Mutiny in Heaven: Documentary Review

One of the things most fascinating to me about the band The Birthday Party was their transformation from their previous incarnation the Boys Next Door. How and why did they switch from a punk new wave quirky outfit into the unique indescribable dark confrontational band known as The Birthday Party — both their image and their music redefined as if two completely different bands? I was hoping for some answers from the reasonably recent documentary MUTINY IN HEAVEN directed by Ian White.

The music documentary genre certainly suffers from a kind of templated formula. Current interviews. Past interviews. Archival footage. And that’s usually about it. How the band started, the trajectory of obscurity to success, tensions between band members and the eventual breakup.

For a band as unique and groundbreaking as the Birthday Party, I kind of wished the documentary would somehow be in sync with that innovative streak and would break formulaic traditions and become a whole new type of film, structurally and visually. But that wasn’t to be so after 10 minutes or so, I let go of that fantasy and just got into the story.

My big question about how and why the band transformed so extremely was kind of briefly touched on in the film. Trying to spread their wings like so many Australian bands they flew off to the UK, apparently changing their band name to the Birthday Party whilst on the flight and when they disembarked in London, they were no longer the Boys Next Door. Nick Cave tells this very briefly without any proper breakdown into why they changed their name but oh well, it happens. My assumption is that when the Boys Next Door began they literally were boys but now on their way to the UK trying to make their mark, they were young men and possibly felt the band name just didn’t work anymore. Still it would’ve been nice to know why they chose the name the Birthday Party. There has often been speculation that it was taken from the Harold Pinter play, but that’s never been totally confirmed.

As for the image and musical rebirth into something light years away from what they had looked and sounded like, the documentary offers some answers to that, but just not an in-depth discussion about it. At least not as in depth as I would like. The band’s first trip to the UK, which lasted about a year was pretty dire. The entire band shared a one room bed sit. They struggled to get gigs only managing roughly one a month on average. They remained pretty obscure in a large ocean of alternative bands. They were poor in a town where being poor is not easy. The transformation into the angry confrontational abrasive dark band that they became was possibly partly a reaction to their difficult time in London. This is certainly suggested in some of the voice interviews, but like I said earlier, it’s not looked into in any real depth. And when such a drastic transformation occurs I believe it’s fair to expect a deeper analysis into the how and why. But the documentary did not yield this. Anyway, now that my whingeing is over, I must also say that on the whole, the film is pretty satisfying and compelling telling the origins, the rise to certain levels of success and the classic clashes of personality that led to the dismantling of the band. There is so much archival material that the filmmaker chose to hardly show any of the contemporary talking head interviews that were taken. For example, Nick Cave doesn’t visually appear in interview form until the last few minutes of the film. The only thing to say about the archival footage is that I felt they lingered a bit too long on performances of the songs, sometimes playing the entirety of a song which made me think were they doing this as filler, in replacement of something that could’ve been more interesting in terms of the storytelling?

Maybe. Anyway the film does its job in telling the story of one of the world‘s most important post-punk bands. A solid watch.

The first being DREAMSCAPE by Joseph Ruben. Also quite heavily profiled in horror/sci-fi mags like Fangoria, I was quite intrigued by the look of it and definitely planned on seeing it. But it slipped by me and then again upon its home video release, I still never saw it.

David Lynch’s DUNE was another. The hype for this was everywhere and I was curious to see it. But just never did. Eventually when I kept reading that Lynch practically disowned the film, I had even more reason to avoid it.

A C-grade cult favourite from 1984 was MUTANT directed by John Cardos and Mark Rosman — filmmakers known for pretty much nothing else of any significance. Possibly one of the first environmental horror films, with the toxic waste serving as a metaphor for unchecked industrial practices.

Then there was William Fruet’s SPASMS which featured a most Cronenbergian face-melt body horror sequence from the era. It was stills from that scene that made me quite keen to see this film but once again, I never did. The film starred some big names like Oliver Reed and Peter Fonda but never managed to make any all-time favourite lists.

Douglas Cheek’s C.H.U.D. was a bit of a cult favourite from 1984. The title was an acronym for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers. Douglas Cheek was known for nothing much else as he was primarily an editor rather than director. Yet again — was intrigued but never got to it.

Neil Jordan’s THE COMPANY OF WOLVES was critically acclaimed and certainly not a B or C grade effort. While not a traditional horror film, it features gruesome transformations that aren’t as technically impressive as AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON but are memorable, nonetheless.

THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI ACROSS THE 8TH DIMENSION starring Peter Weller was a huge cult film. It was definitely on my list but…? The film combines elements of sci-fi, adventure, and absurd comedy, making it hard to categorize but beloved by fans of offbeat cinema. For some reason I thought it was a Terry Gilliam film but the director was W.D.Richter known more for his screenwriting credits such as 1978’s INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and 1986’s BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA.

