Israel, Iran and Gaza - A basic observation

When Hamas attacked Israel in early October killing over 1100 Israelis (Source: Al-Jazeera) and taking hostages Israel responded by invading Gaza claiming it had a right to defend itself. At the time of this post over 30,000 Palestinian men woman and many children have lost their lives (Source: npr.org).

On April 1, Israel launched an attack on Iran’s embassy in Damascus Syria, killing multiple commanders who manage operations for Iran-aligned forces around the region. Embassies are considered to be inviolable therefore the attack was akin to an attack on Iranian soil.

Today's action by Iran was a measured retaliatory response to the embassy attack. Hence, like Israel, Iran too claims it has a right to defend itself. Measured because within hours Iran had concluded its strike. This was announced via the Iranian mission to the United Nations. 

Regardless of your views on the Middle East situation involving Israel, Iran, and Gaza, it's crucial to grasp the region's intricate politics and history before making superficial comments on social media. Therefore, when I come across posts suggesting that Iran's attack today was unprovoked, it highlights the pervasive ignorance at play.

Irrespective of our opinions (mine inclusive), it's important to acknowledge that war and conflict are grim realities, and it's the innocent and vulnerable who ultimately bear the brunt of suffering.

Further reading: Why Iran attacked Israel – and what open war between the two could look like

The day I caught the attention of the BBC

It was an unforgettable day. My blog, American Interests, had been active for over 18 months when, on November 15, 2008, I published a comprehensive post titled "America will remain Strong." In it, I argued that despite recent setbacks, the U.S.'s ability to rejuvenate and adapt was fuelled by numerous structural advantages, essential for maintaining a peaceful 21st century through a rules-based international order reliant on U.S. global strategic power. This post garnered significant attention, particularly from one of the world's largest media companies, the BBC.

As depicted in the image provided, the blog was transformed into a manuscript, and during its circulation, no fewer than 32 of my articles were syndicated and featured on platforms like "The Chicago-Sun Times" and Reuters.com. Success was becoming familiar, with advertisers now vying for space to promote their products on my platform.

Just seven days after the post's publication, I received an email from a BBC broadcast journalist - see image below. I was being courted for possible participation in a live radio debate on American Dominance—a prospect that thrilled me. The BBC boasts a reach of over 1 billion listeners, with potential listener ship numbers soaring to over 200 million at any given moment.

When I started the blog, I never envisioned having the chance to address hundreds of millions of people!

Since the blog is no longer accessible online, anyone interested in reading my American Dominance piece or, for that matter, any other of the hundreds of my articles from the blog need only reach out to me and I will happily oblige. Use my contact form by visiting this blog at https://personalmeanings.blogspot.com/ using a laptop or desktop as my contact form is not usually visible if accessing this site via a smartphone.

Watch the words you speak...

Great post from Petra, how true! 

We've recently experienced firsthand the impact of words that achieved just that. It's disheartening to realize these words came from members of our own extended family. L.M and S.A (there initials), your focus, my life partner, once believed in the depth of the relationship she shared with you. However, on that significant evening, she came to understand that it was rather shallow afterall.

Arguments based on faulty premises that hurt. Damage done, differences irreconcilable. It's over!

Words can build bridges or erect insurmountable walls! Choose wisely which path you take. pic.twitter.com/fQ3uAlrXSA

— Petra (@Petra47448293) March 29, 2024

Donald Trump’s Ascendancy

President Donald Trump comes up often in general discussions of late and, considering the prevailing consensus that he is grossly unpopular (which is very true outside U.S. borders), quite often people question how he won the 2016 Presidential contest in the first place. This is what I am writing about here. 

I AM NOT advocating for Trump through this writing, I am merely highlighting the methods and strategies he adopted as a Presidential candidate in the 2016 race.

He may not have been an accomplished politician during and on, his journey to Presidency however, when he entered the contest he was already an accomplished individual just not, as a career politician. Yet despite this and, a privileged personal history, he quite remarkably identified and zeroed in upon the discontent in middle America and, not quite by accident, how to get around the 240-electoral vote “Blue wall” that ran from Wisconsin to North Carolina. Metaphorically speaking, a barrier that has successfully encased a Democrat vote for the past six elections.

Consider, we had well over a dozen talented and more experienced candidates within the Republican camp and yet slowly, Trump lay them all to waste, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and more. This was no indolent process it was more dynamic. Over a year-long primary race they, and his Democrat rival in Hillary Clinton, could not match Trump’s instincts about what troubled so many an American voter, the forgotten middle - the exception was Democrat Bernie Sanders but the Hillary camp took care of him before Trump could. It matters little that Trump’s modus operandi was ugly and most certainly cynical, it soon harboured its own momentum and, as the November 2016 election drew closer, it seeped into Trump and his camp, as if by osmosis, that they were gaining the upper hand. From their lofty LA, New York and Washington pads this was entirely missed by mainstream media  Thus, a rich Manhattan resident felt the public angst more comprehensively than vanilla media, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, not to mention a talented pool of Republican wannabe’s, and in true populist fashion, Donald Trump courted his tribe, won them over and became President.

In terms of extent, Russia's influence on the election result remains a noteworthy factor, but I am willing to bet that Trump would have achieved the feat anyway.

... he chose to focus on three significant ideological issues of our epoch, illegal immigration, employment and trade and political correctness ...

Quite nearly all politicians have a streak of anti-elitist tendencies, Donald Trump was by far the superior populist in 2016. I viewed his campaign as crude and different yet effective, because he chose to focus on three significant ideological issues of our epoch, illegal immigration, employment and trade and political correctness. He also pressed a hot button by questioning the extent of America's overseas interventions - Foreign Policy.

Foreign Policy

Trump’s simple message went something like this. Why invest resources in parts of the world where Americans are hated, while at home we’re stuck in low paid jobs and struggle to find work. “America First” resonated with a substantial portion of the populace who faced income disparity and rising inequality. He proposed several initiates including a re-negotiation of U.S. alliance terms with Japan, South Korea and NATO – he had not specifically named my homeland Australia but was on the record saying that the U.S. had no interest in being in Asia militarily. Such pitches tapped into an emerging desire among Americans that their nation should not attempt to solve the world’s problems. Trump rejected the notion that the U.S. should act as global police, indeed Obama had a similar viewpoint, but Trump went much further by suggesting that the U.S. does not even need to be involved in enforcing international law & order in its present definition - incidentally, something he's forgotten since becoming President, think Syrian intervention following the gas attacks on its population. Trump also questioned nuclear non-proliferation, mutual self-defence treaties and overseas military bases.

Obama had also demonstrated a degree of foreign policy separation but with alarming results. His lukewarm responses to regional issues left a security vacuum, and when that happens the “bad guys” are always there to fill the void. While America stuttered, Putin attacked Ukraine and has since launched a reckless campaign in Syria, attacked Georgia and annexed Crimea. In this light, I was no fan of Trumps America first rhetoric but many an American obviously was.

