MEDIA TRIBE

Hooligans tend to wear a uniform. From the Teddy Boy of the 5Os, through the skinhead, to the modern day Hoodie, a uniform tends to identify a particular type. Regardless of region or city, the uniform can often be exact and the logical explanation is to ally it to media images which attract the attention of the young. Once the uniform is identified, hooligans tend to inhabit particular areas - certain estates, roads, whatever. A particular gang tends to mark their area with graffiti or other symbolism. This then becomes their hunting ground, and gang warfare can erupt if other gangs try to move in on them. These dual notions of similarity and hunting ground are similar to what happens in tribal societies. This is perhaps the best way of understanding what is going on - it is not a new phenomenon, but a rebirth of the oldest form of known human society; the tribe. And when we see it thus, the entire mentality of the hooligan can be identified.
Tribal societies were known as brutal and savage, and we now understand why this is. The notion of psychological distancing tells us that a person can be conditioned to see others as sub-human, or different, if told so by an apparent authority figure. Just how fundamental the effect of this can be was identified by psychologist Stanley Milgram. In research up to the early 1970s, he conned people to think that, during a test, they were administering an electric shock to another person. Normally they would not do this, but under the authority of science, they carried out what they thought were horrendous levels of electric shock treatment.
Such a phenomenon required a suspension of morality and an acceptance of absolute authority over their ideals. But once such a notion of psychological distancing has been achieved, the most horrendous atrocities can be realised, as best seen in Nazi Germany.
Once this ability is realised, we can see how psychological distancing can make the hooligan immune to any form of responsibility for his actions. And with such a mentality he can so easily destroy property, mug old ladies, carry out rapes with indifference, and even, at times, commit murder. No morality is involved for his conditioning has absolved him of blame. But from where does such authority come? Most gangs have a leader. And one of the defining things about the leader is that he is seen as daring. This, of course, is inspiring. But the process can be seen as much more than this. We saw earlier how gangs of hooligans tend to wear a uniform. This usually comes from a fashion statement of a particular media icon - the Teddy Boy aping Elvis Presley, for instance. But we can also see in the gang leader an attempt to ape the actions and attitudes of this media icon. Whether deliberately or by implication, the daring-do of a media icon can transfer down to a gang leader, and from there to the members of the gang.
In this way the gang leader is transformed from a mere person, to a reflection of the icon involved. And in a real sense, the sociology of this form of veneration is religious in nature. For in reflecting the icon in flesh and blood, he becomes an image of the icon, in the same way that a prophet becomes the mouthpiece and vehicle of God’s will. This becomes a potent sociological force. For in the process we have an almost supernatural authority invested in a thug. And as a quasi-divinity, everything that then follows must be seen as glorious and invested with cause.
This is totally against the perceived wisdom of theorists. Rather, hooliganism is seen as mindless thuggery, with no cause identifiable. But such ideas miss the point. So what exactly is going on? Through mythology we can identify the time when tribalism first breaks into a semi-ordered, historical society. And the interesting thing about early gods is that they were not moral beings. Rather, they were reflections of human foibles with an innate criminal mentality, involving mass murder, rape and any other depravity you care to name. Thus, they were ‘magnificent’ due to their excess. Britain itself has a particular mythology invested in King Arthur, a glorious king who had his own gang of hard men who went through the land on quests. Such quests were classed as glorious, but what was actually happening was murder, conquest and an attempt to validate a particular system of authority over the people.
These early, mythological idiosyncrasies are, I believe, invested in hooligan gangs. For in their muggings, vandalism and joy-riding, they are expressing their superiority over their territory and the people who seem to disagree with their antics. We see it as mindless thuggery - in the wider sense it is - but to the gangs, it is the way they express their power over forces they see as oppressive. Until we understand this, we will not be able to truly combat crime in any form.

