Category: Culture

  • Musician of the Month: Paul G. Smyth

     

    Shaking Beyond

    I’m playing with Ned on Thursday. That evening in the National Concert Hall will be the first time we meet. How strange that we’ll share some food together and follow that with as deep a conversation as I’ll have with anyone this year, to an audience of friends and strangers alike. The object is to make that moment as deep as possible, as revealing as possible, as raw and true as possible.

    It’s something this music gives me that remains almost unmatched in any other area of my life and for quite some time it was without peer. For a private person it can be a gift. For someone often lost in regrets of the past or anxieties for the future, to be pulled so forcefully into the present, into an environment that says “right now, you are here to serve the beauty and terror and wonder of being alive – there are others here to help you and you will help them too”, this can be a lifeline.

    There is no single part of that transaction that I take for granted. I know how lucky I am. I know how close I’ve come to having that door closed to me and how easily that can happen. My own chaotic past left its mark, having to sell all my instruments from when I was in a band, just to get through the day-to-day. I haven’t owned a piano for fifteen years. And yet the music continues. It’s a river. It flows on without me.

    Each time I am in it, it has changed, as I have. I still recognise it as the same river, in much the same way as people and places are recognisable despite all of that constant change. Nothing is ever still. I guess, therein lies some of the beauty in this approach to music-making. It is a music of change, free to mould itself to some reflection of the world as I’m experiencing it right now and, in doing so, tell me something about what’s happening in that world. Something I might have missed. Shaking me into some experience of the present. Shaking equations in a jar until they are solved. Shaking the silt of forty-three years until it can be moved around in. Shaking.

    That may sound like a very solitary experience, and in some ways it is, but there’s a kind of high-wire vulnerability and trust required to enter into that exchange, from musicians and audience alike, which makes every performance a great sharing; a reminder that we are a part of something. We’re a part of something right now.

    If there was no other reason to do it, that would be enough. But there are many other reasons to do it, all of which reveal themselves and hide themselves to me in a constant shift. The reasons, like the circumstances, change. Ever-changing. In so, it is a music of acceptance. It says “accept your life, accept who you are”. It is a celebration of acceptance that asks you to push beyond. To accept and shake yourself to push beyond.

    As I come back to writing now, Thursday has come and gone. Ned Rothenberg has made his first trip to Ireland and returned to New York, sadly spending most of that trip in the confines of his hotel room with a pretty debilitating throat infection. A doctor’s visit and heavy doses of Ibuprofen kept the gig on track and once we started playing, all signs of illness fell away. The broken, injured and infirm parts of my own life fell away too. We were there as servants to something beyond each of us and were rewarded by being allowed to leave our troubles behind for a while, to be in that beyond instead. Ned remarked afterwards that he couldn’t remember playing so much melody in an improvised concert before. “Neither can I”, I said. And I trust that’s what each of us needed that night. More often than not, the music gives just what is needed. This time, all that shaking left melody. Shaking away illness, shaking away grief. Shaking out the knots in our own lives and leaving melody, like sunlight, shaking.

  • Cassandra Voices Christmas Gathering

    The CASSANDRA VOICES MAGAZINE CHRISTMAS GATHERING will take place at TAILORS’ HALL, Back Lane, Dublin 8, on FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13th from 8PM.

    Tailors’ Hall is the oldest surviving Guild Hall in Dublin, and has been at the heart of the city’s cultural life for over three hundred years.

    Fittingly, this was a meeting place of the United Irishmen in the 1790s, and we aim to present a similar unity of purpose, and forms, with a range of local and international musical, literary and humanitarian voices.

    Leading the charge will be Dublin supergroup Shakalak and we’ll also hear from Massmiliano Galli, Gareth Quinn Redmond, and more.

    There’ll also be words from activist Bruna Kadletz, as well as authors Maggie Armstrong and Daniel Wade.

    We are offering liquid and comestible refreshments, though you might like to supplement with your tipple of choice.

    The event is FREE, though we require you to REGISTER individually, and you can DONATE to our running costs.

    We’re also looking for long-term SUPPORT via PATREON for our fledgling publication.

    Cick here to register.