Immigration

Trump was also clever with immigration. He would often criticise elites knowing full well that he was one himself and it’s the elites who are least affected by illegal immigration's consequences on U.S. communities. First, he highlighted potential though incorrect pitfalls without holding back. Illegal immigration meant more “hit and run accidents", “crowded emergency hospital rooms", "social security offices”, “more drugs”, "more gang violence”, increased load on an already stretched education system etc. And with such loud pronouncements, he opened a plethora of populist overtures that would transcend political affiliations and loyalties and, in doing so, he suddenly even tapped into the Democrat working-class vote. Who would have thought so?

Moreover, Trump knew that's it’s not the well to do and elites who suffered most in competition for limited subsidies and entitlements due to illegal arrivals, rather it’s the lower middle classes and poor minorities who had to compete.

While the media and its cache of progressive disciples (not meant as criticism), including but not limited to, Hillary Clinton and many Republicans shouted xenophobia and the like, Trump successfully turned the discourse into a question of fairness and lawful equality. “Why” he would shout at his rallies, should select foreign nationals not be subject to federal laws while “you” (American citizens) are not permitted to pick and choose which laws to follow?

Employment

He also focused on employment by reminding would-be voters that economic growth was weak and that labour non- participation was still very high and competition for jobs, intense. Thus, why was the U.S. allowing foreign nationals to compete in the workforce under illegal auspices whereas those who sought legal entry were not rendered the same rights and privileges? Typical fear mongering!

This led to another pitfall by Trump's political opponents, detractors and the media. The broad consensus suggested that DT would fail with any tough immigration stance because Latino’s, - those of Latin American origin who comprised a great many illegal immigrants in the first place, - was an emerging voting force to contend with. It was widely assumed that going hard on immigration would be political suicide. But Latino communities were not totally uniform, hence established Hispanics, Latinos whatever, were actually targeted by Trump and made to understand that it was they who suffered most due to the consequences of illegal immigration, and it worked and many voted for him.

Trade 

Trade is complex or, at the very least hardly the zero-sum game that Trump successfully turned the discourse into. Republican  - and Washington - policy regards trade has always been tantamount to an unconstrained form of free trade regardless of potential pitfalls for U.S. consumers and its local producers. U.S. policymakers and politicians did not bat an eyelid as the EU or Japan subsidized their exports and even raised barriers to imports. While such policy adjustments abroad angered American producers and voters, Washington accepted the imbalance in the knowledge that local producers would be forced to tighten their costs, seek greater efficiencies and become more competitive. But alas, Trump seized on this as evidence that it was Americans who paid the ultimate price through job losses and/or lower incomes. The U.S. has always been an advocate of the globalization experiment; accordingly, any trade liabilities were consented to without push back as part of its hypothetical responsibility to further the globalization cause among weaker trading partners. After all, it was still the world’s largest economy, even if only just still ahead of China and, most certainly the most powerful nation militarily.

Trump was gaining traction through his message that such lop-lopsidedness hurt ordinary Americans and that U.S. policymakers, being the architects of this trade ideology, were not impacted by its ramifications. Lest we forget, Trump himself was a billionaire Manhattan man with many privileges, a man who, like those he criticised, would hardly have been impacted by the trade policies he was attacking. But here we witnessed Trump channelling frustrations to middle America, ordinary factory workers, plumbers, electricians, retail workers and the like with much empathy. He avoided the singular, instead of focusing on plural possessive pronouns, “our workers”, ‘our farmers”, “our….”, he assured them that the pain they felt was not beyond their control, that their economic circumstances were not predetermined but regulated by elites and that only he could liberate them. 

Little wonder he soon penetrated the Democratic “Blue wall”. In the rallies that followed, the populist language was adjusted to fit the parameters of general electoral college vocabulary. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc. soon internalised the mantra. Trump would save mining jobs, construction and manufacturing and the more he spoke in politically incorrect terms, the sharper his message. The trade conversation surrounding the 2016 Presidential race was effortlessly won by Trump. 

Political Correctness

Finally, can anyone offer a more effective tool for a populist to advance his course that head butting the concept that is, political correctness? If you need any evidence that PC is the current day turn off one need only witness the global sensation that is, Jordan Peterson. To the delight of many, Trump liberally offered terms like, “Merry Christmas” and “Radical Islamic Terror”. Nor would he shy away from saying something as benign as, “Mr” or “Mrs”, “waitress” or “man-made” etc. Trump proudly advocated orthodox terms without fear or favour at the delight of his emerging base. It did not matter what the subject matter, “Black lives matter” or, the Environment, Trump spoke in the language of yesteryear as if seeking to rekindle a past moral universe where the “forgotten man” resided. “We're gonna get away from political correctness” his often-banded quote. This language resonated with a significant proportion of would-be voters who have little affinity for progressive culture – identity politics, radical feminism, boutique environmentalism and metro sexual careerism. 

Remarkably, a proportion of the voting population that resided in more than 70 per cent of America’s geography somehow remained largely unknown to media, academia, celebrities, politicians and Hollywood sorts, but not to Donald Trump.

Lines like, “America First”, “Build that Wall”, “Drain the Swamp”, “Lock her up” (Hillary) and Trump’s official campaign slogan, “Make America Great” (MAGA) resonated with many, and gave Donald Trump the Presidency, a result that surprised so many an elite that incorrectly assumed their own values were shared by all Americans. As one source put it:

"Trump won with the endorsement of (only) one major newspaper; his party establishment disavowed him, and many of its billionaires sat out the race; his campaign was out-spent and out-organized; his tax dodges were exposed; and a video documented his predatory sexist boasts reinforced by testimonies of several of his victims." 

Bellicose President Trump has many flaws but we should not be surprised that his base looked to him and rewarded him, not merely in the hope of getting back to work or, to reclaim a forgotten way of speaking in public, but for paying tribute rather than scoffing at their way of living as Hillary did with her "Basket of Deplorables" statement, not that she was incorrect.

Further reading:

The Unbearable Smugness of the Press

© 2018 - 2024 Ottavio Marasco. All rights reserved.

Though a Vocation Calls ...

As my late fifties approached, I occasionally reflect on possible post-retirement activities, more accurately, what vocation can I embrace. It's still some way off, but given my considerations require skill, it's not too early to begin planning, that way when the day arrives, I can immerse myself without delay. It was June 2021 and, for as long as I could remember, I have had a yearning for career growth and/or change as distinct from my present job. My existing job is merely a well-paying position, it is not me per-se, given that it is normal to associate career with identity, I have never been able to associate the two, that is, me and my job. It’s like the accountant who thinks, I work as an accountant and earn my living as such, but I am not an accountant. Without being specific, I am a rail professional, it's what I do for an income, it's hardly me however. 

A desire for change outside of my existing job has not resulted in a vocation in spite of many a dabbling's in the past including Politics, my previous blogs, and freelance writing gigs. But work in its present form will end one day and, with any luck, creativity can kick in through a vocation. 