© Anthony North, December 2002

ASTROLOGY

Millions of people believe in astrology, sure in the knowledge that their future is in the stars. Many famous and powerful people have led the trend. Even US President Ronald Reagan became a slave to the practice. All state decisions were checked out by his wife, Nancy, with her Californian astrologer, Joan Quigley. Winston Churchill used astrologers during World War Two. This wasn’t that he believed. Rather, Hitler did, and had a whole staff of astrologers. Churchill simply wanted a team to attempt to second-guess what Hitter’s astrologers told him.
Many great historic claims have been made for the success of astrology. Elizabeth I’s astrologer John Dee was said to have predicted the bad weather that helped destroy the Spanish Armada. Later, the 17th century astrologer William Lilly was said to predict the Great Plague and Fire of London. With the former, Dee was actually asked to cast a false prediction to put off the Spanish. He was no doubt as shocked as anyone when the bad weather happened. As for Lilly, experiences throughout Europe had shown how crowded places eventually brought plague; and if built of wood, would eventually catch fire. Nostradamus himself used astrology in his predictions. But as with Lilly, all that was really needed was a dose of common sense.
This said, businesses all over the west employ astrologers by the thousand to predict business and stock trends. If they didn’t get it right more often than not, big business would not employ them. So what exactly is going on? Perhaps, to understand, we need to know just what astrology is.
First of all, no true astrologer would claim to predict the future. Rather, astrology involves casting a horoscope for a particular event, usually a person’s birth, dependent upon the positions of the planets at a particular time. It is based on the principle that, seeing the planets move in a predictable way, their course could reflect the predictability of a life. And in this way, astrology becomes a guide, and not a definite predicted future.
Known to date back 4,000 years to the Babylonians, it is the planets that are important rather than the stars. The word, planet, means wanderer, and in this sense includes the sun and moon. The Earth actually wobbles on its axis, thus causing the planets to shift positions in relation to the constellations. Seeing the planets as a form of astronomical clock, they move in a small band of sky which is split into the twelve houses of the Zodiac. In this way, the planets move through houses, thus allowing movement to be charted.
Astrology used to be very much a science. A school of astrology was set up on the Greek island of Kos in 280BC. Until this time, priests had only cast horoscopes for kings in order to gain power, but with the Greek experiment in democracy, horoscopes were downsized for anyone, the Greeks opening up astrology to the people. During the Middle Ages astrology became an academic subject in Europe with the University of Bologna founding a chair of astrology in 1125. Most academics of the day were astrologers, reaching Cambridge by 1250. But with the Inquisition, it was deemed un-Godly and shunned.
The popular astrology we know of today began with the creation of the Astrological Press in the late 19th century, founded by Richard James Morrison and Robert Cross Smith, and infiltrated the papers with the casting of a horoscope for Princess Margaret. Today, hundreds of papers have the stars. However, even though millions of people live by the stars, most astrologers would see them as meaningless entertainment. The casting of a horoscope is a personal and individual practice, very different to what we read in newspapers. This accepted, is there any reality to the claims made by proper astrologers.
In the 1950s the young mathematician Michel Gauquelin applied statistics to astrology in order to discredit it. He was shocked to discover that most categories of professions had a statistical bias towards validating astrology; although later statisticians claimed that the way he did the statistics loaded them in his favour. Controversy still reigns on this point, making Gauquelin’s claims invalid.
Several scientific theories have been aired to validate astrology. For instance, we know that the gravitational pull of the planets affects tides, and it has long been suspected that the phases of the moon affect moods - the term lunatics cones from the word lunacy, or moon. But these effects in no way validate astrology in terms of any predictive quality.
A further problem is that life does not begin at birth, but conception. So how can birth have any bearing on the path a life will take? The psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, was well aware of these problems when he studied astrology. Jung invoked his theory of synchronicity to explain the phenomenon. To Jung, apparent non-causal coincidences could occur, somehow directed by the person. Just how, he wasn’t quite sure. But if we become less exotic, we do know that we have an in-built ability to only see what we want to see. Further, studies of luck have shown that we can create our own luck based on whether we have a pessimistic or optimistic frame of mind.
Psychologist Dr Richard Wiseman explains such ‘luck’ as an in-born ability to calculate odds combined with a form of amnesia that allows us to forget the bad times, or vice versa. However, the important point here is that our attitudes CAN seem to order the world about us. And our attitudes are based very much on what we believe. For instance, if you believe in God, you will see his work everywhere. And by the same route, if you believe in Astrology, chances are your attitude will confirm that your horoscope will come true.