NIGHT OF THE COMET was penned and directed by Thom Eberhardt and was a quintessential eighties low budget classic with strong female leads and a great mix of post-apocalyptic tension with light-hearted humour. Notable too for featuring one of Andy Warhol’s scenesters Mary Woronov.

Now the other thing to mention is that 1984 also provided a whole bunch of other genre classics that I DID manage to see! Here goes…

The original and arguably best A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET by Wes Craven. Definitely an innovative new addition to the slasher genre with way too many follow up sequels. The original is a classic quintessential eighties delight.

CHILDREN OF THE CORN directed by Fritz Kiersch whose CV doesn’t show anything too memorable. At the time I was a huge Stephen King fan but hadn’t read this one. As King adaptations in the eighties go, this one is decent but not a patch on CHRISTINE or THE DEAD ZONE but then again, those two were directed by genre masters Carpenter and Cronenberg and pretty hard to compete with.

Another King adaptation was FIRESTARTER directed by Mark Lester who helmed two memorable genre cult films of the eighties: CLASS OF 1984 and COMMANDO. This film sits somewhere between CHILDREN OF THE CORN and the better ones like CHRISTINE. It’s a solid watch but just not remarkable in any way. A decent cast with George C Scott, Drew Barrymore (still very young) and David Keith.

Joe Dante’s GREMLINS was certainly a film that landed with a lot of hype but I recall being pretty satisfied. This had a perfectly executed balance of comedy and horror — not an easy thing to achieve.

How can we not mention THE TERMINATOR by James Cameron. I can’t deny this one blew my 14-year-old head clean off. I just loved it and was excitedly hanging for the sequel for years! Time travel Sci-Fi’s were not a new thing, but Cameron managed to give us something fresh and outright thrilling.

The outback horror RAZORBACK from Russell Mulcahy was a stylish disturbing film that brought much attention to Australian genre cinema. I recall finding it a tad slow but was pretty impressed with the visuals.

2010 THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT was predictably shunned by Kubrick purists which I feel was a redundant exercise. I felt the film was great as long as you DIDN’T compare it to 2001. Director Peter Hyams made a memorable and very eighties film with lots of nods to the Cold War of the day. Worth noting he’s made some pretty solid genre films such as CAPRICORN ONE, OUTLAND, THE STAR CHAMBER and TIMECOP.

John Carpenter’s STARMAN was a big shift in tone in contrast to his previous edgy genre classics. Here he made a soft romantic and quite melancholy sci-fi which really held up well.

THE LAST STARFIGHTER is barely worth mentioning but was quite a favourite for some. I personally didn’t dig it at all. Directed by Nick Castle who is way more famous as the scriptwriter of John Carpenter’s ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

REPO MAN was born to be a cult film from day one. Alex Cox’s debut feature was just too cool for school with its punk soundtrack and quirky sci-fi plot. Anything with Harry Dean Stanton is instantly cult cred.

American military conspiracy sci-fi was a new sub-genre introduced by THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT directed by Stewart Raffill (who has no other noteworthy directing credits). The film was ambitious and visually rich and has certainly grown in cult status over the years due to its intriguing concept and nostalgic charm.

Well there you have it. That’s 21 memorable genre films released in ONE year. I’m pretty sure no other year that decade did the same. Then again, I’m basing that on zero actual research. VIDEODROME still remains my absolute favourite as an incredibly unique film conceptually with such beautifully organic mechanical non-CGI visual effects that are still seared into my brain.

Richard Raber

In late 1983 Michael Jackson’s title track from his massive selling album THRILLER was released. The song was a huge hit and the extended music video directed by John Landis (Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London) was an MTV explosion gaining mega cult status instantly. The song was written by English songwriter Rod Temperton who wanted to write something theatrical to suit Jackson’s love of film.

Although the song’s title alludes to the ‘thriller’ genre, the lyrics and overall atmosphere of the song are way more rooted in imagery and set ups relating to the ‘horror’ genre. The song has little significant meaning or subtext and is essentially an ode to horror movie frights and scares, nothing more.

Nearly a decade earlier in late 1974, Australian band SKYHOOKS released the second single from their LIVING IN THE 70’s album called HORROR MOVIE. Unlike Jackson’s harmless genre tribute, the song HORROR MOVIE was a social commentary on the decay of the world and how watching the nightly news on television was like watching a horror movie.

The lyrics to THRILLER are all tribute-esque. Setting up horror movie situations and cliches:

“Night creatures call

And the dead start to walk in their masquerade

There’s no escaping the jaws of the alien this time”

The lyrics to SKYHOOKS’s song seem pretty basic and repetitive for the first few verses. Nothing much happens until the revealing lyric that you’re watching the “Six Thirty News”.