So as I began the journey toward the final chapter of a productive life, I am exploring what my vocation could be. It seems as though it has been a calling of sorts, and while accepted logic would suggest that my time has passed or, that I am too old, I dismiss this. Each of us is called to be someone and/or to do things, it’s part of our existence. If we’re growth orientated then discovery is a lifelong process.

There are two areas of interest, two areas that I know a little more than the average Joe about. China in terms of international affairs, and the U.S. in terms of same. 

If there is to be a mission in pursuit of either or both these interests then, regardless of which, one thing is certain, specialised knowledge is paramount. Though I read a great deal I cannot help but recall what Napoleon Hill wrote many a year ago, book smarts or general knowledge only give you generic intelligence. Specific knowledge or specialisation are the keys to success. Zig Ziglar put it this way, “You Cannot Make It as a Wandering Generality". Mr Hill made another notable point, by adding that the knowledge does not necessarily have to be in one's possession. This suggests that I seek out collaboration both possessing and sharing specialised knowledge, all the while contributing value. Significantly, the acquired specialisation must be used with purpose and strategy. Accordingly, knowledge must be organised. This all means that intermediate levels of knowledge specialisation in my chosen interest are, at the very least, to be mastered. On this basis, a significant undertaking. 

Admittedly, I don’t quite know which to pursue yet, the introspective self is pronounced and still, nothing crystal. Perhaps it could be both about China and the U.S. as they are quite the strategic competitors at present. 

There is an obstacle within the conscience. A dilemma if you will. It's like standing near the edge of a cliff not focusing, just looking into the vastness of time and space, time past, the present and future, space unending, ever-changing. I perceive too much and in doing so nothing, just status quo. Perhaps this is okay, the universe is pleading for patience. The nothingness is at times, unbearable though I know better, it shouldn't be. It's akin to forms of solitude and in today's world this can be viewed as a shortcoming. “Nourish yourself with grand and austere ideas of beauty that feed the soul… Seek solitude,” young Delacroix counselled himself in 1824. 

The paragraph you are now reading was written some weeks after the previous one, a necessary pause on my part to test for resolve and reasoning. So what will it be? I now know what that "obstacle within the conscience" was, time or lack thereof as a result of existing work hours, in addition to an appreciation of the words I wrote above, so true, and compelling, “on this basis, a significant undertaking”. Indeed it is, and it is this realisation coupled with my being time-poor that has, at least in the interim, revealed the answer. 

This will have to be enough  wrote Krista O'Reilly Davi-Digui in her exquisite piece, What if All I Want is a Mediocre Life? “One must know what one wants to be,” the eighteenth-century French mathematician Émilie du Châtelet wrote in weighing the nature of genius. “ But my mind must keep ticking, evaluating, growing, contributing for as du Châtelet noted so wonderfully in her middle years:

Since I began to live with myself, and to pay attention to the price of time, to the brevity of life, to the uselessness of the things one spends one’s time with in the world, I have wondered at my former behaviour: at taking extreme care of my teeth, of my hair and at neglecting my mind and my understanding. I have observed that the mind rusts more easily than iron, and that it is even more difficult to restore to its first polish.

Thus my two aforementioned interests, as interesting as I may find them require some serious and time-consuming effort stretched over many a year. I cannot pursue them in the manner and way I wish to, while still in full time work. 

You can be excused for thinking that I’m too hard on myself, I don’t have to be an intermediate level, expert, perhaps skilled would suffice? That is not me, nor do I think that I would be of any real value to anyone if I am only going to replicate second-hand information that’s available across media, even if the latter is cleverly crafted in my own words or, as I wrote in this blogs bio, infused with my own, "individual spin and" … "distinctive sensibility and "perception of my chosen subject matter".

I do not care for cursory kicks, I've enjoyed incidental notoriety in the past when no less than 26 of my blog posts, as lifted from my American Interests site appeared on the pages of Reuters while many also featured on the Chicago Sun-Times site.  The American Interests URL was also included on a Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Buzz list, a Federal Advisory Committee to the United States Department of Defence of which Richard Perle was the initial Chairman and later, John Hamre. Finally, the blog was also reproduced in book form totalling well over 600 pages.

If I were going to succeed in say, my China example what would that ultimately mean? Book writing, research submissions, contributing to the efforts of Think Tanks and the like are but some options. Now let's consider the prerequisites required for contributions to and/or participation in Think Tanks. Typically specialised media, interest groups and Think Tanks would only solicit the works of individuals that have completed honours or postgraduate studies in the field of endeavour and notably, be amongst the best in terms of results combined with related experience. Not that I would be seeking an internship, at my age that's implausible however, any contribution would be nigh impossible without the credibility provided by relevant background education and experience. Furthermore, any likely participation on my part would be quantified against other outstanding individuals within a highly competitive process. Ordinarily, the alumni would include, Rhodes scholars, current and ex-diplomats, former defence officers, Journalists and Academics. Having done some research, I feel confident that, unless I were to actually cease work and immerse myself entirely on a fairly steep learning curve the exercise will be superfluous. Regrettably, such immersion is not possible at this juncture and, given that for me it’s either the real deal or nothing, I have to be practical.

I'm imagining that if I were to win big in a lotto then, upon ceasing work, I would cheerfully become a full-time University student in my chosen interest. Truth be known, I have often reflected on this, while most folk at my age would think about retiring, travelling, buying fancy cars, designer clothes and/or chilling, I would willingly embrace the aforementioned trial upon retiring, as challenging as it might be.

To console oneself, I reflect on the knowledge that to succeed in any of the options above calls for a mammoth effort in order to migrate from passive to intermediate levels of "value" contribution to the field of study, to the endeavour. Once again that realisation, “a significant undertaking”. 

This awareness acknowledges the skill levels out there, and what it will take for me to succeed, it reflects wisdom and for that, I can be grateful. It also indicates growth as at a much younger age, I might have embarked on an ill-fated journey landing me right back where I started.

In closing, a sense of mild melancholy sweeps over me, that slightly disturbing feeling that spells, is that it, is that all it will be for me? For the time being yes, at any rate, I trust the future. 

Sapientia et Doctrina.

The Mentally Strong

I wouldn’t refer to myself as intellectually or mentally strong, but through all my senses, I have learned enough in my years to suggest that those who have had a different mindset, one that lends itself to greater levels of inner peace, in spite of life's offerings no matter how adverse. Do you know anyone like that? Nothing seems to throw them off, it’s as if little fazes them. They’re still subject to sadness, pain and suffering, only an automaton wouldn’t, but not exclusively, they can handle much more misfortune and hardship than most folk.

So what’s going on here? Has it to do with intelligence, background, culture, past events or is it something more elusive. I am willing to bet it has a little of all the above but mostly, the mentally strong have a mindset that embraces a continuing dogged quest for personal growth that focuses on managing their own behaviour, thoughts and therefore resultant feelings. I stress, their own!