(c) Anthony North, 2003

GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming is caused by the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere, allowing sunlight through, but impeding heat getting out, thus causing the planet to warm up. This is why it is known as the Greenhouse Effect.
As the planet heats, a number of factors can be identified. Changing air currents cause havoc, resulting in changing and violent weather patterns. As warming proceeds, ice caps could melt, causing a worldwide rise in water levels, swamping low-lying land.
The main culprit behind global warming is said to be industrial man. The burning of fossil fuels in power stations, modes of transport and homes releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Deforestation adds to the problem, cutting oxygen released by trees.
Others argue global warming is a natural cycle we cannot change. For instance, in the 12th century vines were grown in northern England, whilst during the 16th, the Thames regularly froze over. Climate changes, so there.
Western politicians are also said to have an agenda behind acceptance of man-made global warming. By trying to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, they are protecting global markets for the western world.
Clearly man-made global warming is not proved, but it is likely. In light of this, we have the Precautionary Principle of better to be safe than sorry. Put it this way – if a car is balanced on the edge of a cliff, a human finger can tilt it over.

© Anthony North, November 2006

HIM ALMIGHTY

Does God exist?
Now, there’s a question that used to titillate the intellectual tastebuds. But nowadays it usually makes people yawn; for whilst many still accept his existence, thinking about it is just too much. And then, of course, there are the atheists - those who say they don’t believe in God, but turn themselves into the centre of the universe. Seems like a God- belief to me. After all, who said He had to be an old fella with a white beard living upon high?
The atheist’s absolute belief in themselves does, infact, teach us quite a lot about God. They show how easily we can learn to venerate something, even if it’s ourself. Hence, in previous, superstitious times, a belief in God would have been easy to begin. Just create an idealised, supernatural image of ourselves and call it God.
Such an idea explains that old argument about God being a nasty God. After all, if he was benevolent, would He allow so much evil in the world? Well, if He’s a reflection of ourselves, He sure would wouldn’t He! After all, if God is created in our image rather than us created in His, then He’d have our nastiness too.
This gives a touch of reality to God. He may not exist in a true, supernatural sense. But if He’s an idealisation of us, then He must have existence in some sense.
This is particularly important in terms of belief in God, and action from that belief. After all, if you belief in God absolutely, and you carry out actions in society which reflect that belief, then things happen in the real world as if they had happened because of God. And in this way, whether He really exists or not is irrelevant to the fact that the world can behave as if He did. Hence, all you need for God to exist is a belief that He does.
Confused? Don’t worry; because we’ve just proved that God does exist, even though He may not. But in one sense, He always did exist for as long as man has been around to think about Him. And this existence is due to culture.
You see, if you think about it, every thing that says God exists is a product of culture - our prayers, our churches, the lot. And culture, if you think about it, is a force above us that guides us. So tell me, what the hell is that if not a God?

(c) Anthony North, March 2004

CHRISTIANITY

Christianity is to do with the life of Jesus Christ. Born to a Virgin in a stable, Jesus was brought up a poor carpenter. Following his baptism, he began a three year mission preaching and doing miracles, accompanied by his 12 disciples. Eventually entering Jerusalem, he was betrayed and Crucified, but was Resurrected, appearing before the faithful before ascending to sit by the Father. His disciples were filled by the Holy Spirit and went on to preach the word of this new religion for the Gentiles, or non-Jews.
The above is briefly the life of Jesus Christ as written in the Four Gospels of the New Testament. Christianity is the on-going celebration of this life, modern history timed from his birth, and the year a western celebration of His life.
Jesus is the incarnate Son of God identified in the Trinity where God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Father He is God in Heaven, as Son he was made flesh and lived and suffered as a man. As Spirit he is immortal and with us always.
In his Crucifixion Jesus showed that humanity can be redeemed from its sinful condition, giving us hope for change. In his Resurrection He confirmed His Divinity and the existence of an Afterlife. In His life He taught us of Divine and neighbourly love.
To be Christian you must live a life of neighbourly love; you must be moral, living by the Ten Commandments; and you must worship regularly. Central to Christian worship is the Eucharist, imbibing bread and wine as symbolic of his body and blood as shown by Him at the Last Supper. And at death the Christian will face judgement for his life.
Following Christ’s Ascension, his Disciples and St Paul preached his message, Christianity forming into several sects. Gaining a foothold in the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great realised the importance of Christianity in keeping the Empire together. He granted toleration to Christians, and at the Council of Nicaea (325) the Nicene Creed defined what a Christian should be.
From this point, Christianity formulated into a Universal, or Catholic, Church. With the fall of Rome, missionaries began a slow conversion of pagan tribes. The Dark Ages came to an end when Charlemange created the Holy Roman Empire in 800AD. In the 11th century, Eastern Orthodoxy split from the west, with European Christendom settling down to hundreds of years of control by the pope in Rome.
The Reformation began as a revolt against Catholic corruption, with the Protestant Church forming. This eventually split into many denominations, such as Methodism. In response to the Reformation, Catholicism itself reformed, over centuries, to the Catholicism we see today.
Both Catholicism and Protestantism are now struggling to work in a more secular world. This has led to the Evangelical movement in Protestantism, where a more relaxed form of worship is attracting many followers.

