Spoiler alerts

I’ve watched a few films that have brought tears to my eyes, including My Neighbour Totoro and ET – The Extra-Terrestrial. Life Is Beautiful reduced me to buckets of tears, and may be the most naturally emotional roller-coaster ride of feelings on screen.

Guido Orefice (played by the director, Roberto Benigni) is a happy go lucky and very clumsy waiter in Italy on the brink of WW2, dreaming of getting his own bookshop, but blocked by be autocratic red tape and for being Jewish. He manages to accidentally drop a plant pot and eggs on the man responsible for this, and later finds out that the man competes for the affections of the love of his own life, a girl who he also has a habit of banging into accidentally.

From the lightweight, almost slapstick comedy of the opening half of the film, we see little of the Fascists and Nazis, but that will change. Guido educates children in the nonsense of Aryan beliefs in racial superiority and later, after his Uncle’s horse is painted in anti-Jewish colours by local Nazis, he rides the horse through an engagement party and takes his girlfriend away under the noses of his detractors.

Four years pass, and the war is now in swing, and the couple now have a precocious son, who is fascinated by a toy tank Guido has given him. Guido frequently promises him a real tank.

The tone of life should change when the Father and son are sent to a concentration camp, especially when the non-Jewish wife gets herself sent along too, from a desire for non-separation, even though the genders are segregated on arrival at the camp.

Guido manages to convince his son that the camp might seem harsh but that it is all a silly game with points for effective hide & seek, When a Nazi camp commander asks

For a translator to explain the camp rules, Guido uses the opportunity to explain them loudly as hopscotch and other pastimes, with a promise of a tank for the winner.

Guido manages to hide his son away for their entire internment and gets messages and music out for his wife, to keep her spirits up.

As the war seems close to its end, and the Nazis are fleeing the camp, the danger is not yet over.  Many of the Jews are killed in a desperate attempt to cover up the atrocities committed, and Guido is taken away to be executed over his stealth attempts to unite with his wife. He makes final clowning gestures before being shot, and the boy is able to survive for he liberation, getting a ride on an American tank which delights him and his Mother as the story closes.

A wonderful story of an unbreakable human spirit, and the passion of love under adversity, and horror. The three dimensional characterization says more than many other film studies of the Holocaust.  The humour is never misplaced or distasteful, and I’d defy any but the hardest hearted not to feel pangs of sorrow and joy in equal measure on watching this movie.

Arthur Chappell.

Oldham Road, Miles Platting, Manchester

Controversial North Manchester pub which despite having been open for 150 years, only achieved fame, or infamy and notoriety in its last few years.

The landlord, Derek Adams proved to be a leading member of the far right wing extremist neo-Nazi group, The British National Party, standing unsuccessfully in my own home area, Moston, in 2009’s council elections. Other BNP extremists, including Nick Griffin, the party leader, visited the bar for meetings, creating much anger among North Manchester’s people. I am glad to say Derek Adams lost his election. Griffin has been pelted with eggs when leaving The Ace after holding rallies at the pub.

Soon afterwards the pub, described by many as being just dingy, and regarded as a BNP headquarters for the region, was listed as existing on land scheduled for a compulsory purchase order.

Though closed for four months, and awaiting demolition, the pub was burnt down in a suspected arson attack in early April 2010. I knew nothing of its sordid recent history when I captured this photo of its inn sign just a few days before the fire. While I do not support arson, I feel glad I never drank in the Ace and that it is one of the few pubs I am glad to see closed down and wiped out for good. I was tempted to delete my photo of the inn sign but it is a part of my city’s history – one few of us can ever be proud of.

Link to a page about the pub and its demise. http://menmedia.co.uk/northeastmanchesteradvertiser/news/s/1109001_council_refutes_bnp_pub_claim

Arthur Chappell

So, what happens when other cultures, other religions, come to where another religion and culture is already operating?  In my view, either segregation so it’s almost like everyone’s in their own separate countries again, or tension is created. 

The only way people will get on entirely is if everyone assimilates to one belief or culture, so 1 religion, or no religion, all or nothing.

