It’s good to see so many people protesting against the pope’s official state visit to Britain. I support the campaign – I agree that our government shouldn’t afford him the pomp of an official state visit.
He’s welcome to visit of course, but it should only be a pastoral visit (like it was for the previous pope in 1982) and we shouldn’t have to fawn over him or cover his vast expenses.
Not only does Benedict XVI personally oppose fundamental human rights, he uses his position to lobby for state-sponsored prejudice against women and people of other religions. As recently as February, he objected to our Equalities Act and hectored members of our Parliament about the moral importance of them representing his interests, not those of their constituents. This isn’t the Vatican State, dude. We have a democracy here! And as one MP said privately, “it’s rather gauling that we’re having to cut funding for schools and hospitals while spending millions to appease this odd man who condemns our whole way of life”.
The hypocrisy stinks. As Archbishop of Munich, he repeatedly covered up for child abusers; as Pope, his ‘regret’ is evidently hollow. Let’s remember that he was also a member of the Hitler Youth and served the Nazi party, and he recently supported the Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson.
He condemns people if they love the ‘wrong’ gender. He condemns people if their relationships don’t last forever. He condemns people who wear condoms. He condemns people who support a woman’s right to choose.
What’s up with this guy? I thought Mr Jesus was a happy, loving kind of chap. Where did it all go wrong?
My outrageous friend Peter Tatchell has a documentary about this going out on Channel Four tomorrow – look out for that at 8pm.
I had a strange dream last night where an animal rights activist avenged the murder of Schrödinger’s cat by tracking down Schrödinger’s grandson and burying him alive in a nailed-shut coffin.
When this was discovered a few years later, the activist claimed that he couldn’t be charged with murder because Schrödinger’s grandson could have been alive or dead while the coffin was closed – only by opening the coffin did the observer seal the young man’s fate, and the observer was therefore the one responsible.
I have back-to-back meetings today but I’m taking some time out to think about Gilad Shalit. This is the fourth anniversary of his capture and he’s still being held hostage by Hamas. They won’t even let the Red Cross see him or send supplies. Where is the international outcry about a young guy being held in this way, against international law? I wonder what it must be like to live in isolation, never knowing if you’ll see your family again. It hurts my heart that so many people rush to speak when Israel is accused of breaching international law as part of its defensive operations, but those same people stay completely silent when the governing party in Gaza freely admits and is proud of its crimes against humanity.
When I was about 18, my friend Matt Belgrano (pictured above) handed down to me a faux zebra skin coat that he’d worn for one of his iconic photoshoots. It was a funny moment because I’m not really a flamboyant kind of guy, but what else can you do when someone gives you a big camp coat? I put it on and wandered down Acton High Street, noticing with interest the looks, taunts and other funny reactions from passers-by.
The sense of otherness I felt was exciting, and it made me wonder… what is it about human beings that leads us to generate, cling to and buck trends, moulding our own sense of identity as we change how we appear to others?
And how can we remain authentic while changing how we present ourselves to the world?
I explored this idea with youthful enthusiasm by applying some eyeliner (these days you’d call it guyliner) and getting my ears pierced. Then I threw out the eyeliner and shaved my head instead, noticing that I was suddenly considered one of the lads again. The people who’d taunted me for my zebra coat didn’t recognise me and thought I was a new person. It was fun!
I bought a suit and hired an office in Mayfair… and I was treated one way. I dressed scruffy and rode a bike… and I was treated another way.
It didn’t occur to me at the time but I was playing with something I now think is pretty powerful. I joined a group of chaos magicians recently and they said they’d only teach me a certain ritual if I agreed to grow a silly beard and keep it going for a year, whatever anyone else said about it. My laugh must have convinced them I’m already pretty detached from my outward appearance; I don’t need to grow the beard, and they agreed to teach me the ritual anyway.
It’s fun to keep playing though!
I dyed my hair purple a couple of years ago, just to see what would happen. I put on weight, then lost it. I wore glasses, and took them off.
It’s become one of my fascinations: projecting different edges into the world (or blending into invisibility) while remaining consistently, congruently and roundedly me.
What does your manner and appearance project into the world? Is it what you want?
If not, what’s the smallest change you can make today that will make the biggest difference?
If “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” (Arthur C Clarke) then anything that doesn’t seem magical yet can probably be developed further.
I’m feeling dispirited this morning. A lot of people – including many of my good friends – have reacted belligerently to the news about David Laws.
Let’s be clear: by keeping his relationship private, David claimed less public money than he was entitled to. If he’d done what most people think he should have done, he would have cost us more. So that makes it simple: if you think he did something wrong, it cannot be because he was greedy with public funds – he clearly wasn’t – and your complaint must be about why he claimed less money from us than he was entitled to.
Ben Bradshaw – the openly gay MP for Exeter – scoffed yesterday and suggested it’s nonsense for anyone to keep their sexuality private in this day and age. Ben Summerskill, the preening chair of gay rights group Stonewall, said pretty much the same. What utter arses.
It’s 43 years since homosexuality was decriminalised in England and things are very, very different to the way they were. Nonetheless, I know dozens of people who are very effective as political advisers and consultants but refuse to stand for elected office themselves because they don’t want their private lives to be critiqued and compared to the man next door. For all the progress made, only 3% of MPs are openly gay. In the House of Lords, less than 0.3% of peers are. Many good people hide parts of their life or stay in the back rooms of politics because being elected is tough and being gay is still a source of anti-rapport on the doorsteps of Britain. It’s possible to win as an openly gay candidate these days, but it’s an added hurdle to overcome. And whatever others say, I think it’s ok not to be a trailblazer.