From this point on, Greg Macainsh’s lyrics become a sledgehammer with no holding back about what the message of the song is:

“The public’s waitin

For the killin’ and the hatin’

Switch on the station — oh yeah

They do a lotta sellin’

Between the firin’ and the yellin’

And you believe in what they’re tellin’ — oh yeah”

Both songs have only two things in common. Their titles and their pure infectiousness as brilliantly crafted pop songs.

Other than that, they are worlds apart in their meaning and intention.

In 1977 the late legendary singer-songwriter Lou Reed (most famous for his 1972 hit single ‘Walk On The Wild Side’) was busy recording one of his edgiest albums ‘Street Hassle’. The title track is a three part epic that runs just shy of eleven minutes and is arguably Reed’s most ambitious, memorable and moving composition.

Although there had never been any previous relationship or connection between the two artists, the recording of this song brought none other than Bruce Springsteen into the orbit (and the recording studio!) of Reed. As Lou himself put it: “Bruce Springsteen was mixing in the studio below us and I thought, ‘How fortuitous’, People expect me to badmouth him because he’s from New Jersey but I think he’s really fabulous. He did the part so well that I had to bury him in the mix. I knew Bruce would take that recitation seriously because he really is of the street, you know.”

At the time Springsteen had been catapulted into fame with the album ‘Born To Run’. As mentioned there was no connection between the two other than the coincidence that Springsteen was recording in a studio in the same building and it was Steve Van Zandt from Springsteen’s E-Street Band that introduced the two artists.

Bruce’s vocal contribution is a low mumble but a powerful addition to the already potent three part epic track. Due to certain legal complications that Springsteen was experiencing, he was unable to be listed on the album credits which is why for years some people thought it sounded like Bruce but couldn’t be totally sure.

Whether coincidence or not, part of the monologue written by Reed that Bruce delivers has a direct wordplay on his song ‘Born To Run’: “Tramps like us, we were born to pay.”

Although it can’t be confirmed, it’s safe to say that Lou and Bruce never had much to do with one another ever again after this recording — not because there were any hard feelings or problems — just because … it was what it was and nothing more.

Playwright Samah Sabawi not only has written a powerful and tender play in THEM but once again as with her previous play she has perfected the art of casting incredible actors who are all devastatingly convincing.

We brought our twelve year old son to the play and trusted Samah’s advice that he wasn’t too young to experience it but that we should definitely have a debrief with him after.

In a nameless war zone, THEM follows the daily challenges of a small group of family and friends. Bombs drop randomly and there is much tension between a young couple over whether to stay in an environment where they may be killed at any time or get on a boat and choose the refugee path which has its own inherent life or death risks.

Morality and the judgements around it are explored heavily and deeply via the introduction of the young man’s sister who earns money in an industry that could only thrive during a time of violence and war. Some of her money goes to help the young couple which helps nurture pointy arguments fuelled by guilt, desperation and fear.

THEM is clear to point out that the perpetrators of this hell life come from many facets of the social and political spectrum. Local extremists, the national armed forces or the Western powers bombing their homeland into democracy — how magnanimous.

Thanks to light hearted and humourous moments that balance the terrifying and intense ones, the play is ultimately an emotionally exhausting experience, in the best way possible!

About an hour after we’d left the playhouse, our twelve year old son said this: “You know what the saddest thing is about the play? That this is happening in many places, not just one…”

I think this vindicates Samah Sabawi’s choice to set this story in a nameless location. It is most likely based on Syria, but with that reaction from a twelve year old it’s clear cut how universal this tragic reality is.

I was tired but knew that rather than do the sensible thing and sleep I was going to watch the in-flight movies back to back. After all I’d paid my 10 bucks. My first choice was my worst choice. Spielberg’s ‘Ready Player One’. It’s hard to explain but from the get go I didn’t like it but I also didn’t dislike it. Usually I love the first 45 minutes of a Speilberg film, totally immersed and sucked in. By the end when his inevitable sugarcoated happy finale crops up I’m annoyed by his predictability. From the outset this one didn’t drag me in. I couldn’t empathize with a single character in the story which was quite frankly — dumb. A dystopian future with most people dwelling in a virtual environment as whoever they want to be doing whatever they want to do. The visuals were incredible as expected so that held me but there were several occasions where I seriously considered pressing escape. Unlike ‘Minority Report’ this just wasn’t smart or provocative or layered. And for a film that wraps up with a message espousing the merits of living in the real world, most of the action takes place in the virtual rendering the films alleged message useless. There are endless pop culture gaming references to the 1980s which are just lame after a while. The most embarrassing section runs for several minutes and is a direct homage to Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’, where the characters literally enter the movie and all its iconic sets. The blood drenched elevator, the typewriter, the kitchen, the dreaded Room 237 with the naked lady and more. This was the most unsubtle nod to a seminal film I’ve ever witnessed. Just really obvious and in many ways achieved the opposite goal as it came off as disrespectful vandalism of a timeless classic. I think Kubrick would’ve severely reprimanded Spielberg for this if he was around. And again unlike. ‘Minority Report’ this has no surprises or twists, just a linearity that made it feel like an exercise in special-effects rather than storytelling. As you can tell I watched this film through a comparative filter having been a huge fan of ‘Minority Report’ so in the end this was a film I endured rather than enjoyed — totally one of Spielberg’s worst.