(c) Anthony North, Jan 2007

SPIRITUALISM

Florence Cook used to attract large audiences in 19th century America. She was a Spiritualist medium who, as well as offering evidence of dead people, also had a spirit guide called Katie King who would take over her body.
Equally fascinating was Helen Duncan who died in 1956. This Scottish woman became famous during World War Two and was even prosecuted for her work. At one point she gave out information about a sunken warship during a seance. It was still a secret.
Spiritualism is a form of mediumship which first appeared in the 1840s following the antics of the Fox Sisters, who claimed to contact a dead pedlar through a series of knockings. Publicity from the case caused an explosion of such mediumship.
Soon, people throughout Europe and America began to gather in front rooms for a séance, where attempts were made to contact the dead. A medium would go into a trance whilst people held hands around a table. A spirit guide would then take over the person and communicate with the dead.
In its heyday, physical manifestations were said to break out, including spirit hands, table tilting and the appearance of ectoplasm. However, as methods of recording such phenomena appeared, the ability declined, suggesting fraud was involved.
Typical of this was Eusapia Palladino. Researcher Hereward Carrington became convinced she was genuine, offering strong evidence of mediumship and table tilting. But at other times, she was a clumsy fraudster, easily caught out.
At one stage, researchers looked at Spiritualism in the hope of finding proof of life after death, but fraud and delusion led to disappointment. Today, Spiritualist churches have cleaned up much of this fraud, but evidence is still illusive.
Mediums are often said to use ‘cold reading’, where the questions they ask provide hints as to what the client wants to hear. Others, such as 1940s medium William Roy, used apparatus from telescopic rods to fake levitation, to hidden microphones in the anteroom. Even where genuine phenomena is said to exist, telepathy between medium and client could be the cause.
Many mediums seem to have a traumatic childhood and turn in on themselves. This could suggest that their spirit guides could be related to multiple personality, where the mind can fragment into other characters who take over the host. Medium Eileen Garrett admitted she wasn’t sure that her spirit guides were who they claimed to be. Such a phenomenon could also explain why sometimes they appear genuine, and at other times cheat.
Is there an alternative location for the spirit guide other than from the afterlife? Split-brain research could offer explanation. The brain is made up of the left and right cerebral hemispheres, the left dealing with reason and the right being more the artist. At times they seem to work separately, and it has been suggested that the right brain can give the impression that emotional thoughts are coming from elsewhere.
Mediumship is, infact, very ancient. In tribal societies a ‘shaman’ would commune with animal spirits to cleanse the tribe. Similar ‘spirit guides’ are used to this day, whilst other mediums have become ‘channellers’, said to be contacting discarnate entities. However, no medium was more famous that Daniel Dunglas Home.
During the 1840s he was famous throughout America and Europe for his small seances where he levitated people, large objects and himself. Witnesses often spoke of the fleetingness of what they had seen. Indeed, the phenomenon is similar to stage hypnosis, where people can think such phenomena occurs. Does this suggest cheating, or maybe the mediums had no idea they were natural hypnotisers.