The problem arose because MPs can’t claim back their rent if they are living with their landlord “as spouses”. What does it mean to live “as spouses”? The rules don’t say. David and his partner kept their relationship very private. Apparently some of their friends didn’t even know. They left social gatherings at different times to avoid suspicion. So it makes sense that they didn’t consider themselves to be living traditionally “as man and wife”.
That kind of relationship will seem rather odd to most of us, and that’s the point. Most people these days pride themselves on being modern, inclusive and “gay-friendly”. It challenges them deeply that David didn’t mirror that back. It upsets their world view.
David Laws undoubtedly made an error of judgement. He should have realised that many London-based media types have a more enlightened attitude to same-sex relationships than he does himself, and it’s important to those people – as part of their fragile personas – that we all salute the rainbow flag and recognise David’s partner as a fully-fledged spouse, even if that’s not what he wants. By shunning the new norms and wanting his private life to be private, David reminds us at a critical time that the issue of homosexuality is still uncomfortable for some people. That was his downfall. When he was born, this kind of relationship was illegal. Not everyone is comfortable being open, even now. But it’s very un-PC to remind us of that. It rocks the boat. And that’s why he had to go.
Remember that he could have claimed for a whole house and let his partner live there rent free – that would have been within the rules. He could have charged for his partner to travel back and forth to Yeovil with him, and all kinds of other things too. In fact, he cost us very little. So this isn’t really about the money; it’s about facing the fact that, collectively, we haven’t progressed as far as we like to think we have. Having a same-sex partner is still awkward for some people. That’s the uncomfortable truth that David Laws represents.
What a thing to lose your job over. I don’t know how anyone can feel anything other than a lot of sadness for the guy, whatever you think of his politics.
Update: (29th May)Steven and Tiwonge have been pardoned and released. Thank you to everyone who campaigned to make this happen. Moments like this show us what’s possible when good people stand together.
There is more to do, of course. Please support the UN-led campaign to change the law in Malawi so this cannot happen to another couple. One thing I will do today is write to Ban Ki-moon to thank him for his critical intervention. You can contact him too, via the UN website.
Original post:
Please do something to support Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga. They are a couple in Malawi and have just been sentenced to 14 years hard labour. Their crime? They declared their love for each other publicly. And they are both men.
These guys are not criminals by any civilised definition, yet they look sure to die in terrible prison conditions unless the international community steps up.
They were arrested in December after holding an engagement party. Homosexuality is illegal in Malawi.
Amnesty International has adopted the couple as prisoners of conscience and called for their immediate and unconditional release.
Michelle Kagari, deputy Africa programme director at Amnesty, says: “Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga should never have been arrested or prosecuted. That they have been sentenced to 14 years of hard labour is an outrage.”
The defendants have reportedly been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment. They told their lawyers that they were beaten by police while in custody.
You can join the protest this Saturday 29th May outside the Malawi High Commission in London or the United Nations in New York. Check Facebook for the latest details.
The remainder of this post is given over to Peter Tatchell who has some more practical things you can do to help, if you want to.
These are four ways you can help:
FIRST
Send a letter or postcard of support to Steven and Tiwonge. In this difficult time, they need to know that people around the world love and support them. Get all your friends to do the same. Lots of letters will send a powerful signal to the government of Malawi that the couple have international support.
Write to:
Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza, Prisoners, Chichiri Prison,
P.O.Box 30117, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi
SECOND
Sign Madonna’s petition which condemns the jailing of Steven and Tiwonge and which calls for equality and human rights:
Write a letter to your elected political representative. Urge him or her to write a letter of protest to Malawian President and to the Malawian Ambassador in your country.
Ask your MP and MEPs to protest to the Malawian President and to the Malawi High Commission in London.
FOURTH
Make a donation by post or BACS electronic transfer to the Malawi Defence Campaign, organised by the UK-based LGBT organisation OutRage!.
OutRage! will use all money donated to support Tiwonge and Steven with food parcels, medicine, clothes, blankets etc. and to help fund the campaign for their release.
By BACS electronic transfer:
Account name: Outrage
Bank: Alliance and Leicester Commercial Bank, Bootle, Merseyside, GIR
0AA, England, UK
Account number: 77809302
Sort code: 72-00-01
For electronic transfers from overseas (outside the UK), please
ADDITIONALLY quote these codes:
BIC: ALEIGB22
IBAN: GB65ALE1720001778093 02
By cheque:
Write a cheque payable to “OutRage!” and send to OutRage!, PO Box 17816, London SW14 8WT. Enclose a note giving your name and address and stating that your donation is for the Malawi Defence campaign.
Thanks for your concern and commitment to justice for Tiwonge and Steven.
Amnesty International has announced that it will host an art exhibition to campaign against Israel’s security fence. It’s called “Cultural Intifada”.
I sometimes wonder about the people who organise this kind of thing. Do they think that Jews have dreamed for generations of building a fence like this? Did generations go to bed as children praying that one day there would be a massive fence through their country, and everyone – Jews and Arabs alike – would have to cross checkpoints as they drove from one area to another?
The security fence is there because terrorist Palestinian suicide bombers used to get dressed up in garments of mass murder, travel into heavily-populated areas and then detonate themselves. I know we don’t like to think about it but that’s what happened, for years. They specifically targeted areas packed with children and tourists. There are countless reports of bomb-ladened terrorists not getting on a half-empty bus and waiting instead for one packed with school kids. It was a terrorist campaign that systematically killed thousands of innocent people, harmed many thousands more and made an impact on every person living in Israel. Terrorism is a crime against humanity and Israel doesn’t only have the right to protect its citizens, it has a moral duty that it takes seriously.