    Best Wishes

    Cassandra Voices

     

     

     

     

  • Artist of the Month – Doireann Ni Ghrioghair

    [Best_Wordpress_Gallery id=”60″ gal_title=”Featured Artist of the month: Doireann Ni Ghrioghair”]

    There is many a country that has decided to establish a capital city with grandeur, efficiency and unity of the central government. In ancient times, urban planning was pursued in Egypt, in a large number of cities in China, Greece and Rome. There are examples of this today in Washington, New Delhi, Ankara and Canberra.
    There is no need to tell why the location of Tara is suitable from the historical point of view. But there are many other recommendations, which make it suitable as the Capital of Ireland. It is in the centre of the country (25 miles from Dublin; Belfast, 78; Derry, 127; Limerick, 99; Tralee, 159; Sligo, 106; Athlone, 72; Kilkenny, 94). It would satisfy the people of Belfast, who have a congenital hatred of Dublin, as a city of conflict and not only as a capital: it would break the alien influence of the people of Rathmines, Rathgar and the Royal Irish Academy on the persons of the Government of Ireland. Therefore, it would not be too far “at all”, from Dublin, and it would not oblige all the officials of the Government to be brought from Dublin nor from Belfast. The new city of Tara would not be removed from rural life, as is Dublin, and it would be a clear sign that we have left for good, the old-bad-days that we have had during the seven centuries, during which we were under the heavy yoke of England; may it be our intention, sincerely, to build a new epoch in Ireland for ourselves.

    • Daithí Ó hÁinle
                                              extract from ‘Maoidheamh ar Árd-Cathair Stáit I dTeamhair’,
      Áiserighe 1942 – published by Ailtirí na hAiséirghe
      *translated by Paddy Greer

    Ailtirí na hAiséirghe (Architects of the Resurrection) were an Irish fascist political party active in the 1940’s They envisioned a united Ireland where emigration as well as the speaking of the English language would be banned. Highly conservative and religious, they also saw women’s role as to produce as many offspring as possible in order to form a large army and imagine Ireland rising as a supreme leading nation after all other countries had been decimated during World War II.

    Maoidheamh ar Árd-Cathair Stáit I dTeamhair’ (Declaration of the State Metropolis at Tara) by the architect Daithí Ó hÁinle appeared in one of their regularly published periodicals and included ‘Speer-esque’ urban planning and buildings such as a ‘National Avenue’, a stadium, ‘A Garden of Heroes’ and a ‘Column of the Resurrection.’ Later in his career, Ó hÁinle would progress on to be an architect for Dublin City Council, as well as designing the Garden of Remembrance and the Basilica at Knock.

    In an age where ideology is becoming increasingly polarised, the rise of the right-wing normalised, open racism and bigotry espoused by world leaders, this way of thinking can no longer be dismissed, however bizarre sounding.

    In a new series of sculptures made as resident artist at the College of Architecture & Engineering, UCD as part of Parity Studios, I presents a dystopian vision based on Ó hÁinle’s plans, that aim at interrogating notions of Irishness and national identity, particularly coming up to more centenary commemorations and Brexit.

    A very special thank you to John Ryan, School of Civil Engineering, UCD.

    Doireann Ni Ghrioghair’s exhibition ‘Declaration of the State Metropolis at Tara’ runs at the Pallas Projects/Studios in Dublin from November 1st to November, open Thursday-Saturday 12pm to 6pm.

     

  • Musician of the Month: Natalia Beylis

     

    The Steadfast-Starry Sky in the Shannon 

    Do you remember last year when the weather was nice for ages? Six weeks of sunshine and warmth. There hadn’t been a picture-book summer like it. Not since 1995. I wasn’t living in Ireland in 1995 but still I know all about that summer.

    Sometimes, during a relentlessly rainy June, July or August, I hear people wistfully murmur ‘95′, and in their eyes, I watch them dreamily retreat back there. Last year, with weeks of skies stretching blue as far as you could see, we finally had that same kind of summer.

    July, 2018.

     

    Every evening we swim in the river by the bat bridge in Drumsna. I have never gotten into the river before. I have shivered in the cold of the lakes and the sea. Somehow though, the river had always seemed too fierce for me – as it flowed with the strength of a green-and-rust-orange serpent down through the countryside. Rare weeks of constant sun have now turned the waters warm and shallow, and just about, manageable enough.

    After we swim, we sit on the bank and open packets of crisps to share around. Swallows swoop to brush the water. On the far shore, a cow pokes its head out between the willow and alder. Swans, mostly in pairs, sail casually up towards The Flaggy Bottom.