Here in Britain, we are already seeing increasing racial and cultural tensions with the likes of the British National Party (BNP), the English Defence League (EDL), Unite Against Fascism (UAF), Islam 4 UK and so on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/05/edl-stage-protest-luton

The start of this film is like something out of a movie -

and heres a show of hate from another side :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/wootton-bassett-islam4uk-parade-troops

The videos and links show one thing, the majority of the tension is between Muslims, or extremist Muslims, and everybody else practically.  There are people in between too, those who dislike the extremists from both sides, those that are in the UAF against the EDL, but don’t support the Muslim extremists.  I am one of those who dislikes both sides, in my opinion, the EDL largely consists of ignorant, young, foolish people just spoiling for a fight imo, the same goes for the other side in my opinion.  The UAF is just as fascist in its way as it says the EDL is, the UAF wants to stop the EDL protests which in itself is fascist and therefore a contradiction.  And then there is the Islamic extremists, while I fully understand and agree with their point on that we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq, they disrespect and destroy local culture, and are brewing up serious civil and social unrest.

We’ve also seen it in the past, the IRA and the Northern Ireland troubles were both religious and political, where the Catholic south wanted to unite with the Catholics in the North, but the Protestants in the North were defended by the Protestant British Mainland and British Army.  We’ve also seen it with the Brixton riots, where black people, largely in South London, felt they were being selectively and purposely being searched, blamed, and arrested by the police (white).  Now I feel it’s the other way round, Christian and White people feel the oppressed ones now.  Oppressed by the police, by the government, by the political correctness that surrounds us.  The white, and/or Christian public feel they are put below Muslims and people of other cultures, races, and religions in the name of political correctness. Various newspapers don’t help with this view, the Daily Mail and The Sun especially print headlines to put fear into the ‘Working White Man’ of Britain. 

I see everyone has a point, and they do, but this all comes down to my original point, multiculturalism does not work, full stop. End of.   You CANNOT put everyone together with such different views, and then expect them to all get along, not to fight, not to segregate.  Currently I think we have a boiling pot of social issues all around the country, which along with the time of austerity and cuts to come are going to boil over and explode.  I feel everyone needs to become sectarian unfortunately, or these issues will continue to increase.

Comments and discussion VERY much welcome!

Check to see how selfish you are by answering the following questions honestly.

1. Do you ever do anything for other people?
2. When was the last time you did anything for another person?
3. Imagine (if you have to) that you are very hungry and there is one mango to eat but four people who would appreciate a piece of the mango. In this instance would you eat the entire mango or share it equally among yourself on the others?
4. Do you thank people who do the following chores for you (even if you pay them): your laundry, your cleaning, your cooking, bringing you a drink, opening a door, typing up your reports?
5. If you and a group of people are watching the television and you grow bored of the programme do you switch channel with or without consulting the others?
6. If you and your partner have decided to go on holiday on certain dates do you ask for their input as to where you holiday or do you book the holiday without asking if your partner would like the holiday.

About the Questions and their Answers

Selfish people will often assume that they do things for others. When you discuss this with them further however it often turns out that they think that paying for things to be done is as good as actually doing it themselves. This is why the second question asks the selfish person what they actually have done for people. Eating all the available food because they are hungry and without even considering if the others are as hungry or even more hungry leads to a revelation of a selfish person. This is because selfish people are wired to feel that their needs are greater than anyone else’s. Selfish people never thank anyone for doing anything to such an extent that it appears that they don’t even know the word thanks. Selfish people make unilateral decisions and the views of others have no influence on the decisions they take.

Why Should You Out Selfish People?

The world would be a better place with no selfish people. Unselfish people care for others and share and share alike. Selfish people are usually to blame for arguments, battles and wars. Normally speaking: where there is a selfish person there is no fairness. Selfish people are often fascists.

Image by Mike_fleming via Flickr

The Mitford sisters, Nancy, Pamela, Diana, Unity, Jessica and Deborah were born into a minor, but one of the oldest, aristocratic families in England. They could trace their heritage back to the time of the Norman Conquest, something they were not shy in exploiting. Their father, David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, was a cold and distant man who expected his children to be seen but not heard and to be raised by nannies. Such cold and unemotional detachment from your children was not unusual in upper-class households. Their mother, Sydney, however, was very different, an outspoken woman with extreme right-wing views she taught her daughters to think for themselves, and would support her children in whatever they did. As far as their father was concerned the sister’s were not to be educated but merely marry young and well. This the girls rebelled against provoking their father to say, ”why am I and my wife normal but my daughters increasingly mad?” He could hardly have imagined just how unusual they would be. 