© Anthony North, November 2006

CHAOTIC MINDS

Rene Descartes began the modern intellectual process with his dictum, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ The meaning was simple. Because we think, we must exist because we can think. But is it really as simple as that?
When we think, we use our mind, and although we know little about the mind, we are satisfied that the mind is specific and co-ordinated. Yes, it can hold chaotic thoughts that literally drive us mad, but when we think, it is nonetheless the ‘self’ – i.e. the person – who is doing so.
That person has a mind made up of the various inner and outer influences that sculpted it. But those influences form a rounded mind, and we know, when we think, that it is our co-ordinated thoughts.
You really think so? Sorry, think again. The mind seems to have influences over which we have no control – and I’m not talking about Freud’s urges from ego, super ego, id, or any other speculative recess of the mind he thought up.
When we observe the world we are very selective about what we actually input into consciousness. If we were not, then everything that could be noticed would be. The result of this would be that the mind would be flooded with so much information we would all go mad.
Un-required observations seem to go straight to the unconscious, where we didn’t even know we had them. But through the phenomenon of cryptomnesia, these observations have a habit of creeping up into the mind and affecting our thought processes. Although these thoughts are our own, the fact we didn’t know they were there means they are alien.
Straight away we can see that we can think without our ‘conscious’ being aware of it, or having control of those thoughts. One possible outcome of this can be the phenomenon of multiple personality.
Here, the conscious mind seems to fragment into a number of different personalities who can invade the host. The mind has literally fragmented into a number of people occupying the same body. Many researchers deny multiple personality exists, whilst others say it is so alien to normal thinking that it is not relevant to the co-ordinated person, but think of all those decisions you can’t make, as separate voices inside pull you this way or that?
The brain is actually hard-wired to make your mind as unco-ordinated as possible. We now know of the split-brain concept, where the left and right cerebral hemispheres of the brain seem to have separate functions. The left brain is the logician and scientist, whilst the right brain is the seat of the artist and emotions.
The co-ordinated ‘self’ seems to be a process where these two halves are in balance, but in certain circumstances – such as surgery to restrict epilepsy – the two sides can clearly act independently. But could it be that they can do so in normal circumstances?
Again we must consider those warning voices, or conscience, that constantly seem to talk or direct you from some inner sanctum. Indecision itself could be a process where the various components of ‘self’ conflict. Consider, also, instinct, which could be cryptomnesic warnings from inner knowledge you never knew you had.
Mind, I’m afraid, is not as co-ordinated, or ‘sane’, as you are led to believe. We all have the ability to fragment psychologically. Indeed, it could be part of the process of normal thought itself. Maybe Descartes should have said: ‘I think, therefore we are.’

(c) Anthony North, Jan 2007

ECO CONSCIOUSNESS

In the beginning there was animism. The first known religion, it believed in a world animated by spirits. The physical and spiritual worlds were interlinked and inter-dependent to a degree that was obvious to early man. Eventually in the Middle East, and then the west, the God-­force behind religion became omnipotent and He rose out of the natural world to become its creator. But could this really be the story of man’s determination to be, himself, greater than nature?
As civilisation arose out of the instinctual drives of early man, the city birthed a new form of religion with a leader being one and the same as a god. Yet in the myths of the period, we find nature gods still existent, but feared, with a whole host of disasters caused by these nature gods to knock man off his civilised perch. In a real sense, man seemed to be fearful of nature itself.
There is an obvious answer for this. Nature was more powerful than man. But as man’s ego manifested itself, we can see man entering a fundamental, if unconscious, battle against nature. And his main weapon could well have been the devising of systems.
The city itself is a system - a way of bringing resources together into a force that much greater than an individual man. Into this process of systems, we can add knowledge - an idea that a king-god is as one in terms of power with the other gods. With the rise of Monotheism, the power urge advances, with God becoming creator of nature, and therefore more powerful. Even today we retain such intellectual systems, with nature reduced to chaos and accident, with man’s scientific intellect the only way of putting order into the universe. It all sound like a social and historic inferiority complex at work, finding systems to produce an image of power from our fears.
If we place environmentalism into this equation, we could argue that the real eco-problem is one of our ever-existing unconscious fear of nature and its ability to upset our systems, as any flood or hurricane proves. Most environmentalists would disagree. After all, if our ravages of the planet are due to a historic neurosis, what chance do we have? Rather, they say, our environmental problems stem from our industrial practices. But could such practices simply be our latest system in the battle to subdue nature? An attempt to kill it off?
If we are to accept this as a possibility, then we need to identify a specific mind-set that could fuel this neurosis induced battle between man and nature. And the first step to realising such a mind is to understand the role of technology in man’s advancement.
We came out of the animal kingdom, and as such we must have been once governed by our instincts alone. With the discovery of technology, beginning with the shaping of the first bone, stone or branch, we would have had to evolve a process of concentration and forward planning. These talents are counter to instinct, so suggest a new mind, pulled away from instinct, and most importantly, taken out of the natural world. As technology increased, we can argue our psychological umbilical cord with nature would be more stretched. Hence, as represented by our Fall from Eden, we could well be an alien species to the rest of nature in a psychological sense. And being out of nature, we would be fearful.
A neurosis is a self-defeating attitude of mind. It involves a loss of confidence in oneself, and can lead to self-hurt. If the above conflict exists between man and nature, this form of self-hurt should be identifiable. If nature was the first religion, then we should be able to find hints of self-hurt in its later religious spin-offs. And sure enough, mystics from around the world often work with self-flagellation, self-denial and even self-mutilation. The ultimate religious ideals of all religions seem to involve a form of masochism, the martyr being the most extreme example.
Could such a masochism exist in everyone, as would be required if my ideas are correct? There is an interesting point about pleasure. In the extreme, all forms of pleasure involving physical interaction lead to pain. Indeed, I challenge the reader to find a single physical pleasure that does not. It seems that in partaking pleasure, we are courting pain. We are masochists by nature. We have, it seems, a specific Masocology, which, on the social level, could well be fuelling our entire need to damage the environment.