My next choice was a psych thriller horror called ‘Unsane’. When I skimmed the synopsis, I was ready to look elsewhere then I noticed it was directed by Steven Soderbergh. A director I was told was done with features and was only devoted to TV. I’ve always liked his work so I was in. Having recently indulged in the Netflix series ‘The Crown’, it was a nice bonus realizing a few minutes in that the lead role was being played by Claire Foy who portrays Queen Lizzie in that series. The plot revolves around her unethical involuntary incarceration in a mental facility because she mentions she’s had the occasional suicidal thought. She is admittedly somewhat unhinged as we learn she’s been the victim of a creepy stalker who was landed himself a job as a nurse in the facility. For much of the story we don’t know if this is just a delusion or fact. I also liked the subtext of her plight being the result of an ongoing widespread scam by the insurance industry. ‘Erin Brockovich’ this ain’t as the story doesn’t pursue this premise but it is a present plot detail mentioned more than once allowing curious viewers to Google how factual this conspiracy may be. The film has some subtle echoes of elements of that masterful thriller ‘Jacobs Ladder’ but it never goes there fully. It reaches into horror territory on occasion when the stalker-nurse transcends into graphic violence to the point where I shielded my eyes from some particularly nasty gruesomeness. The strength of this film is that the main character is not a very nice person, she is in fact quite cold and detached yet it is the skill of the writer and the director whereby I was rooting for her survival even though I would never have her over for dinner. It’s not Soderbergh’s best but it held me for the duration and not for the lame reasons that ‘Ready Player One’ was able to.

‘Midnight Oil 1984' was next. A documentary by Australian director Ray Argall examining that band’s rigorous tour promoting the great album ‘Red Sails in the Sunset’. It also looks closely at frontman Peter Garrett’s run for the Senate as part of the newly formed Nuclear Disarmament Party. The film paints a very distinct picture of a politically charged Australia in the mid-80s when the threat of nuclear conflict was a tangible reality. Concert footage reveals something I never understood at the time which was that the Oils audience was predominantly teenage. Funny that I never noticed it back then even though I was actually at one of the concerts captured in the film — South Melbourne cricket ground. I recall the audience being under some kind of spell by Garrett the minute he appeared on stage and lyrics were recited en masse by everyone around me. The memory of that years later made me attempt to develop a documentary of my own which I called ‘The Temper of the Times’. Yes, that lyric from that great song. The film never happened but the premise of my investigation was to look into whether or not these fans were really absorbing the political meaning of the songs or were they just singing along because they loved the music? I think I kind of got my answer by watching this film. These kids were astute and well aware of the times they were living in. This is clear not just from the concert footage but from scenes where Garrett is visiting schools and spruiking the NDP message to a very receptive young audience. As a band the film reinforces that Midnight Oil were one of this country’s hardest playing multi talented rock groups ever. You’ll be reminded how many great songs they penned and how ferociously they performed them. Now I just need to go and buy back my Oils CDs that were stolen from my car a few years ago. I love a thief with taste.

My fourth and final in-flight movie choice was ‘Gringo’, a sharp funny and brutal tale from the Edgerton brothers. Joel E convincingly plays a pharmaceuticals CEO. The quintessential predator capitalist who seems to be on speed as he bullies and bashes his way through his daily hyper corporate schedule. His business (and sometimes fucking partner) is played by Charlize Theron. She’s also a predator but has the extra quality(?) of ultra disaffection and it’s through this aspect of her that the film’s comedic moments shine. But it isn’t these two corporate monsters who are so central to the story. That honour goes to newcomer David Oyelowo who plays a Nigerian immigrant trying his hand at the so called American Dream. Only a minute in we learn that this rookie corporate climber is the victim of every other character in the plot. Duped by his friend/boss Edgerton, disrespected by Charlize probably for the unacceptable fact that he’s an honest man, and thrown into a world of chaos littered with many layers of other predatory types: Mexican drug lords, young money hungry aimless youths, his own wife, and lastly Edgerton’s onscreen brother (not Nash his real life one who directed this) who is an ex black-ops mercenary also roped into this tangled web. I liked this film for two clear reasons. First it’s well written and well-made and holds you for the full duration and the few pepperings of dark humour saved it from being way too intense an experience. Second I liked it because my reading of it was that this is an anti corporate nightmare fairytale about where we are at as humans in the so called developed world. Our victim who does prevail in the end represents our only way out of the predatory corporate soul-less universe that has engulfed most of us over the last couple of decades. By a violent and confronting baptism and test of faith and trust he survives to start a new life that is completely independent and pure. The antidote to his former existence as a cog in the corporate machine. He’s answerable to nobody but himself. The anti corporate message made me think of a series of. Soderbergh’s — ‘The Girlfriend Experience’ which to my mind was much more about the soul destroying world of corporate life rather than anything to do with escort girls. ‘Gringo’ is a winner film. Dark, funny and provocative. Three great qualities. Probably my favorite of all four. This one ended just as we landed. Fuck sleeping. It’s overrated.