    There is always the same lone swan. He floats over and hisses at the dog – who is sprawled in the heat licking the ends of the crisp packets. He floats over to hiss at us for the fun of it. A swan couple try to manoeuvre past him. He assumes battle form and chases them with a wing display like a ballerina dancing across the river’s stage. We affectionately dub the solitary bird, Grumpy Feathers.

    When we come home the sky is periwinkle. It’s never fully dark here at this time of year. I measure the fall of night by the animals. When they settle – like matching-curled foxes – onto their chosen couches I know it is time to move to the music room.

    I switch on my two Fender amps and the ’70s electric piano that came home with me from the recycling centre in Mohill. The piano notes travel through blue tweed cables into the Supersonic and the Fender Roc Pro 1000. Triangulated stereo.

    When I first sit down at the piano, I always play whatever free-form shapes reach my fingers. Each of my hands tends to keep its own company – clashing or harmonising without seeming to mind the other. My left hand might tap out notes in morse-code fashion, while my right flutters in triplets. Doing the daily swim up the river has changed my muscle memory.

    My arms start to mirror each other’s movements on the keys. My hands on the piano replicate the patterns of the breaststroke that I push against the current. The notes surge forward ever faster until I’m spent. The river follows me further into the night. In my dreams I struggle against its current.

    Maybe summer won’t stop until autumn. This glorious, amazing warmth, this sun, this kind of weather that people in Ireland often claim they could remember from childhood. The summer everyone has been waiting for since 1995. But in case it all suddenly turns I keep swimming. And sharing picnics. And eating ice creams by the water. And having little cans from the cooler, that too has been waiting for this summer for years, so that it can finally show its full potential.

    I keep a close eye on Grumpy Feathers and wonder about his past. Has he always been grumpy? Is that the reason he is alone? In the late evenings I sit down to the piano and settle into swim strokes across the keys.

    It is deep in the night. In my dream I am frantically scrambling against the water’s flow. I keep moving forward yet I want to stop, in awe at the wonders of the dream-river that are flashing past. Suddenly… BOOM! I become aware that I am in a dream. I stay calm like they teach you to do in these situations. I stop moving my arms. I no longer need to.

    Free from the physical constraints of waking life I float casually upriver past The Flaggy Bottom and towards the Shannon Pot. Trout and salmon and schools of two-tailed-rainbow makeyupeys dance around me. Translucent bubbles pop up from the deep beneath. The shimmery plants growing on the banks reach their tendrils delicately towards me. There’s Grumpy Feathers gliding in the opposite direction. He’s trying to say something but I can’t understand.

    I turn onto my back and drift beneath the water’s surface. The moonlike eyes of a cow blink down at me as she drinks from the river. I halt so I can watch her.

    Later I will think back on the dream while my fingers move across the piano keys in that new way that they like to; I’ll slow the notes right down and pay microscopic regard to the quiet in between the sounds. But for this split second, deep in my lucid-river slumber, the steadfast-starry universe shines behind the cow and the stars, to reflect down into the water and back up from its surface, merging together above and below me.

     

    Upcoming performances from Natalia Beylis:

    Wednesday 13 November: Clare – Kilstosheen – Soundings No. 2 with Tola Custy.

    Thursday 14 November: Galway – The Roisin Dubh – Tulca Festival (solo).

    Saturday 23 November: Sligo – The Model – Spilt Milk Festival with BB84.

    Saturday 30 November: Dublin – The Project Arts Centre – Sound Collector (solo).

     

  • The November Events

    What is it they say about going bankrupt? Slowly at first, and then all at once. As we crossed the precinct yard and I saw the scale of the operation in real terms, the vehicles crowded into rows, still more throbbing outside, as I heard all those boots, I knew the slow part was coming to an end.

    I stood at the car as the others loaded up. The late afternoon light hummed something to me about the absurdity of the local force leading out this mission of supposedly unspeakable importance. The light’s inclusion was as chance as ours, it seemed to say, our roles entangled, a collective witness, it the light and we the eyes. My colleagues called from inside the car and I stooped in and shut the door.