© Anthony North, May 2002

PICASSO RISING

The 18th century Enlightenment confirmed mankind as a thinking, reasoning machine. At least, that is what we are told. But perhaps we simply swapped one form of thinking for another. For instance, the success of the Enlightenment was the success of science. Through science, man learnt that he could sort out his problems himself without relying on God.
This was achieved by the realisation that the world was adaptable to scientific law. And once such a law was established - such as universal gravitation - the universe obeyed the law ad infinitum.
Through such reasoning, man’s laws were soon transferred from the scientific realm to the socio-political; for if the world behaved in uniform fashion, surely laws could be established to guarantee the same from mankind. However, in the intellectual’s absolute belief that he was right, could it be that, rather than making man think for the first time, he actually destroyed a mode of thinking that had lasted man for millenia?
Previous to the Enlightenment, the supernatural tended to rule, coming from a world parallel to the physical, and guiding man on his perilous path through life. Today, we dismiss this attitude as superstition. But whilst there were many abuses of this system in terms of hierarchy, at the grass roots level what was the supernatural all about?
In essence, we can best see the supernatural as a form of storytelling, the spirituality it produced bonding man to his fellow man and environment. Through a system of taboo and ritual, man realised constraints which allowed his society and environment to function.
In return for this, man achieved a sense of belonging and direction. We can see why the liberal would not like this world, for it reduces individualism. But this world did contain one vital ingredient that was left behind by enlightened thought and scientific methodology. In the tales pre-Enlightenment people told each other, the practicalities of commonsense were passed on from person to person. In the Old Wives’ Tale, etc, commonsense ruled the grass roots intellect. And many possible traumas of life were avoided.
Science never liked commonsense, and obviously did not like the pre-Enlightenment world where it belonged. Commonsense often got in the way of scientific theory. For although commonsense may dictate a certain action be taken, if science cannot find data to prove the hypothesis, then commonsense has to be ignored until data can be accumulated. This almost robotic attitude was similarly passed into socio-political scientific law.
The people, however, thought different. As in the times of Christendom - when European hierarchy was Christian and the people remained pagan - commonsense remained on the street whilst enlightened intellectuals began to build their ivory towers. And commonsense remained until, at last, liberal enlightened idiots found a practical way to banish commonsense from the streets and impose a top to bottom enlightened ethic that could really do the job.
The secret was to wrap noble sentiments into a package which conned the people that it was good for them. For instance, it is right not to be racist or homophobic or sexist; it is right to want to be as safe as possible at work, at play and in the home; it is right that we should have fundamental human rights which guarantee our freedom from authority and abuse. But by use of such noble sentiments, a politically authorised triple force of political correctness, Health and Safety legislation and human rights lawyers formed a triple commissariat to grasp commonsense from the people and place it in the hands of authority.
Today we live in a world ruled by the politicisation of commonsense. Believing that before the Enlightenment we didn’t really think, the new liberalism has decided that without their guidance, we cannot be allowed to think at all. With authority becoming the nanny and jailer of society, only their dictats can be classed as commonsense, us poor, unintelligent masses unable to grasp essential points which could allow our lives to be better. Only through their politicisations can life really be better and fulfilling.
The problem with this is that commonsense dictates that a solution to any problem must come from a reaction to the problem at the personal, or local, level. Commonsense cannot be tied to general rules, but requires mentation within the individual to a given situation. Hence, a politicisation of commonsense into general rules becomes the opposite of commonsense - in effect, an absurdity.
Because a general appreciation of commonsense can never be specific to a given situation, all that commonsense at this level can achieve is an image; and in applying it across the board, high and low cultural interpretation are mixed. The end result is a shallow form of commonsense which reverses the definite rationality behind the concept. Nothing becomes of value in terms of judgment, and we end up living in a surreal world where nothing quite makes sense.
This is the world when commonsense is taken from the people and placed in the hands of authority. It is an upside-down world of absurdity and surrealism. We live, in effect, as a pale image of a Picasso masterpiece, and nothing makes any sense to anyone. Which makes thinking no longer common, and it certainly has no sense.