At first glance, you’d think The Circle, starring Emma Watson and Tom Hanks was a full-blown critique on the encroaching privacy violations by large corporations. most especially monstrous IT or social media giants like Facebook or Google or Apple. Well in many ways it IS a strong attack on these empires and the ever increasing power and control they’re gaining but like any Hollywood establishment big budget movie whose narrative is a critique of the very systems that have given it a voice, we have to slow down and zoom out and look at the bigger picture.

At the very heart of this movie is a battle between privacy and openness. The two concepts are presented here as polar opposites. The mantra of the story is revealed by Emma Watson’s character after her life altering incident where she is nearly killed in a boating misadventure: “secrets are lies” she says to her hundreds of fellow employees at The Circle. What she means is that a secret life is a self-destructive life because we do naughty things when left alone and the answer is that we should be surveilled at all times so that the corporation, the state, the authorities can intervene and rescue us from our secretive naughty dangerous misadventures or better still — we won’t even decide to have such misadventures because we know we’re being watched. This moment in the film then expands to another radical idea namely that if we don’t record and share all our positive experiences like for example climbing a mountain, we are essentially denying those who are physically or emotionally unable to have those experiences from vicariously enjoying them through video or virtual replay. That we are denying them a basic human right to enjoy what we get to enjoy — it’s a fascinating concept. Of course the underlying tone of the narrative is one of cynicism. What about the right to a secretive private adventurous life that is just ours? Not to be recorded, or broadcast live on social media. Just ours.

Later in the film, the plot expands again into the realms of corporate interference (or liberation of?) the political system. Watson’s character becomes so gung ho about the potential of openness that she conceives of an all-in-one corporate/government services grid where every person who registers to vote has to also sign up as a user/customer of the corporation. All this sounds very righteous and well-intentioned as a potent and provocative critique on the seemingly limitless power of behemoths like Google, Microsoft, Facebook or Apple. But what the film refuses to do is reveal what exactly the company is up to. What are the secret agendas of the CEOs? In a classic Hollywood revenge twist, Watson’s heroine turns on the CEOs and exposes all their secrets in one massive info dump hack where every single email and memo from all accounts and sub accounts are exposed. The massive dump is sent directly to the inboxes of every employee of The Circle. A very exciting and very Hollywood moment. But we don’t get to see any of it, or know what any of these transgressions or crimes are. All we get is Tom Hanks whispering under his breath to his partner “We’re fucked”. But why are you fucked Tom? What have you plotted? Who are you in bed with?

For those who are well read on current issues we can fill in the blanks: mass surveillance, mass censorship, one world government, arms deals, technological and informational support for more wars and ‘humanitarian’ regime changes. For those not in the know and not asking questions, what are they supposed to think is in those emails? There is not even a hint as to what sordid and corrupt activity or filthy deals were in the pipeline by the CEOs. In fact, if anything the narrative drops a big fat sympathy bomb for Hanks’s character early in the film. His son has MS and cannot experience anything physical first hand so here we get a humane representation of someone who is probably guilty of some very inhumane activity via his corporate empire.

At the end of the day this is a critique of something that the filmmakers just cannot or will not quite reveal what it really is they’re critiquing and that to me totally stinks of yet another Hollywood/Silicon Valley establishment product disguised as a genuine critique of itself. Bullshit detector says don’t be fooled.

Let’s make an optimistic assumption about the future of our planet. A future where crimes committed by governments who currently have the all-pervasive protection via that big ugly I-word. Impunity.

In that future, high ranking government officials from successive Australian governments spanning the last few decades would be put on trial for crimes against humanity especially in regards to their policies and treatment of asylum seekers. From where we are now in 2017, the most obvious selection for this future judicial onslaught is none other than our warm friendly furry fuzzy Minister for Immigration and Border Protection: Peter Dutton.

NOTE: I know I know. Eichmann’s work was embedded with wholesale mass murder! How can I even DARE to compare his career to Dutton’s? Well. You see, I just can. Despite the fact that the outcome of their work has significant differences, it’s their general professional overviews that are totally comparable. So just relax, enjoy the ride and let go of the uptight misguided yet predictable indignation.

At the core, both men were charged with one essential brief by their respective bosses/regimes. Namely to keep undesirables out of their home state. In the early days for Eichmann that meant devising ways to encourage Austria’s Jews to leave the country. As WW2 progressed and more of Europe was swallowed up by the Nazi regime, his job brief evolved to include the ridding of Jews from more diverse parts of the continent and as we all know, expanded to mass murder in place of immigration. Eichmann was essentially in charge of the transportation of Jews to their eventual incarceration and/or deaths.