Remember that these murders happened after the Camp David Summit when the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak proposed to give up all of the Gaza Strip, 91% of the West Bank and make Eastern Jerusalem the capital of a new Palestinian state, under Palestinian rule. Amazingly, this offer was rejected by Yasser Arafat and he wouldn’t decommission a single weapon. His own people rioted in protest. Pretty much everyone involved at that time realised that Arafat didn’t want peace, because ongoing war was far more profitable for him. “I am a failure”, US president Bill Clinton told Arafat as Arafat refused to negotiate. “And you made me one.”
It’s against this backdrop that the Israeli people asked their government to take action that would protect them.
And the fence works. More than 90% of attacks have been thwarted. Men, women and children are alive today because of that fence.
I know the issue is complicated of course, but it’s less complicated than some people make it out to be. We can always map across from our own experiences. When London was attacked by suicide bombers in 2005, we heightened our security because we felt the threat. London was attacked four times in one day and the impact still resonates. I remember having to wait a long time to get a tube across town on 7th July, and we all agreed it was better to wait safely than be blown to pieces.
Racist violence rose sharply in London after 7th July. The police shot an innocent man in Brixton because they thought he was a threat to many others. We didn’t cope very well, even when the attacks lasted only for one day.
Israel was recognised as a legal, democratic country by the United Nations in 1948. Its hostile neighbours declared war immediately, and now Israel has been under attack every day of its existence. This isn’t a war about land or resources; it’s about power and ideology. Palestinians leaders have consistently rejected all opportunities for statehood because they will not accept any solution that leaves Israel in existence. They don’t actually want to talk to you or look at your art. As Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah told the Western protesters who marched through London in support of Palestinian people: “We don’t want anything from you. We want to eliminate you.”
Martin Amis put it best: these demonstrators are “up the arse of the people who want them dead”.
Maybe we should sit with the idea that a security fence that saves hundreds of lives every year is not such a bad thing.
I used to give 10% of my annual income to Amnesty International. It was their dossier on Robert Mugabe that persuaded me to risk my own life in 2003 when, with three friends, I confronted Mugabe in London and called for him to be arrested under the United Nations Convention on Torture – an act that Amnesty supported and later built upon. I also welcomed their campaign this month to free Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, currently imprisoned in Malawi.
But I think Amnesty is recklessly irresponsible in its treatment of Israel. Stirring up anti-Israel feelings with quasi-jingoistic hate talk (“Bring on the Cultural Intifada!”) is not the role of a human rights movement. Perhaps the organisers should hop on a flight to Gaza and see what it’s really like there. Then they could paint a picture that really means something.
So, election night was fun. I got stoned and watched it live; and now all I remember is that Evan Harris lost his seat. He was the only Lib Dem MP I’ve liked and it’s a shame for him – good luck Evan, wherever you are.
Tomorrow sees the first televised leadership debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and I’m going out on a limb right now to predict a hung parliament.
It’s actually madness.
Gordon Brown won’t do himself any favours at all. He did well on Piers Morgan’s show because he prepared a lot, rehearsed a lot and kept it very light and tight. He knows Piers well and I thought Piers was very kind in the way he managed the show – they both came out of it looking good, and we saw a different side to them both. But in a podium debate, Brown’s best hope will be to appear statesmanlike next to two rookies, and I doubt he’ll be able to pull that off effectively. He’s too tired and feels too hard done by. His best hope is to be tight on detail while the other two gloss on ideology… but I really think Brown is shooting himself by agreeing to do this at all.
David Cameron has everything to lose. He’s already thought to be slick at presentation and people will have very high expectations of him going into the debate. If he delivers, he’ll seem shallow. If he doesn’t, he’ll seem weak. The only way he can win is to renew his newness, and I doubt he can do that because…
Nick Clegg is in the best position and could do really well. I’ll be upfront: I think Clegg is a wanker. He has about as much substance as my rumbling tummy right now. But he’s in a good position because this election will be about change. The Tories had their turn in the 80s and 90s, and then we voted for change. Now Labour has had a good run too, and we want change again. We crave newness in this country. And that will be the thrust of Clegg’s pitch tomorrow night; it’s time for a new kind of politics, where you – yes, you – get to be part of it. It’s perfect for the format. He’ll energise young people, connect with the disaffected and politically naive – and my guess is he’ll end up in a coalition government.
But it’s not too late. Cameron and Brown will both lose support if they go ahead with this mad idea and plenty of people will be telling them that today. Either of them could have pulled out by tomorrow and the whole thing will be scuppered. It’ll look bad in the short term of course, but ultimately it might save their career… especially in Brown’s case.
Imagine they’d told us this ten years ago: you can choose almost any song you want, press a couple of imaginary buttons – and then the music will fly through the air into your hard drive… it’s amazing what we can do. And it’s amazing what else we can do too. What will be normal in another ten years?
I got a rather strange e-mail this morning. A journalist wanted to know if I still enjoy sex!
At first I thought it was a come-on. But apparently when I was 17 and fighting the British government for my legal right to be naughty (aka for the age of consent to be made equal for everyone) Madonna’s pal and one-time lover* Sandra Bernhard was asked what she thought of my campaign.
Bernhard’s (typically cutting) response: “he’s gonna fight for it and then he’ll have it and go ‘I fought for this?!’”.
This time last year I ordered a case of wine from Virgin Wines. It was a present for someone; the specific case they’d asked for.
A few weeks later I received another case. Apparently the small print on their website says that by placing an order you’re also signing up to their wine club – which essentially means they’ll choose more wine for you and keep delivering it until you say stop.
