister arrives to take over Ben’s farm. What’s going on at that point?

Lucy Bailey: It’s a scene where one of the Zanu PF members is at the farm. Ben had come back to find Tomado, he’s the son of Minister Chanarera, a minister in Mugabe’s government. Essentially it’s just a conversation between them. Tomada spells out the whole argument from their perspective. As if he were Mugabe’s spokesman he claims land seizure is for redistribution to the poor black majority. Ben asks why he is here, ministers aren’t the poor black majority. By the end his arguments are undermined. It’s a very telling scene.

The Third Estate: What would you say to someone who sees the film and feels moved to act?

Lucy Bailey: People need to keep pressure on their governments. Write to your MP, say that you want the situation in Zimbabwe to be taken seriously. Its very hard to do much more than this. We’re trying to attract outreach with this film. If this film can get to the right political leaders in the SADC countries, the US and the UK. The film gets a message through in the way a news story doesn’t, especially in relation to a SADC tribunal. People don’t know about it or realise how key it could be.

The Third Estate: Have you ever had to choose between a film’s story arc and a political message? Would you for example alter the chronology to build tension or do you let the facts speak for themselves?

Lucy Bailey: We let the facts speak for themselves. We came to the film with no political agenda whatsoever. With no ties to white farmers in Zimbabwe at all. We were interested in this story, one man takes on a tyrant, who happens to be a tyrant. When we began we thought the film would be done and dusted in a month. We had no idea how the court case would be wrapped up in the politics of the election. They became interwoven. It made the film far more interesting. The events were not in any way manipulated. The structure of the film follows from what happened.

The Third Estate: I spent a few months in Zimbabwe just over a decade ago and I remember there being quite a lot of― you’d probably call it casual racism―among the white community. Did you find this at all? Or is it something that’s gone now?

Lucy Bailey: Certainly when we were there filming we didn’t come across any of that kind of attitude, certainly not with our farming families. When we were there, Zimbabwe was completely gripped by this climate of fear. And that wasn’t a black or white thing; it was whites and blacks together gripped by fear about this regime. That dominated everything else.

The Third Estate: I was struck by the fact that both families seemed deeply religious. Do you think that played a part in their determination to stay?

Lucy Bailey: Without doubt it would be hard to see how they were doing what they were doing. Their faith was the power behind them and still is. It is everything to them. There’s a line in the film where Andrew says everything else has been taken away from them. There is no law and order, there is nothing else to believe in, in Zimbabwe. So faith has become really important. It underpinned everything they were able to do, their courage.

We have been trying to get a third party partner. But it has been hard to get big organisation on board and NGOs to help this film make a difference. We made a promise to Ben and Mike that we would try to get the film to make a difference, documentary films can be very powerful. Films can be a call to action. There is still a total press ban and that’s why this film is so important. That is unique, as is the moment when the Zimbabwean government walk out of an international court before the judgement. This story needs to be told, Ben and Mike aren’t simply fighting for themselves, they’re fighting for everyone in Zimbabwe.

Things are stepping up. This year there will be another election. There is already increasing violence, oppositions supporters are being attacked, child soldiers are being trained. It’s a critical time.

www.mugabeandthewhiteafrican.com

It is rather a shock that they managed to spend $400m on a film without anyone in Hollywood saying, “erm, guys, I think this is a bit racist.” In fact so much of a shock that since the release of Avatar in late December, blogging and reviewing communities have time and time again criticised the film for racism. I shan’t go over the plot of the film here as there are excellent synopses elsewhere on the internet , but the main controversial point seems to be that the Na’vi, a fictional race of animistic savages, cast completely with black actors, require a white American to come save their society when the American army try to destroy it in search of a rare mineral called unobtanium (yep, you guessed it, the storyline is pretty puerile.)

What I want to address here is that actually the film is racist on a much deeper level than suggested in many of the reviews, and that exposing this racism is only really possible by looking at critiques of early anthropology and ethnography. The key split amongst the colonising force is between “scientists” who want to understand the Na’vi and the army or technocrats who want to physically dominate them in order to fulfil a required end. The separation of “science” and “technology” suggests that only technology can be instrumental in domination. That science (in this case a combination of botany, ecology, and anthropology) is value free, and thus has no effect on power structures. The problem is that this is simply not the case, and that science is forever pregnant with ideology and power differentials despite its claim to objectivity.

Reading this into the film is complicated by the conflation of mimetic and diegetic viewpoints of the scientists and the audience. In order that the film may become critical of the domination of technocracy and colonial thinking it allows the audience the same view of the Na’vi as that of the scientists in order that they become sympathetic with one side of the science/technology dichotomy. And this, of course, means that when the Na’vi are still presented as savages (noble or otherwise), as simple, or as naïve, the film demands that the audience collude with this.