Eichmann studied Jewish society and history in depth. He took his job very seriously and knew that he could excel in his duties by having a reasonably vast grasp on all things Jewish. He learned Yiddish and Hebrew.

Does Dutton know any other language other than White Australian? If he does, we can be pretty certain he doesn’t speak Pashto or Dari or Arabic or Kurdish or Persian. Come on Pete — get cracking!

Eichmann even travelled to Palestine in 1937 via his contact with some Zionist envoys. The trip’s main aim was to establish connections and assess the feasibility of migration of Jews to Palestine. The British ejected him after 24 hours. A brief stay, but a good effort to get there at all.

How many times and to what end has Dutton travelled to the countries where many of our incarcerated asylum seekers originate from? And if he has been, has his aim been to facilitate a productive immigration outcome for asylum seekers?

Dutton does score points on direct communication though. In the documentary ‘Chasing Asylum’, we see the TV announcement broadcast by Dutton warning asylum seekers what their fate will be if they dare to try and seek refuge on our shores. It’s cold and chilling. But definitely more upfront than Eichmann who mostly aided the murder of Jews quietly from behind his desk. His victims would never get to see his Nazi villain punim (that’s Yiddish for face by the way).

We may even be able to conclude that when looking purely at the zealous focus of their respective professional mission statements, Dutton wins hands down. It’s well documented that Eichmann saved the lives of a few individual Jews for specific personal favours. The judge at Eichmann’s trial even used this fact to reveal that Eichmann was not merely a cog in a machine following orders as he repeatedly claimed, but that he had discretionary power to allow some Jews to live if he saw fit. To date I don’t know of any similar example of Dutton interfering in a positive sense to improve the conditions or the fate of a single asylum seeker under his department’s fierce control.

In conclusion, let’s not muck around. Both of these men are hideous. The only problem is, one is long gone and the other is still thriving in his professional pursuits and is now pushing for more power, to head what would be a mega-department called Homeland Security (sounds strangely familiar) incorporating ASIO and the Australian Federal Police.

For more detail see Michael Brull’s in-depth story here:

https://newmatilda.com/2017/03/09/be-alert-and-very-alarmed-at-government-plan-to-create-a-department-for-homeland-security/

The pimple in question was a planned event driven by Avi Yemini, a passionate young man who believes that we should all be skilled up with self-defence abilities in this day and age of constant terror threats and escalated random violence on our streets. He runs a gym that teaches people (amongst other practices) Krav Magar: the Israeli army’s very own unique martial law — oops I mean … art.

Yemini’s event was an invitation to One Nation’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts to address Melbourne’s Jewish Community. Although I disagree with some of Yemini’s politics, I was instantly attracted to his initial PR releases re this event. There was an anger and frustration driving him that centred around his thoughts on what the term ‘Jewish Community’ meant and who was mostly represented under that banner. Yemini took the initiative to say there is another voice amongst the Jewish community and his idea to introduce One Nation to a Jewish audience was driven by…..? Well I’m not 100% certain. I think it was to get the Jewish Community (at large?) to bond with One Nation on the topic of restricting Muslims entering the country. At the time THE AGE published a story on all this before the event was eventually crushed. Yemini’s motivation might be better explained from these quotes…

“I think a lot of the Jewish community leaders only seem to lean towards conservative politics when it comes to Israel, but on a lot of other matters they lean to the left,” he said.

… Mr Yemini had invited the far-right senators to discuss “the difference between the current problematic Islamic immigration and the successful post-Holocaust Jewish immigration”, why Section 18C should be amended or abolished, One Nation’s policies towards Israel, and how the party could connect with the Australian Jewish community.

… Mr Yemini, who has served as a sniper in the Israel Defence Forces and is a proud Zionist, said the Jewish community should discuss “the obvious issues” with Muslim migration to Australia. And, he said, the community should welcome, not fear, discussion about free speech.

And with those expressed sentiments, I found myself a little excited about this event. A chance for a more diverse dialogue amongst Jews on a very hot topic: Muslim Migration.

On the spectrum of opinion amongst the Jewish community on the Israel/Palestine topic for example, there are many degrees of thought. From hard core blind faith in Israel and its actions to so called self-hating Jews who strongly critique Israel’s actions and how the state came into being. And yet on the whole, the Jewish Community is presented as a singular voice.

Many explanations have been put forward about why the event was cancelled. A lot of mucking around ensued. Venue changes. The City of Glen Eira bungling the initial booking due to a clerical error. Finally One Nation cancelled stating they had been advised that it was a security risk. There was talk of hard left groups who were going to protest. Jewish and non-Jewish groups were going to turn up and stop the event.