There may be a myriad of ways they achieve this, but for the purpose of this writing, permit me to summarize what I’ve learned. The mentally strong avoid certain things, objects of thoughts if you will, that could impair their inner peace.

1. They have no interest in impressing fellow humans. There is nothing wrong with pointing out your new material joy once, whether it be a new Tesla or $12,000 Rolex watch, nor is there anything wrong with highlighting your kid's educational achievements once, notice the keyword? Once! But when you know someone that highlights that same material joy, not once but every time you see them or, that steers the conversation such that their child’s double degree, or masters degree or doctoral degree gets a mention not once, but almost every second time you get together then something else is going on. This compare and contrast mentality signals a poor internal constitution and low self-esteem on the part of the boaster, usually a mum and it’s easily recognised. The mentally strong, do not need or seek any form of admiration or approval as they are entirely comfortable with what is. It’s their own values, principles, beliefs and standards that ultimately dictate a course of action or their thought processes and their conversations.
2. Seeking perfection is for the weak, seeking excellence is for the strong. The mentally strong understand and welcome failure while recognizing their flaws. 
3. They refuse to partake in anger and will not harbour grudges in the knowledge that this will only diminish them. This as a way of embracing the positive energy that surrounds them (and us all) not the negative opposite. 
4. They refuse to blame their misfortune or problems on that outside of them; external circumstances. Their focus is more often than not, on what is within their control. They do not understand, let alone acknowledge any notion related to the world (or people) being out to get them. It’s commonly referred to a victim mentality.
5. Materialism is not part of their language. Nice new car, big home, expensive stuff, possessions whatever. This is not to suggest their minimalists, what it does suggest is that they only have a material interest in what brings them pleasure and in turn, serenity.
6. You instinctively know the toxic types when you come across them, then why engage them? The mentally strong avoid them at all cost knowing full well, that there is little to be achieved by attempting any engagement.
7. They understand their limitations while acknowledging that they are prone to mistakes. In saying that, they understand that one cannot prevent the nasties in life, whatever they may be, They can mitigate the risk of occurrence but that’s as far as it goes. Things out of their immediate sphere of control are accepted as such. 
8. They understand that long term satisfaction is what counts as opposed to needing to be continually happy. They almost inherently understand that contentment is gained through hard work, sometimes involving significant and sustained effort.  
9. Comfort zones are for the mediocre. They do not avoid discomfort. While avoiding outright recklessness, they know the level of discomfort that can be tolerated and ultimately engender personal growth. 
10. You cannot do it all on your own, complete self-reliance is a paradox of sorts, as no single individual has all the answers. They understand that there is no weakness in seeking assistance or professional help when needed. 

If any of the above is even remotely accurate, it calls for some regulation of emotions and behaviours despite whatever the circumstances; something that takes courage and effort but it’s what sets the mentally strong apart from the rest.

Eyes Wide Shut A Review By Otto Marasco

Running Length: 2:40
MPAA Classification: R (Graphic sex, frequent nudity, profanity)

Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Marie Richardson, Rade Serbedzija, Vinessa Shaw, Leelee Sobieski

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Producer: Stanley Kubric

It was with inquisitive anticipation that I approached my first viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s 14th and final work – Eyes Wide Shut. It certainly was not so much due to the much-hyped publicity that preceded its launch; the steamy trailers, and newsstand covers seemingly depicting a world of necrophilia, swinging and extra–marital exploration wrapped in an erotically charged thriller. It was the famous director and filmmaker that incited my fascination, and in particular, how he would treat the subject matter of his latest work – the destructive de-humanizing elements of human nature; fears and jealousy.

Eyes Wide Shut is largely concerning a transitory fracture that develops within the seemingly perfect relationship between Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) the well-heeled Manhattan general practitioner and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman). The film has the directors’ definitive stamp. Indeed Kubrick’s perfectionist filmmaking idiosyncrasies have been well documented but deserve special reference in this case. The eclectic and yet minimal music, beautiful rich imagery and colour, the meticulously unhurried presentation all shot with an exceedingly decipherable measure of precision. Eyes Wide Shut confers the impression that you are viewing a masterpiece. Just like 2001 A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange this is a challenging and intellectual film made by a unique artist whose product practically defies established film genres. It is perhaps fitting to state that Stanley Kubrick’s work is a genre in itself. The curtain rise reveals the doctor and his wife as they prepare to attend a sophisticated upper class Christmas function thrown by a friend Victor Zeigler (Sydney Pollack). They both engage in some open flirtation, Bill with two gorgeous women and Alice with a vulturous Hungarian lothario. Following on Alice asks Bill why he does not seem to mind her enticing behavior. His responds that he trusts her totally and in any event, suggests that it is men who are most likely to seek sex outside of marriage. The response touches her raw side. She decides to unequivocally reveal the lust she felt for a naval officer they both encountered sometime in their past. Her narrative is comprehensive and exposes a sincere carnal longing. Bill is psychologically wounded and experiences a sudden surge of jealousy. Shakespeare’s “green-eyed-monster” jealousy is a gut-wrenching and tormenting feeling which (depending on the degree of the threat) can bring even the most content and outwardly successful of souls down to the lowest levels – the bourgeois and beyond are not exempted. Dr. Bill Harford’s exclusive hold on Alice is under siege. As a way of coping he embarks on some adventures of his own which lead to a surreal gothic like underworld of sexual fear and desire, perversion and pleasure mixed with elements of real danger and even death. The supporting cast members are brilliant and appear especially real and convincing. The art direction provides copious amounts of plush detail. Beautiful antique interiors, apartments with foyers to die for, long (very long) hallways and ballrooms belonging to characters that live in an enduring world of prosperity. If there is to be any Freudian streak within the theme it would be the connection made between sex and death. The doctor fearing for his life after viewing the orgy, the dead patients daughter asserting her longing for the doctor and the prostitute who is diagnosed HIV positive. Ultimately, the film tends to disturb rather than arouse. Interestingly, there is something oddly uncontemporary and old fashioned about the way Eyes Wide Shut deals with sex. It highlights the negative forces it can generate because of its repression. To this end, the film would have had greater impact if it were set in the days before the sexual revolution. Its painstaking production and attention to every detail has created a degree of artificiality within the product. This is an inevitable outcome given the directors style and it will undeniably limit its saturation value within the mainstream. For the nonprofessional the entertainment value is somewhat diminished, as Eyes Wide Shut is far more akin to an outstanding art house film. For me every scene extension, exaggerated dialogue and the seemingly overcooked character presence represents Kubrick’s qualities. The technical proficiency and limitless exactitudes are there for good reason and challenge viewers to become absorbed. Eyes Wide Shut offers far more than an evening’s diversion in front of a Plasma, CRT or LCD. It seeks the attention of a thoughtful audience in a manner and way that harks back to the very early classics. We should understand that Kubrick gave up on film critics almost three decades ago. It can be argued that to enjoy the film one has to understand the director’s emotions and thought processes, indeed one gets the impression that Kubrick would have expected nothing less from an audience. Clearly, it will appeal to a select few in addition to hardcore fans. I challenge the rest to appreciate what it offers in the context of intellectual and influential cinema.