So I said stop.
A few weeks later… more wine arrived. I e-mailed them, forwarding my confirmation to show I’d already cancelled. They apologised, offered a refund and said they’d send someone to collect the wine.
A few weeks later… more wine arrived. They also hadn’t refunded me from the last time. So I sent a slightly rougher e-mail and they sent a slightly more profuse apology, offering another refund and another man to come collect the wine.
Guess what? Another case arrived a few weeks later!
This time I didn’t sign for it so the driver had to take it back. I contacted Virgin and they sent another apology and another promise…
… and four months later I still haven’t got the full refunds.
Are they drunk on their own wine or what?
UPDATE:It’s kinda cool having a well-read blog! As a customer you can hang around for a year… as a blogger you get action within 12 hours, even so close to Christmas. My refunds have been done. I’m at peace with the Virgins.
One of the great myths bestowed on us from the last century is that we each have a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. It began with Freud and it’s become an increasingly popular belief ever since, especially with hypnosists and NLP people.
I attended a training recently where a prominent teacher explained how he’d told a metaphorical story to a female client, and “she didn’t get it, but her unconscious got it”.
Is it really useful to create an entity of someone’s thoughts and act as if that’s separate from the person themselves?
Sometimes it is. But often these teachers fail to communicate that the conscious/unconscious distinction is a metaphor – a useful way to think about thinking. We don’t really have two minds. We aren’t really separate from our thoughts.
You can pay attention and be aware of your heart, and it continues to beat even when you’re not paying attention. That doesn’t mean you have a conscious heart and an unconscious heart. It’s just that we’re designed to focus our attention differently at different times, and we’re capable of running processes in the background too.
I’m pretty sure I only have one mind. I’m aware of (conscious of) some of my thoughts and not aware of (unconscious of) others, but it’s all the same mind.
I don’t have “an unconscious” – and nor do you.
It’s much easier to run your own brain when you drop the labels and feel into the experience instead. Conscious/unconscious is a useful metaphor sometimes, and it has major limitations too. It’s a map, not the territory. I suggest people remember that it’s a metaphor and only use it when it’s useful.
I’m so grateful to the brave Peter Oborne for standing up against the wicked Jewish lobby and telling it like it is.
His documentary on Channel Four last night – made by “Hardcash” productions, ironically – was so insightful; now I’ve seen the light.
Now I know that traitorous Zionists are secretly funding a massive campaign on behalf of a foreign government, and they’re officially “the most powerful lobby in Britain”.
Having worked in Parliament, I always thought it was the advertising lobby that had the most reach – endlessly sending me gifts while I was there (always returned); always offering nights out and tickets for whatever was on.
But it’s obvious now you think about it. It’s the nasty Zionist influence that makes our government back Israel to the hilt. That’s why we joined America, Canada, Australia and 15 other countries in firmly rejecting the Goldstone report (we didn’t), and why our Foreign Secretary didn’t speak out against Israel’s actions in Gaza (he did).
It’s why BBC News journalists have to be so pro-Israel all the time (haha), and why someone like Jeremy Bowen could never be accused of partiality against Israel (the BBC Trust found he was). It’s why Jon Snow from Channel Four News may have great ties but he’d never deny with disdain the deaths of so many Israeli civilians.
It’s why The Independent and especially The Guardian cower in fear and never conflate news and anti-Israel opinion, and of course never censor the debate (yeah right).
Of course, it’s all obvious now. Those big-noses are running the country and they’re controlling everything!
I’m so glad Peter showed us his bloody montage: dead children – Jews eating dinner – more blood – Israel flag – dead bodies – Jews eating dinner… money, Israel flag, dead bodies, Israel flag… because it showed he had no agenda, obviously. It showed that he wasn’t pandering to sick stereotypes either.
Did I dream this bizarre program or was it really on last night?
Oborne’s essential message was that since he couldn’t find any evidence of a conspiracy, that proves it is a very deep conspiracy. Because nobody could tell him about it, that proves it exists. A typical example of his special brand of logic was when he said the Honest Reporting news agency isn’t based in Britain (it is) but in Israel (it isn’t). So off he went to Jerusalem, probably with his crucifix at the ready, where he was politely told that the office isn’t there. This seemed to prove something sinister to him: it’s a virtual organisation, he told us knowingly, as if that’s odd for a website. Nudge nudge, wink wink. (I happen to know that the head of Honest Reporting, Simon Plosker, was in London the whole time this was going on… and I am pretty sure Oborne knew this too.)
The message most people will remember is that Oborne went over to Israel to track down a group of evasive Jews who remote-control our politicians and media. It’s shitty journalism. It panders to the worst kind of prejudice.
At a time when anti-semitic violence is on the rise, Oborne’s crass conspiracy theory will make money for him and Hardcash – and it will put more Jewish lives at risk.
–
A quick note to the synaptically-challenged. Please don’t tell me that criticising Israel doesn’t make you anti-semitic. That straw man argument has been used over and over by people who think they’re being cleverer than they ever could be. I’ve heard it enough times now. The idea that there are two teams, two tribes, is hopeless. But more hopeless is the idea of moral equivalence: that Channel Four broadcast a Dispatches documentary about terrorist mosques so now they must also broadcast one about traitorous Jews. Stand up for what you believe, if you believe anything; don’t hide behind vagueness and idealistic views of theoretical pacifism. Of course Israel isn’t perfect. Who could be perfect in these conditions? The solution is good communication and dialog – it’s never to fuel the flames of hate, which is what Peter Oborne did last night.
Robert Holden circulated this today, and I’m sharing it with you too because I think it tells a simple truth very well.