Bracha Rafael, one of the co-organisers of the anti-One Nation rally (planned to counter the event) said that, “the Jewish community doesn’t have the luxury of not having an opinion on Pauline Hanson”. She said it was “really important for the community” that if a “small number of far-right Jews” turn up to the event, a “larger number of mainstream Jews turned up to make it clear that they were unhappy about this.”

What’s really a mystery and something we’ll never know is how large the number of right wing Jews would have been. If you check out Avi Yemini’s Facebook page he has thousands of very loyal followers but it’d be nothing but guesswork to suss out how many of them are Jewish.

Much of this noisy reaction was a complete bullshit distraction from what was likely happening behind the scenes.

The establishment Jewish Community leaders in Melbourne like to be seen as a moderate and tolerant bunch. Any association with the ranting raving One Nationers was not going to be good PR. But worse than that, the community leaders would have been very threatened by this event because any attempt to bring Jews en masse together with an outwardly intolerant racist political party in an attempt to find some potential common ground could only lead to the big elephant in the room. The one piece of common ground that can’t be ignored. The fact that Israel is a racist state and has been since its inception.

This is why Avi Yemini’s event was crushed and disappeared off the calendar late last year. Co-incidence or not that two of the recently elected councillors at City of Glen Eira are Jewish? Oops, no matter how I write that it’s going to look anti-semitic.

Interesting too that Israel’s racism has started to enter the global dialogue more and more. Around the same time as this little kerfuffle in Melbourne, an article appeared in the New York Times in late December titled ‘Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump’ by Omri Boehm. This more or less sums up his article:

But despite sympathy and solidarity with Israel — or better, because of it — any Jew who remains committed to liberalism must insist that nothing in Jewish history can allow the Jews to violate the rights of other ethnic and religious minorities, and that nothing in our history suggests that it would be wise for us to do so. This is all the more true because by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right. The idea that Israel is the Jews’ own ethnic state implies that Jews living outside of it — say, in America or in Europe — enjoy a merely diasporic existence. That is another way of saying that they inhabit a country that is not genuinely their own. Given this logic, it is natural for Zionist and anti-Semitic politicians to find common ideas and interests. Every American who has been on a Birthright Israel tour should know that left-leaning Israelis can agree with America’s alt-right that, ideally, ”Jews should live in their own country.”

The full article is worth a look.

A: ONLY IF NEOCONS FAIL TO IMPROVE THEIR GOLF GAME

Before we discuss the world stage, just a few words on Trump and the Americans who voted him in…

It was fascinating to watch Trump’s language and message take a giant leap from simply replacing one word, namely “I” with another, namely “WE”. This shift took place in the last few weeks of the campaign and the pro-Clintonites failed to even notice it. They were much too busy towing the deceitful Russia Distraction Lie. Trumps initial motives to run for president can easily be explained as purely ego driven but as the campaign rambled on there may well have been a moment where he realised that he was in a position to accept a very real and noble grand mission.

Trump has been branded many things, one of which being the seemingly obvious observation that he is a NON-POLITICIAN. This is deliciously ironic given that Trump conducted the most traditional relentless grass roots campaign strategy that America has seen in a very long time. (Bernie conducted the same type of campaign but was brutally set up to fail from the get go) If you were to Google the comparitive statistics of how many rallies, speeches, appearances etc (and their frequency) across the widest range of towns and cities in America, conducted by Trump VS Clinton, the results would be loud and very clear. And so he may not have known or even cared at the start of his campaigning, but at a certain point he would have understood that not only was he speaking and they were listening but that they were relying on him to deliver on his words.

Trump’s non-politician status sets him apart from the classic ALL POLITICIANS BREAK THEIR PROMISES mantra. Which is not just a phrase, but a long held belief which has always helped create a complacent public who are passionate at election time but within weeks after inauguration of the new president, they slump back down on their couches and get back to business — the latest episode of the latest low brow distraction on their screens. Something tells me that Trump might not be able to get away with the traditional political art of promise breaking.

There is one emotional state of mind that can be attributed to many of Trump’s voters. It’s called RAGE. If Trump does what his detractors expect him to do, and not deliver on improving the everyday existence of his supporters then he will have a serious problem. He will have not thousands but millions of already enraged people become double enraged. Trust me they will not slump back on their couches in cynical defeat. They will take to the streets and they will not accept the big cheat. And if there are as many right wing militant nationalists and bigots and racists among them as described by the mainstream media over the last year (probably a gross exaggeration but let’s run with it) then Trump has a very very serious problem. Had Hillary won, this would’ve played out the old fashioned way. She’d have carried on with the neo liberal Democrat policies in place since Obama swept in (breaking some of his key promises within minutes of moving into the White House) and the couch slumping would immediately have followed.