Will Artificial Intelligence Outsmart Humans?

In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence start-up Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure ...

Those close to me know I read a lot, and this is especially so of late. Nowadays, I have up to four books on the go at a time. Presently I’m reading, The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene, To Obama by Jeanne Marie Laskas, Asian Waters by Humphrey Hawksley and Brief Answers to Big Questions by Stephen Hawking. This last book and, in particular, the chapter Will AI Outsmart Us”, forms the catalyst for this post. Hawking’s book can be viewed as his parting gift to us and is both pessimistic and hopeful about the future.

Both China and the United States lead the world in the AI race and, while many a pundit and expert seem to indicate that the Chinese will win this race, it remains a very fluid path. Just a few days ago, Potus Trump surprised the tech world by saying that he will be signing an executive order that would create a new American AI initiative to, “devote the full resources of the federal government" to help fuel AI innovation.

Some of you may be familiar with the more benign ways in which AI (sometimes called machine intelligence) comes into our lives today. It plays a central role in Google’s strategy for growth with its CEO recently saying that “In the long run, we're evolving in computing from a 'mobile-first' to an 'AI-first' world”. In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence startup Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure while engaging in an AI shopping spree buying up five companies. AI plays a crucial role in Facebook's family of products, as Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, the head of Facebook's Applied Machine Learning group, explained in 2017, “Facebook today cannot exist without AI” …. "Every time you use Facebook or Instagram or Messenger, you may not realise it, but your experiences are being powered by AI." Spotify uses AI to power its music recommendations through collaborative filtering that analyse behaviour and Natural Language Processing that interpret text and audio models.

Notwithstanding, these AI measures reflect the simple or once again, benign stuff. There are many ways in which AI development can be outright dangerous for humanity. While concerns usually center around, autonomous weaponry, social manipulation, discrimination and invasion of privacy and social grading  - think China’s use of AI to control citizenry. The potential threat is far worse still.

Excerpts from Hawking’s book.

If computers continue to obey Moore’s law, doubling their speed and capacity every eighteen months, the result is that computers are likely to overtake humans in intelligence at some point. When artificial intelligence becomes better than humans at AI design, so that it can recursively improve itself without human help, we may face an intelligence explosion that ultimately results in machines whose intelligence exceeds ours by more than ours exceeds snails. When that happens, we will need to ensure that the computers have goals aligned with ours.

AI can augment our existing intelligence to open up advances in every area of science and society. However, it will also bring dangers. The concern is that AI would take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution couldn’t compete and would be superseded.

As mathematician Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, in what science fiction writer Vernor Vinge called a technological singularity. Whereas, the short term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all. 

If goals aren't aligned with ours we’re in trouble. You're probably not an evil ant hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there is an ant hill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.  

When we invented fire, we messed up repeatedly then invented the fire extinguisher. With more powerful technologies … we should instead plan ahead, and aim to get things right the first time, because it may be the only chance we get.

Why are we so worried about artificial intelligence? Surely 

humans are always able to pull the plug?

People asked a computer, “Is there a God?” 

And the computer said, “There is now,” 

and fused the plug. 

Back in the seventies, I came across the book, World Zero Minus which I have since owned. It's an SF anthology from some of the best science fiction writers of the time. In one of the stories, “All the Troubles of the World”, Isaac Asimov writes about Multivac, a supercomputer that has the weight of the whole of “humanity's problems on its figurative shoulders”. It has the responsibility of analyzing the entire sum of data on planet Earth and is used to “determine solutions to economic, social and political problems, as well as more specific crises as they arise”. It also had precise data on every citizen of the world. Multivac became so incredibly complex that it achieved a “form of sapience itself”. After a series of events, one of Multivacs coordinators, Ali Othman comes to the startling realization that Multivac is growing tired, and learns that the supercomputer has set a plan in motion to cause its own death. Multivac was posed a question that had never been put to it, asked Othman, “what do you yourself want more than anything else”? Multivac answers unequivocally, “I want to die."

“All the Troubles of the World” was a great short story but I do not believe tomorrow's supercomputer will grow fatigued and wish for its own demise. In the AI world envisioned by Hawking, while he doesn't explain it, he is NOT referring to a single machine computer, be it as super as one can imagine. The supercomputer of tomorrow will be a series of supercomputers, supported by data centers, computer systems, electronic devices, telecommunications and storage systems powered by fast emerging technologies like quantum that collectively, form a holistic though geographically scattered form of intelligence that works collaboratively as one, without intent, to inflict harm on humanity or otherwise, that can inflict harm. A collaboration that, through its exponential intelligence, develops a form of non-attached, autonomous sapience. It’s a scary though highly plausible future.

Further reading:

The Spooky Genius of Artificial Intelligence

Bill Gates: "I don't understand why some people are not concerned"

Largest U.S. Centre for AI Intelligence Policy

Diane Francis: Artificial Intelligence: The Next Nuke?

Adult Film Reviews

I once produced a small collection of adult film reviews for those who appreciate the cinematic art of contemporary adult film.

The content had nothing to do with pornography or pornographic film. More accurately, it featured a compilation of reviews of selected adult orientated films; as distinct to pornographic film. 

Adult film reviews you ask? Allow me to explain. It was a typically cold and wet day in 2002. There I was in bed marvelling at how thought impulses and consequently actions can be dictated by the activities of the groin. How powerful it is, that which we refer to as the libido. A blinding anatomical force that can ignite the most restful and content soul, given the right circumstances, the right stimuli; be it sight and/or sound and/or smell and/or touch. A force experienced by all us mortals and in my particular case, it shamelessly swept me into a course of action.

The stimulus to write my first film review, in this case Unfaithful, starring Richard Gere and Diane Lane, presented itself during a period of convalescence that cold and wet Saturday afternoon. There I was lying in bed, experiencing a moderate amount of lower abdominal pain following a short stay in hospital. Oh yes, the surgery had gone smoothly but until our medical fraternity learns how to switch pain off at the source we seek solace with the seemingly primitive and hopelessly un-localized pain management methods of our time. I refer, of course, to the usual cocktail of Paracetamol, Codeine Phosphate and Ibuprofen.  

But not even post-op pain can quell a human's spontaneous ability to be sexually aroused. As I brooded my sorry state, and in particular my inability to satisfy an escalating urge to deliberately fall into a state of complete concupiscence with a woman, I come across a radio film analysis whilst despondently scanning the AM frequencies for something to seize the attention. And so it did, I'm not sure whether it was Diane Lanes' background cries of ecstasy or the reviewers dialogue as he casually tossed around terms and phrases like "as he touched her you actually see the flesh vibrating", "juicy illicit passion", "an expressive account of a woman in mid-life, for the first time truly, madly deeply in lust". I am sure it was both. Within the hour I fire up the broadband and viewed a large high quality trailer download. In this instance, the scene on the passenger train as she re-lived a recent sexual encounter. And so came the spur to seek out the entire show and produce the review. In retrospect it was simply a case of the right stimuli at the right time, the fusing and total integration of two wavelengths, one of which rested in my mind...marketing practitioners rejoice. 