After living 16 years, 5,844 days, on the spiritual path.
After sitting for over 5,000 hours in meditation.
After reading 1,000 brilliant books on success, happiness and love.
After listening to 500 healing CDs.
After attending 250 self-development workshops.
After benefiting from 200 therapy sessions.
After praying on my knees more than 100 times.
After going on twenty-five retreats.
After enduring 10 fasts.
After suffering 5 colonic irrigations.
After trying to forgive mum and dad more than once …
I finally got the key to happiness:
Just RELAX!
The Home Secretary has sacked his advisor, Professor David Nutt, for disagreeing with him on drugs policy.
Is this what modern politics is about? Paying someone to echo what you already believe and sacking them if they deviate from “the message”.
It seems like a weird kind of prostitution to me.
Of course Nutt was right to tell the truth about the scientific evidence, even if it doesn’t support the government’s current policy.
The Home Secretary is being more paranoid than any stoner I’ve known. And more irresponsible too.
What will the next government advisor say, if he/she wants to stay in the job for more than five minutes? What about advisors on other issues, and in other departments?
Paying someone to give you honest and informed advice is one of the smartest things anyone can do. Listening to what they say is a good idea too.
I’m in the middle of Robert Holden‘s 8-week happiness course – a series of meditations on joy and happiness.
It’s wonderful. Robert is one of the most authentically happy people I’ve ever met, as well as being a great teacher and facilitator.
I love having conversations about happiness. From children to great grandparents, I think we can learn about happiness from everyone.
One of the most interesting things is what we call paradigms of happiness. How do people think about happiness?
Most people seem to think about it as something that has to be earned or deserved. If I work hard, then I can enjoy the weekend. If my kids are happy, then I’ll be happy. (Otherwise I suck and must be miserable.)
Others think about it as something they (can) achieve. They seek bigger experiences, wilder adventures, more stuff, better stuff. If I seduce a supermodel and go on a road trip across America, then I’ll be happy. (Otherwise I suck and must be miserable.)
Some people see happiness as something they already have. It’s like a possession. The trouble with a possession is someone might take it away, so these people tend to guard their happiness and insure against its loss.
If you’ve ever been to a self-improvement event, you’ll have met people for whom happiness has become a journey or even a quest. If they could just find the right map and ignore the distractions, eventually they’d get there. But who has the right map? You can almost hear these people shouting inside their head ‘JUST TELL ME WHERE THE DAMN HAPPINESS IS AND THEN I’LL GO THERE’. Usually they’re looking for the latest sat nav gadget, in whatever form that takes – another book, another workshop… they are usually less and less happy as they learn more and more ways to become happy.
A few people think about happiness as a choice. They decide to be happy. They might take practical steps too – learning techniques to focus their mind; eating in ways that give them constant energy; avoiding people who bring them down, etc. – and if they do, by aligning their attention and intention, they will probably feel good more often than not. This pretty much works; a lot of happy people do it this way.
But the paradigm I like best is the most simple of all. It’s the genuine realisation that you are happy. It’s the knowledge that happiness is your essence; your core. And when you pay attention to your essence rather than the distractions of everyday life, happiness is always there, because you are happy.
Michael Neill has a lovely story about a bowl of cloudy water, kinda muddy water. How would you make it clear? Shake it? Boil it? Sieve it? Add chemicals? None of them really work that great. The best way we’ve found is to let the bowl settle. Let the water stand for a while. And what you’ll notice is the gunk starts to separate itself, because the natural state of water is clear. And the natural state of you is happy.
Beautiful.
It’s too easy though, right? So we go back on the journey, back to earning our happiness, back to defending it.
And yet every authentically happy person I’ve ever met has had the same message: you can’t become happy, you can only be happy.
When I wrote Can NLP Be What It Has Become?, the reaction was really positive. Most people agreed that NLP has lost its way and many republished the article on their own blogs and websites. Even Bandler’s UK promoter republished it.
To the few who disagreed, and who think standards in NLP are good enough, here’s a reminder of why they’re not.
George is a practitioner approved by not just one… not just two… but at least three professional-sounding organisations in the UK, including the British Board of NLP. He’s apparently a great hypnotist and you can trust him as your therapist.
I like Obama. I think he’s brought a new spirit of hope into the White House and it’s resonated throughout the world.
I also feel closer to America – and Americans – since he took office. Maybe that’s an odd thing to say because, diplomatically, our countries’ relationship is now more strained than it has ever been in my lifetime. But I think British people are lightening up about the yanks again. We feel closer. When you listen through the chatter, the common mantra that Bush was dumb has been neatly replaced by an audacious hope that yes we can build a brighter future – and I think that’s a much better direction to be headed in, together.
But a Nobel Peace Prize? Come on! Did five people have a bowl of stupid for breakfast, or what?
It’s only been six months, and he’s just getting started.
I blame the racism. And by the racism I mean the patronising “ooooh, he’s black” kind of racism that media people seem to have fallen in love with lately. It’s patronising and offensive. And it’s set up this surreal situation where it looks like the very real bravery of Morgan Tsvangirai is valued less than Obama’s hope and rhetoric.
Nobody could have designed a more media-friendly way to undermine Obama today. By praising his efforts to bring peace, the Prize committee provoked millions of people to shout back: “what peace?”.
Twitter almost collapsed under the weight of everyone tweeting their snorts.
Yet Obama has done a lot, and he will do a lot more. The slogans are what it takes to get through the door these days. His presidency is a work in progress and no presidency should be judged after only six months.
We should treat him as a human being – an outstanding human being – and not as The First Black President.
This passage from John Pepper is resonating with me this week.