The eldest of the sister’s, Nancy, was born on 28 November, 1924. She came out at a time when society was changing, and being one of the “bright young things” of the 1920’s, she was not afraid to cause a scandal. She could never be described as a wall-flower and embraced the decadent ”Roaring Twenties” with a vengeance. Always heavily made-up, as was the fashion of the day; she had her hair cut short, regularly wore trousers, and was frequently seen in the company of men, and it was not always the same man. But she was also a thoughtful, intelligent, and humorous woman who had ambitions to be a writer not a bride. 

Over the decades she was to document the lives of the upper-classes in her novels, the most famous of which were Love in a Cold Climate and The Pursuit of Love. Politically left of centre she never embraced radicalism and steered clear of involvment in the extremes that dominated politics in the inter-war years.

Having achieved her ambitions and carved out a career for herself as a writer her private life was to prove less of a success. She fell in love with and got engaged to a Scottish aristocrat, Hamish St-Clair Erskine. He was the first great love of her life and the fact that he was homosexual appeared to trouble her little. She naively thought she could straighten him out. She couldn’t. Disappointed and disillusioned she married in 1933, on the rebound, to Peter Rodd. It was a loveless marriage and they were to separate soon after, though they did not actually divorce until 1958.

During the war she fell in love with a French soldier and politician Gaston Palewski. After the war she moved to Paris to be with him but Palewski was a serial philanderer for whom Nancy was just another affair. Not long after he deserted her. Nancy ploughed on regardless, however, establishing herself on the literary scene and becoming a doyenne of High Society and one of the leading socialites of her day. She never re-married and died of leukaemia on 30 June, 1973.

Pamela Mitford, known as the quiet one, was born on 25 November, 1907. Though she held strong pro-Nazi views she never engaged in politics and unlike most of her sister’s spurned High Society. Though not shy she chose to keep herself to herself and was very much a hands-on, practical, kind of woman. She preferred the mud and fresh air of the countryside to smoke-filled drawing rooms and the drug-fuelled extravagance of the Dance Hall. Never afraid to speak her mind she nevertheless remained devoted to her sister’s all of her life.

The poet, John Betjeman, certainly fell for the straight-talking, down-to-earth charms of the woman he referred to as the “Rural Mitford.” His love was not reciprocated, however. Instead, Pamela married the millionaire scientist David Jackson. It was not a particularly happy marriage if only because Pamela’s sexual predilections lay elsewhere. They were to divorce and Pamela was to set up home with the Italian horsewoman Giuditta Tommasi. She died on 12 April, 1994.

Diana, born on 10 June, 1910, was the darling of the Mitford Sister’s. Widely acknowledged to have been the most beautiful she was indeed considered to be one of the most glamorous women in Britain. Her character belied her more obvious feminine charms, however. She was strong-willed and single-minded. A committed fascist and admirer of Adolf Hitler (though, unlike her sister Unity, she was far too cynical to be ever in awe of the man) she was a vicious anti-Semite with a sharp tongue, acid wit, and a dark sense of humour.

Always a great catch, she was married aged just 19 to Bryan Guinness, the heir to the brewing fortune. Though they were to have two children the marriage always lacked passion and Diana very quickly tired of the endless round of society events – Henley, Wimbledon, Ascot. She was bored and wanted more. She had affairs, but one society man seemed much like another. In 1932, however, she was introduced to Oswald Mosley, the leader of the recently formed British Union of Fascists (B.U.F). Here was a man of passion, a man of power and self-belief. Though they were both married they began an affair almost immediately. Not long after Diana divorced Guinness, but Mosley refused to leave his wife, Cynthia.*

On 16, May, 1933, Cynthia Mosley died of peritonitis contracted following a botched operation. As a man who had barely bothered to disguise his many affairs from his wife it is difficult to know just how genuinely distraught he was at her. Even so, he refused to marry Diana until a decent period of mourning had passed.

In October, 1936, Diana and Mosley travelled to Germany where they were married in the drawing room of Joseph Goebbels house just outside Berlin. Diana had earlier been introduced to the Fuhrer by Unity and Adolf Hitler was the special guest. He afterwards presented them with a silver-framed signed photograph of himself as a wedding gift.