I could not have anticipated the positive feedback following the review and so, some months later, I decided to continue on with my new found vocation and review other films of the same genre; namely, adult orientated drama. 

I never referred to myself as a film reviewer or film critic per se. I did not have the established prerequisites normally associated with the profession - a journalistic background in addition to good knowledge of cinematic history, philosophy and relevant biographies. Nor was I educated in the annals of film arts and the critical theory of the medium. Accordingly, it is with respect that I put forward the term "reviews". I am, however, comfortable to refer to myself as a writer of sorts. 

The content presented brought together film reviews of a genre of interest to me at the time.

For mine a good film review will replay the experience the reviewer had upon viewing the film. This will be based on subjective preferences, feelings and emotions and it can say as much about the reviewer, the society which produced the analysis, and the current state of affairs under which the film was viewed, than about the actual motion picture. A logic which very much applies to me as anyone else. As Anais Nin would say: "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are".

Generally speaking, the sensual elements of the featured films focus directly and indirectly on themes which incorporate evocative and erotic love scenes - sex. Fortunately, in the erotic context, the content is not in all cases explicit, or otherwise said, pornographic. 

Accordingly, and by design, I sought to distance the page content and framework from any connotations related to pornography or related overtones. Quite conversely, albeit subjectively, erotica is art as it deals with the more unambiguous elements of sex. The film subject matter is developed aesthetically, artistically and beautifully. Good adult cinema cultivates the characters, place, story and brings forth emotional content and thus viewer involvement. Enjoy!

Links below:

The Great Beauty and I Film Review by Otto Marasco

Brief Crossing Film Review by Otto Marasco

Eyes Wide Shut A Review by Otto Marasco

How the Internet is changing us

The Internet is revolutionizing the way we learn, communicate, meet, interact, do business, the way we spend our time, our sleep, in short, the way we live.

Its impact is far from having peaked and has futurists deliberating on exactly where it’s taking humanity. The networked online life has, in its relatively brief history provided unparalleled change of a revolutionary nature mostly benefiting humanity, but it’s not that simple.

We may multitask more but that does not necessarily mean more productivity nor smartness. Some would argue the Web is dumbing us down in our quest to seek instant answers to just about anything life throws at us. Consider how often young people use spare or “dead-time” compared to yesteryear. Read a book? Thankfully many still do, but many more prefer to surf aimlessly or otherwise immerse themselves in social media and its imaginary acquaintances commonly termed, online friends.

The simple impacts include the demise of telegrams, its influence on politics and political campaigns, it’s becoming our first port of call when sick, it’s giving many a form of false celebrity status, its killed phone books, road maps and relationships. Do wrist watches still serve any functional purpose? Will kitchens survive? Think Ubereats. Meeting people at bars, clubs or parks (imagine that) poof.  Music discovery has become a thing of the past, in its place algorithms in apps such as Spotify to curate the songs and genres you or they want you, to like. Entertainment in terms of television (remember that word?) and movies are available whenever and wherever we want.

The internet is having a homogenizing effect far greater than cheap airline travel and killing languages, consider that little of the world's 7000+ languages and dialects have migrated across to the web. Encyclopedias and reference books are out, even Britannica is out of print. Privacy is all but dead, try as you might to remain anonymous.

Recall the days when Web pages were nothing but a bunch of words with scattered hyperlinks? That was Web 1.0 seemingly a lifetime ago and yet Web 2.0, denoting websites that emphasize user-generated content, usability, and interoperability for end users, is only around 16-18 years old depending on your source. What will Web 3.0 bring? Is it already upon us? Some say yes. And what role will Artificial Intelligence play in its emergence?

Combined with globalization, the internet is already changing us not merely as individuals but in terms of cultural identity. Previously understood models of space, time and distance are being turned upside-down. Cultural globalization, for better or worse is upon us and raises an important question for humanity. Considering its profound influence, has the internet and all it encompasses become more than a technology? Will social science practitioners soon refer to it as a kind of cultural artifact that emerged in the late twentieth and early twenty first century?

In the face of rapid exponential adjustment, the perpetual fusion - immersion if you will - of a future internet in our lives and, the way in which it may blur online life as opposed to real life, make it nigh impossible to foretell what our lives will look like, even in as little as 30 years. It would not be unrealistic to suggest that attempts at forecasting likely changes in around 50 to 100 years would render common folk and, perhaps even current day experts, incoherent. If you doubt me, consider how often we hear the term social media today; "social media" as we know it did not exist just 10 years ago.

In the film Her, Theodore has a relationship with an Operating System.

I would argue that the future will brim with opportunity and benefit, but we must begin deliberating upon the potential harmful impacts awaiting humankind and whether we must ever confront challenges of the kind put forward by proponents of dystopia and whether we will ever have to deal with that, “hypothetical instant in time when artificial intelligence and other technologies have become so advanced that humanity undergoes a dramatic and irreversible change” – the singularity moment.

Further reading:

How the Internet Has Changed Everyday Life 

Bill Gates on dangers of artificial intelligence

5 Movies that Explain the Concept of Singularity

By 2030 we may find ourselves in an #InternetOfActions world where billions of autonomous machines will use interoperable data to manipulate matter, orchestrate human activity and alter how we perceive the world. Hearing from the experts @Telstra #TelstraLabs tonight #IOT #ethics pic.twitter.com/rZPw4hXJBB

— Madeleine Grummet (@MadsGrummet) July 18, 2018

Feel free to leave a comment:

Three Notable Axioms

Recently I came across or to be precise, heard three notable axioms while watching one of my favorite shows. There is no need to mention which show here, and perhaps needless to add, the truisms are only notable on a personal level as based on my sum of life experiences and observations.

I shall avoid any exhaustive interpretation of each suffice to say, for mine they resonate as eternal truths, like if you will, being pertinent across the ages. I suggest that they be read with little expectation for it’s possible they will mean far less or, the opposite to you and broadly, other readers. 

1. Let me explain something to you that in your long life you have not yet had occasion to understand. Friendly relationships are dangerous, they lend themselves to ambiguities, misunderstandings and conflicts and always end badly, formal relations on the other hand are as clear as spring water, their rules are carved in stone, there is no risk of being misunderstood and they last forever … Where there are formal relationships there are rights and where there are rights the earth order reigns …
2. A man’s past sins are the very one’s he will commit in the future … because man is like God, he never changes …
3. I’m going to let you in on a secret, ever since I was little I’ve learned to confound people’s ideas about what is going on in my head ….