“What we do not know is that when we have travelled the world over in search of the Holy Grail, ransacked the texts of the saints and sages for clues as to its whereabouts, pleaded with the night to yield it to us, abased ourselves in rituals, followed the light paths of romantic love and relationship and the dark ones of drugs and disorder, and done the million and one things it appears we have to do before we finally grind to a halt in exhaustion, our happiness still tantalisingly out of reach, then we see with a snort of absurdity that there is nowhere left to reach out to; that all the words have gone. The running, brother and sister, is done. The answer is contained here in this frail being in this dark night on this lasted heath; here or nowhere. The Holy Grail is us.”
The racist British National Party has a new freephone number, 0800 008 6191. Obviously we shouldn’t all call and waste the money they’d otherwise spend on financing hate campaigns.
Thanks to a recommendation from the marvelously effervescent Stephen Fry, (apparently it’s ok to name drop if other people are occasionally dropping your name too… and apparently they are! hehe), I have installed the WPtouch plugin for WordPress and now my blog looks pretty on an iPhone.
Nobody makes new friends by writing about the Middle East. Whatever you say, somebody is going to get pissed off. So the temptation is to say nothing.
But after reading the UN (Goldstone) report about Gaza, I don’t want to say nothing.
I love the ideals of the UN. I have visited and helped at their headquarters in New York, and standing inside the UN Security Council Chamber – the focus of so much international attention for longer than I’ve been alive – was a magical experience for me. I also think most of the people who work and volunteer for the UN are enthusiastic, idealist and great people.
But I think the UN is weak, biased, antisemitic and discredited when it comes to the Middle East.
Did you know that the Jewish state is smaller than Wales and has a population less than Greater London? Did you know that it’s surrounded by Arab neighbours with many hundred times more landmass and around 50 times more people? And did you know that several of those powerful Arab neighbours declared war on Israel on the very first morning of its existence, simply because they didn’t – and mostly still don’t – think a Jewish state should be allowed to exist?
The great myth is that the Middle East conflict is about land. Of course it’s really about ideology and power.
The land of Israel has been a Jewish area since biblical times (and I mean the old testament bible; thousands of years BC). It was sparsely populated for much of the last few hundred years, until the first mass immigration into the area between 1880 and 1920. Those immigrants were Jews escaping the Russian and East European pogroms, and that land was their oasis of hope. In return they breathed life into a mostly parched landscape. They built the area from mostly dusty desert into a country with an infrastructure. They built the economy from virtually nothing to something that became stronger and stronger.
More Jews moved there over the next two decades, many escaping the rise of Nazism in the 30s. They built the infrastructure and the economy. They rebuilt Jerusalem. They reinvested in their communities to make them strong, all the time asking for self-determination and self-government.
Modern Israel was officially created as a country – by the UN, ironically – in 1948. It was a place that refugees from the Holocaust could go to start a new life. People are often accused of being emotive when mentioning the Holocaust, but why not be emotive? It’s relevant that many of the founders of modern Israel were people who had been horribly treated, not only by Germany and the Nazis but also by the many countries that refused them asylum after the war. It’s sick and disgraceful that people who had lost their families and their homes, and all their material possessions, were left to die and rot in boats hanging off the coast of countries – including Britain – that wouldn’t let them in.
Israel was their sanctuary. Jews agreed to the terms of the UN resolution that gave them a home – and then, immediately, they were invaded and attacked by Iraq, Syria and others.
It’s against this backdrop that Israel has reactively and proactively defended itself against aggressors for 61 years.
By extending its boundaries outwards, enemy rockets were pushed back and could no longer reach densely-populated cities. That seems like a sensible idea to me. It’s an imperfect solution of course, but it’s saved far more lives than it’s cost. What would you do if someone who wanted you dead had rockets aimed at your house? Pushing the rockets back to a distance where they are much less of a threat is probably the most peaceful option available in that situation.
Similar with “the wall”. Of course it’s inconvenient and humiliating for people (both Jews and Arabs) to be stopped at checkpoints, and it has dramatically reduced suicide bombings and saved countless lives. It’s not perfect, but what is? What would you do if people were blowing themselves up in your neighbourhood?
I’m not into the religious case for Israel. Each of us has our own god or gods, and few of them seem to agree on very much. It’s not relevant to me that many Jews see Israel as their spiritual home or promised land. What matters is the truth of history – what matters is that these people overcame horrendous obstacles to build something beautiful, and nobody’s fear and hatred should deprive them of another home.
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens a second Holocaust not because he wants a few extra square miles of land but because he doesn’t want Jews having a home in that 95%-Islamic region.
People like to say “oh it’s all very complicated”. People like to say “oh there are two sides to every story”. Those are just lazy ways of not having to think.
What’s your side of the story?
These are not complicated issues once you realise that three foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner isn’t democracy. The UN report betrays the trust that some people still have in the UN because Goldstone has deliberately and cynically misrepresented events to pacify a violent majority.
There’s another factor too. I think it’s so far outside our realm of understanding that most of us simply can’t believe that mothers could use their own babies as human shields. Even when I see video footage of Hamas firing rockets from the roof of a school – knowing that any retaliation will kill the children playing inside and therefore cast Israel as the bigger and nastier aggressor – somehow it still seems unreal to me. It just cannot be. It cannot be. But it is. It is.
The kids that survive this abuse are the future and may one day hold our future in their hands. What hope do they have? The UN-run schools in Gaza recently asked Hamas if it would be ok to teach the standard curriculum, including some history lessons about World War 2 and the Nazi Holocaust. Of course Hamas aggressively refused that permission.