And what is probably most interesting about the version of signification of savages that is used is that it revolves around anthropology that was being written about 100 years ago. Whilst the way the scientists act towards the Na’vi has heavy echoes of Malinowski  and the racism implied by his methods (in which savages simply do not fully comprehend the real bases for their structures) probably more interesting and relevant is folklorist James Frazer’s work in The Golden Bough. In this book he argues that human consciousness has gone through various stages from animism to religion to science. He looks back from his own world-view problematising the reality of these other forms of consciousness. Where this method is most present in Avatar is in its use of myth. The Na’vi are treated as some form of generic animistic/pagan society through the random borrowing and intermingling of known animistic/pagan traditions and signifiers ranging from ancient Greek dionysiac theatre to the World Ash tree of Norse mythology, to the use of traditional African jewellery. It is in this sense that they belong to no real tradition and are just a savage Other to Western enlightenment. There is no real interest in the quality of their society, they are simply portrayed by the scientists in the film and by the film itself as backward. How could any thought be more tied up with the colonial project?

What is worse than this is that the film portrays itself as left-wing, as anti-war, even as “on the side of the Na’vi” and environmentalist. It is not. At best the film says that the problems of technocracy can only be solved with a regression from capital, and a new fetishisation of the natural. The film is utterly incompatible with a demand for people’s control of resources. It views the problems of capitalism to be identical to the mode of production rather than the contradiction of the modes and relations of production. There is no thought that technology, forever stated as instrumental domination, could be transformed to serve the many rather than the few. Clearly James Cameron believes that the way forward is to tear down the factories, to tear down the cities, and give up on all mod cons. This is about as far from a left perspective one can have in environmental arguments.

So by all means go to see the film. It’s a bit long and a bit racist, but at least it will refresh your anger with Hollywood!

Like Starsuckers, reviewed last week, Ondi Timoner’s We Live in Public is a confused film. It’s a documentary about ‘the most brilliant dot.com millionaire you’ve never heard of’ [actually that would probably be all of them] ― a chap called Josh Harris.

Not that even if you had heard of him, you’d necessarily have recognised the brilliant dot.com millionaire, since he seems to have spent much of his life, including many of his board-meetings, dressed as his fully made-up, alter-ego ‘Luvvy the Clown’. An unusually hideous look even for a man who during his better moments (and in this film they’re precious few) appears damply constipated.

Whether getting the jump on the market in online porn chat and cheap-as-chips MTV really marks out Harris as a media visionary, I’ll let you decide. Nevertheless he oversaw two projects which have eerie resonance with much of contemporary online culture.

The first project ― part art-installation, part monumental vanity-project ― involved locking up and catering for, about a hundred volunteers in a windowless New York apartment block, filled with cameras and televisions, which allowed the participants to snoop on one another, in any location, at any time. Harris’ prototype Big Brother in fact went rather further than any of the progressively more gruesome TV versions, by including a basement filled with automatic weapons, and a white-tiled prison cell in which theatrical interrogations were held, the tone pitched somewhere between the Stanford Prisone Experiment and a Max Mosley wet dream. Ultimately the police shut the event down though not before most of the inhabitants had gone from a short-lived orgiastic euphoria into a black hysterical mania; while Harris (who had by now sold his own business to become ‘an artist’) had burned through most of his personal fortune.

Harris’ next project was to Big Brother his own life online, by sticking cameras up throughout his flat (with a dedication that extended to a spy-cam in his toilet bowl) and streaming the resulting film online 24 hours a day. Surprisingly Harris had a girlfriend at this point; less surprisingly she soon left him ― though whether this was because of the project itself or the simple result of living with a lunatic sociopath isn’t really discussed. The most interesting aspect of the project came from what was initially one of its by-products― the couple’s online chats with their viewers. For both of them the chats became an obsession, craving sympathy from their unseen arbiters; those capable of judgment but not punishment. Or more prosaically it reminded me of watching relationships explode on Facebook.

Like a character from Evelyn Waugh, Harris is last glimpsed living in deepest Africa as far away from new technology ― and by his own admission, his creditor’s ― as Luvvy and himself could manage.

Whether Harris’ story really does suggest the future for the rest of us is a moot point. In spite of a somewhat breathless commentary, and being at least half an hour too long, Timoner’s doc is worth looking out for on DVD because, whilst it is currently showing at select art house cinemas, it’s unlikely to make a much wider appearance.