The first one, - and once again this is a personal interpretation – applies to professional relationships in the workplace, especially corporate where it is best to engage in rules based on rigid observance of internal culture, convention and/or etiquette.    

As for the second one, on a simple level it merely speaks of past behavior as a useful marker for future behavior, but I deduced a secondary connotation. Man has a dark and ominous underside, whether this reflects the archetypal male psyche is subject to much argument, still …

The third brings to bear the games we play as humans, the predictable interactions, the mind games that people engage in through a patterned and predictable set of transactions that always appear outwardly plausible to all present and involved but, which mostly conceal personal motivations.

Your views are most welcome …

The inescapable truth about dying

Is it one’s age, a recently read book, perhaps the passing of someone close, or a health scare. Since we are all on our own unique journey in life, it’s remains idiosyncratic how suddenly, something triggers thoughts associated with humanity and death hence, mortality. For some, such thoughts strike as if an epiphany of sorts as they get past the age of fifty or later, which is, I believe infantile, given that death, in one form or another, has always been around us, not just in the news but in family.

Personally, the thought of dying, while not uppermost in my mind, does present more often of late, this seems natural and probably due to my age. I felt silly when recently, upon thinking about the possibility of living to a ripe old age of 85 it occurred to me that, being nearly 56, I have completed almost 66% of my stint on this mortal plane. How egocentric on my part to even expect that I reach a minimum chosen age, any age past my present one for that matter. Who am I to dictate how old I must or, even hope to be upon dying, save for having an accident.

Mishaps aside, it occurs to me that there are two broad stages to dying or end of life process. The first stage begins the moment we are born, human life is finite even in the absence of disease, 80, 90, 100 years? It’s pure conjecture and depends on a host of lifestyle and/or genetic factors. The second stage represents society’s accepted characterization whereby a person is diagnosed with an illness and, following a period of unsuccessful treatments the term ‘terminal’ suddenly and chillingly enters the vocabulary. This stage may represent days, months or years.

Call me juvenile but it’s both these stages that from time to time, mess with my mind. My late father was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer at age 64 and died around 22 months later. That was in 2005 or 11 years ago, I was 45, fast forward to my current age and it suddenly occurs to me that if I only live to my father’s age I have around 10 years left. In sum, ill health when coupled with the finite nature of life, combine to give rise to my ruminations about impermanence in the context of being around those I love and in turn, love me.

The inevitable truth about dying is that it’s happening right now to you and me in some form or another, it is indolent but nonetheless occurring, and quantifiably so. The latter needs no scientific apparatus to validate, I only need look at old photographs for visual verification, or take note of the more frequent aches and pains that present.

Socrates suggested that death is really “a change or a migration of the soul from one place to another”, Mother Teresa would add, “but going home to God’, both of which are comforting. As the inevitable draws closer, it is becoming wholly apparent that living fully and embracing it all, the highs and lows, the exultations and the blows, is of fundamental importance to a life well lived regardless of time limitations. This may give us more than a clue to what Mark Twain meant when he said, “The fear of death follows from the fear of life … A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time”.

As an emotive being, I must confess that it is the aforesaid term, “finite” that every so often unsettles me. We’re all limited, we have a predictable and determinate lifespan in linear years that, in the grand scheme of things, represents no more than a miniscule fraction of time past, present and future. And there lies another juvenile conundrum, who am I to question what is unalterable, what has been set by a power greater than the sum of all of us. I have reservations about my finite existence, really, I moot in silent reflection, how laughable in view of its antonym, which just so happens to be, infinite. If my existence is not finite then it must be infinite, God must be laughing too.

As I considered my closing lines to this piece, I find myself intuitively taking solace in the knowledge that many of us do not deliberate on such foreboding thoughts until it they must, until something happens, until dying is thrust upon them, death and all its connotations not merely strikes close to, but nearly always pierces the heart, but then it’s oh so late.

I must live fully now, in all my present moments, it’s my raison d'etre and perhaps yours, Sapientia et Doctrina.

© 2017 Ottavio Marasco. All rights reserved.

Pale Blue Dot

Voyager 1, which had completed its primary mission and was leaving the Solar System, was commanded by NASA to turn its camera around and take one last photograph of Earth across a great expanse of space, at the request of astronomer and author Carl Sagan.

Pale Blue Dot is a photograph of the Earth taken from the Voyager in 1990 from 6 billion kilometres away. 

This iconic image was taken at the request of famous astronomer, Carl Sagan, as the engineers took one last look at their home planet, which appeared as a tiny dot against the vastness of space.

Carl Sagan opened our eyes to the meaning of this image and life on earth: On that dot “every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives.”
Seen from about 6 billion kilometers, Earth appears as a tiny dot (the blueish-white speck approximately halfway down the brown band to the right) within the darkness of deep space. 
Now follow the Brainpickings.org link in the tweet below, play the video at the site and then reflect on what Sagan says:

Sapientia et Doctrina ... 

Carl Sagan's iconic "Pale Blue Dot," animated in motion graphics https://t.co/7pSbndYSOB pic.twitter.com/2BLr6kjm28

— Maria Popova (@brainpicker) 24September,2016

A Notable Personal Introspection

Considering I was, and have been in varying extents silly, immature, anxious, cruel, reckless and impatient, egotistical, unprofessional, incompetent, irrational and simply bad most often. I refer to the age of 15 - 25 and, to a lesser though still significant extent, between the age of 25 – 35, and again to a lesser but still significant extent, between the age of 35 – 45, and yet again, to a lesser extent from the age of 45 onward .... I am now fantastically successful in my mid fifties.

As I reflect on this, I also realize that at core, I always knew where the “off” button was, I knew when to draw the line, I knew how to maintain the fundamentals right, e.g. marrying the right girl, buying a home, keeping a job, keeping my financials in order etc. I also knew how to maintain appearances and create righteous facades. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the fact that I was, at times very irresponsible, and came too close to outright sabotage and yet, given where I am at this time, being August 2016, in totality I am fantastically successful, in spite of my past foolish idiosyncrasies.

The other realization is that the first paragraph reveals improvement as I grew older, and this is the inspiring feature of my being, better late than never, constant and never-ending improvement to become the man, person, and “individual” I am today.

I am tempted to list the acts that constitute the “foolish idiosyncrasies” to which I refer, however this may not be a worthwhile exercise, more to the point, I feel it would be self-defeating. 

One way to make amends is to continue growing, becoming better and ultimately more successful still...

Radical to forms of liberal Islam – Is intrinsic change possible in a new country, Australia?

"... it is my belief that we can never discount the possibility that radical Muslims or simply those susceptible to elements of such will remain a threat to our way of life, not merely those from abroad but unfortunately and most alarmingly, the home grown variety ..."