Where else in the world does the UN ask terrorists what it’s ok to teach in history class?
See the video below for a provocative glimpse at how some children grow up in UN-funded facilities in Gaza.
Israel is certainly not perfect. Nobody and no country is. But I’ll tell you something – they’re far more restrained than I’d ever be in their shoes. If you hit someone I care about, I’m not interested in calculating what is a proportional response. I’d punch you back as hard as I could, and when you stood up I’d punch you again even harder. And I know that’s not an ideal way to be – and we could all be Zen masters – but if your parents were killed in a Nazi death camp and your kids were killed by a suicide bomber, what counts as a proportional response? When you’ve lost everything, rebuilt it again from nothing and then have hate-filled people trying to take it all away again, what the hell is a proportionate response?
What would you do? It’s not nice to consider, but it’s the only way to make it real. And that’s the only way to collectively find a solution.
I recommend reading this chapter (available free) from Not In My Name.
When I heard that Richard Bandler was creating an application for the iPhone, that was exciting news. I love my iPhone and some of the 3rd-party applications on it are truly amazing.
Yesterday I went to Gloucestershire to visit a friend. As I changed trains at Swindon, the iPhone beeped to let me know my connecting train was on platform 4 but running a few minutes late. I had time to tap another button and find the nearest bookshop. Another button told me which books I might like to buy in a hurry, based on which I’d liked before. It’s clever stuff.
What could Richard Bandler come up with?
The new application was released today. It’s called iMeditation and the sales page says it uses “neural brainwave entrainment with biofeedback” to “provide deep relaxation leading to a calmer mind and better sleep”.
You get a three minute introduction first. Richard laments the stress that usually comes in via the iPhone – (I think he must be using his differently to how I use mine!) – and says now you can use the very same device to begin to train your neurology to be quiet, and to relax. So that you can really learn what it takes to slow down…
It’s a clever idea to play with. The nature of the iPhone means we have to go through the literal and metaphorical process of putting the phone into airplane mode before we start, so it won’t ring or beep during the program. Already there’s a sense of taking a step away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life.
Then you hold your iPhone in front of your face. As Richard begins a hypnotic induction, pulsing circles appear on the screen. So you have both visual and auditory input. And as he talks and you listen, and look, that’s right… you begin to drift off.
There are more than a dozen iPhone applications that use this kind of brainwave entrainment technology and most of them have more options and customisable features. What makes iMeditation unique is the way it uses the accelerometer built into the phone to track your hand movements. Be still and you’ll get soothing blue circles. Move and they’ll become an angry red. I’m not sure how valuable this actually is but it’s certainly pretty. I thought the biofeedback element would somehow calibrate to changes in my brainwaves and adapt/personalise the entrainment program to guide me in the right direction. Measuring my hand movements may be the first step towards that but it’s fairly clunky at this stage. I tested it a few times this evening and I only went out of the blue zone when I scratched my knee, and I wasn’t particularly relaxed most of the time – I was just sitting still.
A Bandler application for the iPhone is a great idea. After ten minutes of playing with it though, I’m ready for the next generation version already. It at least needs to have more than one program, and maybe some more options. But for a free download – I’ve rated it on iTunes as 5 stars out of 5.
I was up in the loft earlier and found an astrology chart that Pauline Moran (Miss Lemon from Poirot) did for me last year.
I’m fairly sceptical about astrology, but it is certainly interesting.
Here’s the summary:
“Your considerable analytical powers, if used positively, will bring benefits. You may be impatient with others who are less precise and this could bring friction to relationships and working conditions.
You have excellent mental processes and the ability to communicate ideas logically – this indicates considerable teaching skill. At times your quick mental processes could mean you are impatient with slower colleagues.
A tendency to extravagance may make any financial gain short-lived and cause you to gain weight. Your love of philosophy and higher learning will broaden your outlook. Travel in distant places is likely and men could bring you benefits. You may well have a highly-charged sexual energy or unconventional ways of expressing this.
You project a sense of power and an intensity which others may be fascinated with. You can understand their unspoken thoughts and can keep a secret. You prefer to keep them at a distance and to keep your own counsel. Transformative experiences in the use of your power and authority will aid your development. You are one who inclines toward the realms of higher consciousness. You seek new forms of spiritual discipline. You are interested in higher education and have an increased capacity for communicating advanced new ideas. Long distance travel may further your inner search. Never let your enthusiasm run away with reality. Your nature is elevated and spiritual – to others you may seem vague and unfocused. You do however, have a strong inner sense of purpose. You are an idealist and at times can be a visionary.
The contemporaries with whom you share this configuration will strive towards the creation of a better world. You are idealists and dreamers who will seek to transform and begin anew. Life is seen as part of a cosmic whole and many of you will be open to new ideas and spiritual disciplines. Alpha meditation and New Physics, sexual freedom and equality, occult and esoteric knowledge, advances in science, communications and medicine will be of much importance as mankind realises the relationship of the smallest part to the whole.”
Hmmmm.
Methinks P.T. Barnum would be proud.
What do you think? I’m curious to know: a) if you know me, do these statements resonate? b) how many other people do you know who this summary would (also) describe?
A lot of people are angry that the BBC has offered a seat on Question Time to BNP leader Nick Griffin. I think the BBC is right though. The best way to defeat the BNP is to confront them and demonstrate the flaws in their stupid, racist arguments.
Yes, it will give them more publicity. Yes, they’ll use their “wolf in sheep’s clothing” tactics to appear reasonable when they’re not.
But democracy isn’t supposed to be always comfortable. And most people are smart enough to look at the history of the BNP – and the vile people who lead it – and know that nothing good can ever come from supporting them.