By the time of his return to Britain Oswald Mosley’s political fortunes were already in sharp decline. The looming prospect of war with Germany brought a brief revival as he campaigned for a negotiated settlement. After war was declared, however, Britain’s very own Fuhrer became a hate figure. Diana stood by her new husband throughout defending him from criticism by both friend and foe alike.

On 22 May, 1940, the Government passed Defence Regulation 18B which allowed for imprisonment without trial of all those considered a danger to the State. The following day Mosley and Diana were arrested as potential traitors. A week later on 30 May the B.U.F was dissolved.

Their treatment in prison was far from harsh. Winston Churchill granted them permission to live in a small house in the grounds of Holloway Prison. They were even allowed to employ other prisoners as servants. In November, 1943, they were released into house arrest and went to live with Diana’s sister, Pamela. Their release caused outrage in a country that was still at war. Even Diana’s younger sister Jessica felt compelled to write, ” This is a direct betrayal of all those who have died in the cause of anti-fascism.” 

Following the end of the war the Mosley’s were no longer welcome in Britain. They emigrated to France where Mosley tried to revive his political career with the formation of the Union Movement which called for a single unitary European State. It made little progress and on the rare occasions when Mosley returned to the British political stage he was humiliated at the polls.

On 3 December, 1980, Sir Oswald Mosley died, but Diana was determined to keep his memory and political flame alive. She funded out of her own purse the political activities of the Union Movement and made numerous radio and television appearances in defence of her husband and his views.

In later life, Diana Mitford took up the pen and wrote regular columns and literary reviews for leading British newspapers. She also wrote her autobiography which was well-received if controversial. At no time did she try to excuse her life change or moderate her views and remained until her death on 11 August, 1993, an unrepentant Nazi. 

Unity Mitford, who was born on 8 August, 1914, had shown signs of disturbance from an early age. Never willing to listen to advice or take heed of an opinion that did not correspond to her own she was obstinate and argumentative to a degree. Some thought she was just plain stupid. She was certainly an insensitive, self-regarding and cloying young woman, and she adopted such airs and graces that it offended even those who purported to be her friends.  

At almost 6′ tall, Unity was ungainly and boyish in manner, and so unlike the other Mitford girls she does not appear to have amassed the same collection of panting admirers. Not that she would have cared because she only had eyes for one man, and that man was the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Unity, always something of a dreamer, had been attracted to the Nazi’s from a very young age. What could have been dismissed as a childhood infatuation became in adulthood a dangerous obsession. Eager to put her fascist beliefs on show she joined the B.U.F in 1932, and was so keen was she to wear the blackshirt, give the Nazi salute, and heckle at Party rallies that even Oswald Mosley himself felt compelled to chide her for making an exhibition of herself.

In 1933, she travelled to Germany with her sister Diana to attend the first Nuremburg Rally. She found the whole occasion intoxicating and promised herself that she would return. The following year she did, but this time she was determined to meet Hitler. For months she dined at the same restaurant as the Fuhrer until finally he asked her to join him at his table. She was hopelessly smitten, especially when with great courtesy the Fuhrer picked up the bill. She wrote home to her father, ” I am so happy I wouldn’t mind a bit, dying. I suppose I am the luckiest girl alive. For me he is the greatest man in the world of all time.” In no time at all she was part of his inner-circle. She gave speeches and wrote articles praising Hitler and blaming the Jews for everything. Indeed, she insisted that her name appear on all her diatribes so that everyone would know that she was a Jew-hater.

Unity and Diana, enjoy themselves

There is little doubt that Hitler, the ill-educated son of a poorly paid civil servant, enjoyed having this aristocratic Englishwoman worshipping at his feet and drooling all over him. But Hitler, who would talk and expect people to listen, found Unity’s insistence on having her say and interrupting him in mid-sentence, disconcerting to say the least. The truth was she got on his nerves. This pleased his mistress Eva Braun, who had confided in her diary, ” She is known as Valkyrie and looks the part, especially her legs.”

As war between Britain and Germany loomed ever larger Unity became increasingly distraught. She believed that any conflict would result in her being repatriated to England. She was right. 