    We rolled past familiar sights, the rusted gates of old mills, the sagging roofs of tanneries, the husk of the shoe factory that defied demolition, tattooed with graffiti inside and out. We beheld them in glassy eyes, our thoughts communal. All the bristling and division of the previous weeks seemed redundant, replaced by a palpable relief to be so far down the clearance list, so removed from the frowning, pacing people we’d watched through the blinds of the chief’s office. The weight they bore, the towering science irreducible to anything we could be expected to understand. And yet, we surely sensed the change, as intangible as ownership, rippling out in waves as our convoy carved a line between before and after. Our little town would not sleep that night.

    [Fig. 7 – Remains on ice rink. Barton Thewes, Toronto, Canada, 1997]

    Our other car peeled off west on a decoy run to divide unwanted attention. Who and what was in the trucks rumbling along behind us, half of which turned off after our other car, it was not our job to know. Maybe our car was the decoy. Of all the deflections and analogies they’d used, none worked better for me than referring to the whole thing as an ‘operation’. It most certainly resembled surgery, an intrusion under the glare of lights, of figures moving in and out of focus, beyond awareness, of terminology shared behind masks.

    We gazed out the windows, wary, our sense of place in soft dissociation. The looming slant of the train station, the red-bricked menace of the old hospital reconciled into quiet obsolescence as we moved forward, dragging the future behind us. As we approached the broad river channel, I closed my eyes against the swathe of sunlight. I didn’t need to look around me. Our town wasn’t exactly a place people visited, but there was this view up and down the river between bridges, a reflection of a brief golden age, a blip of prosperity our forefathers had chosen to enshrine in oddball architecture. The turrets of slick, green tiles with the round windows at the top, the mosaic of battlements and hanging balconies, where the men behind these buildings, owners of mills, tanneries and shoe factories, could stand and admire themselves in the warp of the river below. As kids, we’d learnt to be charmed by this fairytale skyline. As teenagers, we learnt to squint and spit at its small-time vanity. By the time we were adults, it was a reminder that a short-sighted, grandiose artistry ran within us all. To think big, but not too big.

    The sun was blocked off again and I opened my eyes and the people on the footpaths swam in the blue shade, watching us obliquely like fish on a reef.

    [Fig. 4 – Taxi stopped in traffic. José Almeida, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1999]

    We headed south along the avenue. I was glad I’d been assigned to this car. LKJH was in the other. I knew his leg would be twitching, that he’d be taking notes, still urging the others to think, to ask themselves why things were happening the way they were. This was our town, he’d be saying, and we were its local police. There would be no peace, however brief or superficial, in that car. Someone would surely have had to tell him to stop, to just let them be.    

    The chief had called myself and LKJH into his office a couple of weeks back and told us an international investigation of some sort had apparently identified our town as the most likely site for the next November event. LKJH began trembling, questions coming so fast he was unable to verbalise them. The chief asked if this was the same business our dads had had a thing for. We nodded. The chief sighed and said he’d never understood what they were talking about. He asked us to prepare a briefing for the senior crew. I could feel LKJH looking at me, but I didn’t look back. The chief rubbed his moustache just under his nose and asked if all this was real, if someone was really going to just. I felt LKJH nod. The chief leaned back in his chair and squinted at the wall.

    Outside, LKJH had hammered me with questions though I knew it was just to hear his own voice. What international investigation? When had that started? Who was behind that? How could they predict location? What parameters were they using? What sort of tech? He said crazy stuff about destiny, about the two of us as integral parts, how our whole lives had led us to that point. I stopped him there. I told him he was on his own. There was no ‘us’. But I don’t think he heard me. He was talking about calling by his mother’s place to get the stuff, telling me to imagine what our dads would have said. An event happening here. But I didn’t feel like imagining anything. Our dads were dead and gone, as was my interest in the events, as was my attachment to many things, I found right then as I tried to get myself away, as he followed me for a while, asking me where I was going, asking me how I could deny our destiny. But it wasn’t ‘our’ anything.

    [Fig. 4 – Armchair and fireplace bearing remains. Lukás Koller, Senec, Slovakia, 2000]

    Up a ramp off the national into suburbs that stretched before us into hills all the way up towards The Shoulder, the low mountain that rose before us. The wild green ruffles against a golden biscuit stone. A view worth considering too, perhaps, I thought, with our town’s stock about to rise. Someone said that one of our colleagues lived out this direction. After a moment, someone else asked why he’d said that, if that was important. We drove on for a while and the first said no, that just maybe that was why he was in the other car. Someone asked if any of us in our car lived out this way. No, we said, one by one. Again someone asked if that was important. The silence spoke for itself.