© Anthony North, March 2005

SAUCER RECOVERIES

There is a recurring theme in the world of the UFO. This is the saucer recovery scenario, where it is believed a flying saucer has crashed and the military arrive to take the debris to a secret location, usually including a dead alien or two.
There have been dozens of supposed incidents, the most famous being Roswell in 1947. Coming just over a week after Arnold’s seminal sighting of a UFO, Roswell in New Mexico was the home of the only atomic bomb squadron in the world.
Sightings of a UFO were made during the night, and over the next couple of days, two crash sites were discovered and debris plus four alien corpses were said to be taken away. At first the authorities were open about the incident, but then secrecy descended.
Witnesses were terrorized into silence and a declaration made that a weather balloon had come down, thus explaining the wreckage. In the 1980s, an officer involved in the incident came forward to say it was a flying saucer that was recovered.
An almost exact scenario can be found in all subsequent saucer recovery incidents, with a military wall of silence suggesting conspiracy. As to why, many researchers believe the US is reverse engineering alien technology for their military equipment.
Most of this is said to go on at Area 51 in the Nevada Desert, which is, infact, an aircraft research centre. Secrecy is tight, but some workers have come forward with stories of saucers and aliens at the base.
Is there a conspiracy concerning saucer recoveries? Almost certainly, but maybe it is to do with what they don’t understand, rather than an active attempt to keep secret real alien contact and reverse engineering.
Consider the circumstances of the Roswell Incident. It occurred amid a media frenzy concerning UFOs, at the most secret and highly advanced location in the US. Expectation at the base would have been high. So could a strange phenomenon have occurred?
Contrary to popular belief, hallucination is a natural occurrence. The mind never rests, and if the senses let us down, through tiredness, etc, the mind will go on to create an image from the sense data available. This is a hallucination.
Another misconception about hallucination is that it is merely something that is seen. This is not so. A hallucination can also be smelt, heard and felt. Hence, it is often difficult to separate a hallucination from something that is really there.
Another puzzling phenomenon is mass hysteria. There are hundreds of well attested cases of an effect being experienced by one person and spontaneously passing to others, who go on to share the same experience. Even military personnel have succumbed.
With these two phenomena, let us imagine a simple hallucination affecting one man at Roswell due to the UFO frenzy then on-going. In no time at all, it is feasible to suggest a number of people would experience the same thing – perhaps even a flying saucer.
Could the reality of saucer recoveries lie here? A communal hallucination due to media enculturation breaks out at Roswell, causing a mythos of crashed aliens. And once the idea is placed in popular culture, it is inevitable it will be played out again and again.
Which brings us back to the US conspiracy concerning Roswell and subsequent incidents. After all, if you knew that occasionally the personnel at the cutting edge of our defence occasionally went mad, wouldn’t you keep quiet?

(c) Anthony North, December 2006