Following Britain’s declaration of war on Germany on 1 September, 1939, Unity, and her sister Diana, who was with her in Germany at the time, were told by Joseph Goebbels that they could no longer remain in the country. Diana packed up her things and returned home, but Unity refused to go. If she could no longer remain at the Fuhrer’s side then life was no longer worth living. On 3 September, she went alone to the English Garden in Munich, took out a pearl-handled revolver that had been presented to her by Hitler for her own protection, and shot herself in the head.  

Unity survived and was hospitalised in Munich, Hitler paid her medical bills. She was desperately ill and had been lucky to survive. The bullet that had lodged in her brain was inoperable. She had lost a great deal of weight, was drawn, haggard, and very, very weak. Hitler, and many other leading Nazi’s visited her in hospital which cheered her up, but it was said by those who met her that she was never the same woman.

Unity was later transferred to a hospital in neutral Switzerland from where her mother and youngest sister Deborah brought her home. Arriving back in England in January, 1940, she remarked, ” I’m glad to be back in England, but I’m not on your side.”

Placed under police surveillance, Unity lived with relatives. After a long period of convalescence she embarked on a series of affairs, for reasons of distraction rather than love. People who had known her for a long time said how sad she seemed. The spark appeared to have gone out of her life and she was often quiet and introspective. 

On 28 May, 1948, Unity Mitford died of a meningitis directed related to the injuries she sustained in her suicide attempt. She was 33 years old

The Mitford’s were a family of political extremes. Whereas, most of her family paid homage to the far right, Jessica Mitford was a committed Communist and Marxist. Four years younger than Unity she relates how when they shared a room as children a chalk line was drawn down the middle of the floor; on one side hanged pictures of the Swastika and the Fuhrer, on the other posters of Marx and the Hammer and Sickle. At night they would sometimes discuss how if one side won would either of the sisters be willing to shoot the other? Those games that children play can turn deadly earnest in later life.

Jessica, was born on 11 September, 1917. Bookish and academic, she was always more level-headed and unemotional than Unity, even if her actions would appear to belie this fact. For aged just 19 she ran away from home with her cousin Esmond Romilly, who had just returned home following a stint fighting for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Jessica soon fell hopelessly in love. They married, despite some legal difficulties and in the face of opposition from Jessica’s family, and returned to Spain where Esmond worked as a war reporter and she as a photographer and nurse. They both returned to London when Jessica got pregnant. Disowned by her parents Jessica shunned society and set up home in the slums of the East End. On 20 December, 1937, she gave birth to a daughter she named Julia. Not long after the baby died. Jessica was devastated at this the first great tragedy of her life, and she rarely, if ever, spoke about it,  not even mentioning it in her autobiography.

On the eve of war in 1939, Jessica and Esmond emigrated to the United States. Esmond, a committed anti-fascist was determined to fight and immediately enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Though she now rarely saw her husband they did at least share the joy of Jessica giving birth to a healthy baby girl, Constantia on 9 February, 1941. The child would never know her father, however. Ten months later, on 30 November, Esmond was killed when his plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its return journey from a bombing mission over Germany. His death tore Jessica apart and for many months she refused to accept that he would not one day return.

Though she loved her children, Jessica was not a good mother. Rarely affectionate she could be cold and distant and threw herself into her work rather than focus on the responsibility of raising a family. In 1943, she met and married the civi rights lawyer Robert Treuhaft. They settled in California where Jessica gave birth to two more children.

Throughout her time in America, Jessica involved herself in radical left-wing politics. At one point she was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, she refused, and instead openly condemned the McCarthyite witchunt.

In 1960, she published her autobiography “Hons and Rebs” about her life growing up in the Mitford household. By 1961, she was working as a journalist for Esquire magazine and became embroiled in the violence surrounding the civil rights movement in Alabama.

Later in the 1960’s she published a book that exposed unscrupulous practices in the American funeral industry that became a bestseller and led to hearings in Congress. Jessica had carved out a successful career for herself as a campaigning journalist but at the same time she had become estranged from her family back in England. She could never really reconcile herself to their fascist sympathies and support for Nazism, which she perceived to be one of the greatest evils in human history. Though she did write to and meet her sisters from time to time there is little doubt that she felt embarrassed at and ashamed of their activities.