I think the BBC is doing the right thing in a sad situation. What’s the alternative? Letting powerful people decide who can have a platform to stand for power?
A bit of a brag: Pop Idol winner Will Young asked to interview me for a feature he’s writing about gay life in Britain. A lot of a brag: I am far too busy and turned him down.
There’s a trend against navel-gazing in NLP. Many people like to say things like “I’m too busy actually doing it”.
On the surface it sounds like those people have taken on the spirit of NLP – the “get stuck in” attitude – but I think it’s also a massive limitation. The reason doctors are encouraged to send people for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is largely that the leaders of that field took time to build a public face, to clarify the issues, to address the ethics, to reassure and to educate – and to schmooze.
Now CBT practitioners really do get stuck in. I was talking to a business consultant for the Department of Health earlier and he reckons the budget for CBT referrals will double by 2011, and it’s already tens of millions. That opens a lot of doors for a lot of people to move beyond their stuck state and enjoy personal freedom.
NLP is more than a therapeutic model, but it’s still very useful as a basis for making therapeutic changes – and for teaching people to use their own brain.
I honestly believe a good NLPer can do more in a session than a good CBTer, using the skills of their field, but I also agree with the DoH that we haven’t earned our place at the table. We simply aren’t very credible.
It’s like we want to keep our secrets to ourselves. Yes, we may shout a lot. We may even have neon flashing lights. But our field is fundamentally positioned in a way that means the vast majority of people think we’re a bit simple, and it’s a bit like discovering a cure for cancer and then telling fart jokes when people ask you to explain it.
I think we can learn a lot from CBT – a field that has less to offer, but offers more.
What if the only thing standing between you and all the money you’ll ever want or need is… you!
I’m delighted to announce that NLP Connections has sponsored Michael Neill to deliver a fantastic-value package for our members, focussing on how we can make more money and enjoy it.
Most of us inherit our attitudes to money – we get them from our family, from our culture and sometimes even from the people who pay us. Often, we don’t even know what our attitudes to money are because we’ve been living with them for so long.
Michael has helped thousands of people to pole-vault over their old limitations and discover that making money can actually be easy and fun.
This is a three-part package that will reinvent your relationship with money. You’ll get:
* An exclusive mp3 before the event. Michael will introduce his ideas and set you some pre-event ‘homework’ to get your mind racing in the right direction.
* A fun-packed day in Central London. We’ll go from 9:30am – 5:30pm and Michael will be the only speaker – you’ll get him all day.
* An exclusive teleclass after the event where Michael will share even more of his ideas and do some on-the-spot coaching to help you to take things even further. You’ll also get a recording of this teleclass to keep.
All this for only £99… fantastic!
Paul McKenna says he’s made much more money since applying Michael’s ideas. You can too.
Some people already know that an NLP trainer called Nick Kemp has been virtually stalking me for the last three years, posting dozens of messages about me on various blogs, forums and newsgroups.
Let me explain. Nick is cross with me because he was caught using a series of fake accounts on an NLP forum I run – NLP Connections – and using them to post glorious reviews of his own training events. The fake characters raved about him – “Nick Kemp is better than Richard Bandler and Paul McKenna put together”.
It wasn’t the first time he’d done this kind of thing. He was caught using the same tactic on alt.psychology.nlp back in 2003-04, before I knew him. [See: Nick Kemp -- Hypocritical Liar]
It’s not like self-reviews are unheard of in the media. Nick could have held his hands up and moved on. Instead he’s been on a bizarre and obsessive mission to smear me – and my family – ever since.
I’ve mostly ignored this. It’s his issue, not mine. But I’ve decided to write something here because I know some people are wondering about the peculiar comments about me on various sites (posted by Nick under different names) and I’d like it to be clear what’s going on.
I tried to have a reasonable conversation with him when we were both at the same training event recently but he literally ran out of the room when he saw me walking over to him.
Internet-stalking is an odd thing. He’s posted all kinds of smears and lies about me, and he’s even admitted posting under one of my relatives names.
He phoned one of my friends and former business partners late at night and used sneaky language patterns to try and trick him into revealing something indiscreet about me… and *still* he couldn’t get any real dirt.
I just want to say two things about Mr Kemp. One is that I haven’t actually done anything that I mind people knowing about, so trying to embarrass me is likely to be hard and unrewarding work. The other is that I think you reap what you sow in life, and it’s no surprise to me that after spending so much energy trying to do me down, Nick’s own career has rather gone off the rails. After accusations that he has “mind fucked” several people around him, he has few friends left. His long-term business partner Tina Taylor walked out on him recently. John La Valle, president of the Society of NLP, has officially distanced himself too. John says: “People change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not, and sometimes I find it necessary to withdraw a recommendation. Those trainers who are members in good standing, can be found here: The Society of NLP – Richard Bandler.”
I don’t want to make a big fuss about this, but I think it’s fair to put it on the record. If you read peculiar comments about me from untraceable people, they were probably written by Nick. Make of them what you will.
The new biography of Simon Cowell is dedicated to me, so I think that earns it a plug.
It’s written by my partner Chas. The dedication reads: “This book is dedicated to Chris – my very own outspoken, dark, handsome Englishman. To borrow a Cowellism: you are a gentleman, sir”.
Chas has previously written biographies of Amy Winehouse, Heston Blumenthal and Paris Hilton. His biography of Michael Jackson – up-to-date – will be published later this month. He also co-wrote Not In My Name with the legendary Julie Burchill.
I’ve forgiven the world for not giving me what I thought I wanted, because now – somehow – I’ve found myself living a life even better than my dreams. I’m so happy today it tingles!