Why this difference? Because she is a POLITICIAN. People expect to be bull-shitted to by a politician. Trump’s entire appeal was his outsider status and this wasn’t just his in his message, it was in the very way he speaks. He has never and still continues to not talk the half truth double speak that politicians have been delivering forever. John Pilger said something very telling in an interview on the RT show Going Underground today. He said that everyone will now be going over Trump’s speeches from the campaign and they will look for what else was said besides what the Clinton controlled media focussed on — namely the hideous vulgar and dangerous sounding sound bites about walls and immigrants and Muslims and more. Because in reality there was more. And the beauty is, it’s all there to be accessed and watched properly and in detail. Something that should have been done during the campaign itself but as Pilger says, that kind of journalism has been dead for a while now.

That other stuff, although delivered in a demagoguing tone (because Trump is the so called brutish unsophisticated bully) could never have been paid attention to by the Clinton media because it pointed straight to the heart of what was wrong with the Clinton agenda.

The majority have spoken. Time will tell if they were lied to.

Actually to be fair, the numbers look like Clinton actually won slightly more of the popular vote but due to the strange and mysterious electoral college system, Trump gets the oval office. I wonder if the Democrats will now join the fight to reform the electoral counting system now that it robbed them of Clinton II — the sequel ?

Now, to world peace…

As I proposed in my recent dark fantasy satirical piece titled TRUMP’S EGO MIGHT JUST MAKE HIM THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY, Trump’s ego could well be the driver for real progress at home and now that step one has actually happened, and he has won the oval office, can he be seen to be the world’s best chance of peacemaker thanks to that ego? In Obama’s White House lawn speech yesterday following Trump’s victory, he said that America has promoted freedom around the world for 240 years. And while we digest that arrogant myth let’s not forget that with Obama at the helm, the United States and its alliances, client states and proxy armies has bombed and regime-changed more places on earth than any previous administration.

So now what of Trump ?

On relations with Russia he has been curiously consistent. He wants to get along with Russia. He wants to help Russia destroy ISIS because he may well understand that an alliance with Russia is not only a positive sane step in general terms for world stability, but it’s the only hope of delivering on his other consistent foreign policy promise, that he will get rid of ISIS once and for all. As opposed to the current American policy of conducting a double edged proxy war of deceit. Arming a so-called band of moderate rebels with the sole intention of ridding Syria of Assad while at the same time bombing ISIS. Problem is, these so called moderates ARE ISIS — and there ever-evolving offshoots. Google it. Just make sure you scroll down to the search results on page two or three to avoid the corporate media spin: that there is a civil war in Syria and America is trying to save innocent lives. The usual humanitarian bombing campaign. (Yes, those words somehow appear in the same sentence — that’s how mad this world is)

So President Trump makes friends with Russia, ISIS are obliterated and in one or two years, Trump is able to soften his harsh anti immigration agenda because the perceived risks are reduced? Maybe.

On Israel/Palestine, Trump’s rhetoric is not so consistent: “It’s all about land and real estate negotiation, and who has more experience than me?” Trump trumpeted early on in the campaign. Not much later he remarked that perhaps America should take a more neutral position which may or may not have been code for an end to the three billion dollars plus that helps fund Israel’s military might. But more recently, especially since his private meeting with Bibi and a 25 million dollar donation from Sheldon ‘Jabbah the Hutstein’ Adelson, Trump’s position shifted gears to a hard line pro-Israel stance that makes Obama’s Israel policy look comparatively dovish. Namely zero support for a Palestinian state and full support of limitless settlement expansion for Jews.

Then again, reports have it that Bibi is nervous because he sees Trump as too erratic and unpredictable which he equates with potential deal breaker.

And what of the other foreign relationships and hotspots? China? North Korea? Iran? One answer may reside in Trump’s seemingly isolationist foreign policy talk. America first!

But this all may be seen as pointless conjecture. I propose that it will all come down to what kind of relationship Trump will have with that ominous group of foreign policy power brokers known as the neocons. A gang of hawkish pro-interventionists who have driven American foreign policy since the 9/11 era. Although predominantly Republicans, their allegiances are not restricted by party politics as seen in their recent full blooded support for Hillary — not Trump. Easily explained. She is and always has been in their club and Trump isn’t really a member of any club, when it comes to Washington.

One club of interest that Trump IS a member of is Winged Foot, a prestigious golf club in Mamaroneck NY where membership is by invitation only, but the catch is you can’t simply be rich and powerful to be invited. You have to be good at the game. REALLY GOOD. The club possesses a membership of serious golfers with one of the highest percentages of single digit handicappers in all of America. That makes Trump a pretty serious golfer. Very serious deals and conversations occur on a golf course. I’m taking a guess here that not too many neocons have copped an invitation.

Perhaps the future of world peace rests on whether or not these hawkish suits can get their handicap index under 5. Trump’s is currently 3.5 and last time I looked, the neocons didn’t look like the committed sporty types.

There’s always time to practice though. And then we’re all fucked…