In later life she became disillusioned with communism and began to see all political extremes as absurd to the point of satire. Perhaps, in her own commitment to the far-left she could understand the attraction of far-right certainties to her siblings in a world that was in a state of flux.

Jessica Mitford died on ? aged 78. She insisted on the most basic and inexpensive funeral available, and that no fuss be made, and no obituaries posted.

Deborah, was the youngest of the Mitford girls. Born on 31 March, 1920, she grew up in the family home at a time when her sisters were already causing scandal and were the talk of High Society, but she never followed their path. Known to the family as Debo, she was the genuinely quiet Mitford sister. Though she knew Oswald Mosley well and once dined with Adolf Hitler she always steered clear of politics. Instead she remained devoted to her family and to her sisters. She did what her father had always wished all his daughters had done and married well, to the future Duke of Devonshire. She has since devoted most of her life to the maintenance and upkeep of the family estate at Chatsworth. She is the only one of the Mitford sisters still alive. 

Oh what I am saying? That’s a bias title to use, of course the people who vote for the racists (BNP) aren’t racist….they’re just extremely thick. See I’m a logical person who can write without calling every idiot who votes for the BNP a “racist” because they’re not, they’re just people who think they’ve been treated unfairly in the current system or more my view “They’re idiots”, but I’m forgetting the racists who vote for the BNP solely on the promise of getting what they don’t work for or being misguided fools who odd, if you punch give you a nice sense of relief in knowing “They’re racist so I’m bettering society as a whole right now”.

The problem is that a lot of people are stupid, so I see it a highly unlikely (But still a chance that it could happen) the BNP gaining some sort of power. This idea of them getting anything close to parliament scares me since from reading there manifesto, which when you read it has one interesting little point. They want to introduce “Compulsory service”, which hits me as a odd addition since they say the only way you’re going to vote is through that service….oh and they want everyone to have a gun each, which is bad since my first port of call would be to go postal right in Nick “the one eye fuck” Griffin, who would be the first and last victim to befall the end of my machine gun.

Sorry if this is short for an article, but I’m stressed today…..also if you can tell I hate the BNP for many more reasons, but right now as mentioned I’m stressed today.

World War 2 is commonplace in almost any US History class, and is a well known and well franchised war. It is rare that a person is unfamiliar with Hitler, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Normandy, or any number of WW2 rhetoric. And yet, it seems as if history is swinging steadily into similar circumstances as were seen at the beginning of that whole trouble.

Let’s begin on a small scale, here in the United States. Recently, our conservative President George W. Bush found out who his replacement would be, and so did America. A young, up-and-coming (though he’s already succeeded) senator from Illinois: Barack Obama. The significance of this election was enormous for many reasons, and historical for all those same. Obama is the first black president, and he is the “most powerful man in the world”. He is an American Dream story, rising up to graduate first of his class from Harvard, and working with the people to start a movement that would inspire millions and bring hope to the entire world. He comes at a time when a world depression seems to be on the brink of occurring, when war in the middle east is tearing the US away from its allies, and at a time when Russia seems to be covertly trying to restart the Cold War. He comes at the most pivotal moment in history, it seems, when all of our fates linger in the mysterious balance.

Many seem to believe we have entered the end times. Others may believe Mayan “prophesies” that state the world will end as we know it in 2012 (to clarify, the “world as we know it” means the civilized human structure, built upon the current planet orientation. 2012 is most likely to mark a significant change in the planets orientation). Some, such as myself, believe we are on the brink of a major world conflict; World War 3. Several things have been pointing to this conclusion, but recently a very interesting revelation helped this conclusion come forth. It seems that Obama is bringing hope to America in a desperate economic crisis; or at least, at a time when a crisis is on the horizon. As Time magazine seems to indicate, and as some (again, including myself) have thought all along, Obama may be the next FDR. That brings us to the WW2 rhetoric.

Hitler was able to rise to power in pre-WW2 Germany because of economic depression and growing resentment against the major powers for the humiliation of Germany that followed the first World War. His dreams to destroy the Jews and establish a grand state of Arian superiority were allowed to grow and nearly come true, until he was stopped by a great alliance. Now, it seems that similar events are occurring as facilitated Hitler’s rise. In Austria, conservative fascists are beginning to regain popularity because of a weakening government and an unstable world economy. A rising political figure in Austria is Heinz-Christian Strache, who seems to despise the Turks and the Africans in Austria, and who is heading the Freedom Party, a nationalist group that seems to idolize the Nazi manifesto. Concerning as this is, it is important to remember that Austria may not follow the path that Germany followed seventy years ago, and if it does, there is plenty of time to react before it flourishes into a new reason for conflict.