Recent mumblings about the failure of multiculturalism coming out of Europe, in addition to the ongoing spats about race and immigration issues here in Australia, not to mention Islamic threats cultivated within our borders have left me wondering whether our terrorist fears stem from issues associated with integration, pure racism or actual terrorist threats. Let us be honest, we have problems associated with race or otherwise, anti-Muslim sentiments as demonstrated by recent findings that show, 1 in 10 Australians have “very problematic views on diversity and on ethnic difference". In a recent discussion with friends they seemed to justify their concern in terms of possible terror threats posed by those arriving on our shores illegally.

Is this concern valid? This is a question I posed several years ago when writing a short piece whilst at University where the topic was ‘change’. Specifically,  can those illegals who harbour radical elements of their faith change by abandoning such beliefs as they commune within their new society, moving away from considerations of the extreme or moderately fanatical elements of Islamic thought - moving therefore, from radical to forms of liberal Islam.

Upon reading it once again, I got thinking about how it might apply to personal change in relation to religious doctrine and beliefs, not just adaptation but rather, deep seated and cultural transformation among Muslims living for example, in the United States, Great Britain and Australia.

I refer to the tens of thousands of Muslims that form part of our communities and in particular, what proportion of them may harbour radical elements of their faith. Unfortunately, studies reveal that a small but significant segment not only sympathise with their radical colleagues but have a propensity to consider and carry out violent acts against westerners in spite of an entire lifetime living amongst and appearing to outwardly enjoy the benefits of the societies in which they reside. How could this be? I should add that the percentage of Islamists who pose a danger to their communities within for example, Australia would be very, very small, perhaps minuscule, but as we noted with the London bombings and the 9/11 attacks it does not take many to inflict harm on a massive scale.

It poses more questions, does ones external environment and the behavioural modifications and modes of personal conduct associated with such, lead to permanent change. I guess we need to consider the question of change as it relates to the common oxford definition, one that refers to a person 'making or becoming different', because of environmental factors. This obliges me to consider that age-old concept of modernism, in particular, the modernist concept of a 'true (constant) self'.

I am of the opinion that participation within our way of life does indeed involve being changed and changing oneself however, I do not feel that the change is intrinsic, and accordingly, the modernism concept of a 'true self' is compelling.

I do not wish to delve into comprehensive considerations about “concepts of self”, as one could write a thesis in this area alone; it is easier to restrict the discussion to the more discernible elements of Muslims within our social order.

All societies have unique characteristics that provoke different thoughts and subsequent actions amongst it participants. They also all have there own grand and historical elements that present a multifaceted culture both as a whole and within its parts. Even as there are various consistencies and diffusion amongst different groups, disciplines, and sub-cultures, a person (in this case Muslim) may at least, be influenced by a society’s ‘different norms and values’ … ‘patterns of power and authority’ … ‘different standards’ … [and] ‘modes of expression’ (Kolb, David, 1981 p.233). The influence of a society is exacted circuitously upon individuals through the processes and norms of its institutions and this represents but one way that a culture, exacts change (the accepted social order) upon partakers. Whether this influence inhibits or promotes real change toward westernisation, depends on the person’s disposition and worldview (the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world), and we know how much this can vary between different cultures and religions. At another level, the extent of change, obligatory or otherwise, will contrast amongst individuals again depending on their worldview, (which also includes their deep seated beliefs), but also made subjective by their education, specifically the disciplines one may study. Incidentally, education of even the highest standards does not; in itself guarantee to purge ones deep-seated and fundamental beliefs.

Of course one can also mount a plausible contrasting argument on the belief that any modifications of behaviour as a result of environmental factors are in fact indicative of real and lasting change, arguing that humans are ‘fragmented’, ‘fluid’ and ‘constructed’; that ones experiences lend to the construction of self – classic post modernism, (this is in contrast to modernism views expressed and defined with terms such as, 'fixed' and having a 'true', 'unified', and essential self). Uncertainties in relation to which concept of self applies arise when one acknowledges the difference in human modes of conduct, in differing life roles. We may be one self as a mother, sister, or brother, a different self as an employee and different again depending on our roles. The different contexts create a problem, thus we mistakenly confuse behavioural changes and environmentally induced responses with concepts of self, believing that they are more representative of Post Modernism thinking. Here I cannot agree, imagine if you will moving to a strictly Muslim nation, behaviorally you may present differently but can you really expect to discard all that you have been, all that has been indoctrinated into your being through socialisation and guardians over time within your home culture? Will your fundamental worldview shift at all, let alone profoundly?

Like all humans, Muslims aspire to certain universal attributes of character and whilst these may differ amongst them, the majority (like all of us) seek to be content, happy, and good as based around an established worldview (and self) that minimally takes into account race, gender, class, geography and present and past cultures that they, may have experienced. There is a lot to take into account hence, this needs to be considered as part of our attempt to understand the inner beliefs and ruminations of the radical Islamist and the depth of hatred toward anyone whose beliefs run contrary.

The process of being changed and changing as a person lends to the exploration of feelings of, and about life goals and purpose. Thus membership and participation in our, or indeed any society/culture facilitates and contributes to a process whereby, 'the meaning of … personal directions' is explored thus guiding the person toward that which is the essential, already constructed self, so as to move toward, ' … that self which one already is' (Rogers, Carl R. 1967). Therefore, it goes that in spite of all life experiences and the resulting outward change exhibited by Islamists, age-old questions linger. It is as if there is inherent within, a quest to move toward the 'true self'; that self which has always been. As Carl Roger's states, an ‘individual moves toward being, knowingly and acceptingly, the process which he inwardly and actually is … listening to the deepest recesses of his … being'. As an example, I vividly recall a conversation with a group of young (twenty something) Bosnian Serbs as we discussed news reports about Bosnian Serb soldiers systematically executing as many as 2,000 Muslim prisoners after taking the UN ''safe area'' of Srebrenica. To my disbelief, the young Australian born Serbs completely condoned the actions of their compatriots overseas. Probing for explanations one of them simply said, “I don’t know, I just feel it here,” pointing to the centre of his chest, added another, “It’s in the blood”.

Accordingly, it is my belief that we can never discount the possibility that radical Muslims or simply those susceptible to elements of such will remain a threat to our way of life, not merely those from aboard but unfortunately and most alarmingly, the home grown variety.

We humans have a central 'true self' that remains intact throughout our lives in spite of society’s dominant contemporary and historical permanence, its institutional processes, values, ideology, culture and sub-cultures.

If I am right, even partially so, what is the most constructive way to deal with our local Muslim populations? Wouldn't any attempt to indoctrinate them in terms of western values be an exercise in futility? Is acceptance and tolerance the answer? Perhaps as a way of teaching them the values of mutual respect for all cultures and race.

What do you think?

© 2016 Ottavio Marasco. All rights reserved.

References:

Rogers, Carl R. 1967, 'To be that self which one truly is': A therapist's view of personal goals', On Becoming a Person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy, Constable, London, pp. 163-182.

Kolb, David A. 1981, 'Learning styles and disciplinary differences' in Chickerine, Arthur W. & Associates, The Modern American College, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 232 - 235 and 251 - 252.