Altogether, with the changing political environments in many countries, and the coming of a “new” FDR, and the threat of a new Hitler, it seems that history is indeed prepared to repeat itself, leaving us all with the question of “when”.

Here at the FFS, we believe in the power of laughter. It has long been argued what separates humankind from the animals; some say it’s the use of cutlery, others that’s it is our ability to reason. I propose that it is laughter; not in and of itself, since other animals display laughter. I mean we uniquely posses the power of laughter; the ability to mock that which is in fact deadly serious.

The British people mocked Hitler. He bombed us, and we mocked him. We mocked him in songs and jokes and cartoons and stand-up routines. Hitler bombed London worse than London has ever been bombed, and we laughed at his stupid little moustache, his comb over, his little beady eyes and his limp salute. We didn’t flatter some upstart short arse fascist with po-faced reverence, no, we dissed him without mercy.

Nazis are very serious people, and they hate being laughed at. Mocking them is an essential part of resistance to oppression. If you cannot laugh at Them, They have power over you. Laughter releases you from The Fear. Whatever is happening, whatever is being done to you, whoever is doing it, you have the power to laugh. It is the one weapon no-one can remove by force; use it, particularly when it is the only weapon that you have.

When it comes to Lizard People and Nibirru, we laugh so that people won’t think we’re insane.

Though during my early years I was unknowingly an agent for this concept, I have come to detest this belief about life forms because it simply is not true. Nonetheless, people adhere to these phrases, most unreasonably because they simply do not understand what system of belief they accept and some others typically use it as a justification for their abhorrent and sometimes sociopath behaviors.

The progenitor Charles Darwin noted suggestions of why animals react the way they do distinguishes his observations as a comparison to man in his likeness of combat for food, copulation and territory. But many of the animals he had an opportunity to observe do not act solely in the manner he noted. One theory as discussed in the book Don”t Go Ape, Darwin! addresses the issue of life forms not instinctively following a drive to narcissistically survive, but most life forms (with exception of the most intelligent) are social and therefore follow after social patterns.

There is no doubt conflicts occur among similar and other species. But what Darwin proclaimed was merely the surface of a more complex social system. He failed to note that with most conquerors come with the victory social responsibilities. And with these responsibilities are attached sacrifices for the entire social group, of which might often lead to serious injury and/ or death of the conqueror. With these conditions the concept of “survival of the fittest” has no meaning. Merely, the life form’s social group continues because of the stronger conqueror’s sacrifice.

Another aspect of the social nature of life forms which often overlooked is animals even in the tiniest microscopic forms respect territories; this is as much a social event as it is a method of survival. Further expository of these social processes and other theories are explained in Don”t Go Ape, Darwin!

As mentioned earlier intelligent species or more specifically human beings can detract from the social order that life forms instinctively follow. Humans can rationalize themselves out of social order. However, humans as a whole for the sake of preservation of civilization typically will not allow anti-social conditions to happen for too long, at least during our present reign of morality. Each community and its government has established laws, norms, taboos, morals, ethics, etiquette, and protocols which members of the community are expected to adhere. Such practices are a necessity in order to maintain civil order. That being said, the roles people accept fit into the congruency of social order.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution induces chaos into our realm of social order. It promotes anti-social behavior as an instinctive acceptable condition. On the basis of “survival of the fittest”, bullies, tyrants, dictators, elitists, snobs, narcissists, mass murderers, fascists, racists and anyone who are disgusted with the weak and poor can redeem solace for their actions; they after all would be executing the domination their species. There may always be bullies, but let us not give them a license to be one.

We as human beings are better than wasting our cognitive skills for conflagrations and control. We as intelligent beings should distinguish ourselves by improving our social responsibilities and quality of living for all on this world. We should not squander our very selves, all other life forms and the world’s resources on who shall have dominance. Darwin wrote about an eventual genocide of the weaker species. What if for once his prediction is correct? We annihilate ourselves because of our own self-centered stupidity.