    I was two years older than LKJH. We’d gone to different schools and our dads had served in different units. If they hadn’t bonded over the events, then me and LKJH would probably have never even met as kids. We only became cops because that was what our city was like. The doctor’s kids became doctors, the shopkeeper’s kids became shopkeepers, and so on. Some didn’t, of course, but many did. Some specifically tried not to, myself included, but ended up doing so all the same. There was a saying in our city, or used to be at one point, that childhood was an apprenticeship.

    The radio bleeped, directions coming turn by turn, next left, second right, again and again, and each time we moved more slowly, more uphill. For security reasons, they’d told us, we couldn’t be given our destination. After every turn, the radio asked for our location and someone ran it off, we listened to our accent, its sound making more sense than all the procedural talk of this whole undertaking. These were the nice neighbourhoods, the places we were taught to aspire towards, places where we could quite literally look down on the rest of the town. I looked at the long, high hedges, the pedestrian crossings, the broad pavements, the cafés and florists, the jolly shop fronts and school railings, a cushioned playground where a swing trembled.

    [Fig. 5 – Office canteen showing event radius. Zhou Chen, Baoding, China, 2004]

    When the date came around each year, our dads held what they called an ‘observation’ in LKJH’s dad’s garage. Boxes of filings and photos taken down from the skewed shelves and spread across a workbench, a big old map hung in the corner, covered with pins and curling notes. The junk was moved back so our dads could sit in fold-out canvas chairs, with us two cross-legged on stinking upturned fruit crates. All in the light of a single candle lit for the latest victim. By the time we gathered there in the evening, the event had sometimes already happened, and our dads told us to do the paperwork, the logbooks, to stick the pin in the map. If it hadn’t happened yet, we sat in the stale, vegetable air and waited for the phone to ring. Our dads quizzed us, made us name the year, the victim, the location and circumstances. LKJH bouncing on his crate when I didn’t know an answer, as our dads urged me to think, told me it was easy. LKJH with his hand raised, punching the air, and it was always my dad who’d eventually ask him, and he’d get it right and all three of them wondered how I hadn’t known such an easy one.

    When our dads had drunk all their beer, LKJH’s dad would reach behind one or other pile of junk and produce a bottle, unlabelled and wrapped in a rag. They jokingly called it the ‘magic potion’. They passed the bottle and mulled over theories. They improvised freely. Talk always turned to speculation about an event occurring in our town. The intrusion from outside, our townsfolk forced to reckon questions without answers. LKJH sitting rapt. They grew less and less coherent, and spoke of rebirth in death, of the need for sacrifice. If someone had to go, they said, then why not one of us? If there was no way to avoid it, should it not instead be sought? The bottle passed like a pendulum between them, and each November, they reached the conclusion with the soft, malicious ambiguity our region is famous for, that it might have been the best thing that could happen to us.

    Eventually, the radio gave us an address. As we slowed and peered out for house numbers, the trucks swelled past us. They already knew where they were going, someone said. It was only the locals kept in the dark. Too close to be trusted. Why have us leading out then, someone else said. Why have us there at all? They fell silent then, aware that this was pretty much what LKJH had been saying for weeks, that we’d been told next to nothing, that our role in proceedings seemed little more than a front for something much deeper, much larger, and very far from random.    

    [Fig 29 – (c) Graph of Van Allen radiation belt and (d) SAA zone.]

    LKJH had taken care of the briefing himself. He’d set up the shaggy old map in the office, the tables spread with the files and charts. The senior bunch passed photos around as LKJH told them about Toronto. The ice hockey game. Local fan Barton Thewes, rink-side with his family. The event happened, all over the glass, all over the people around him, into the air, raining down onto the ice. It happened just off camera but the panic was live. An infamous image of steam rising from the bright remains on the rink. It was news for a while, though when investigations produced nothing, it was soon outpaced by other matters, and left to linger on hard drives, what they’d scooped from the ice kept in a forensic deep freeze somewhere. LKJH swept his hand across the map. Every event had been investigated thoroughly, but none had produced anything useful. The investigators were asked to confirm at least that the events were linked but from a strictly scientific perspective, successive teams explained, it wasn’t conclusive whether they were or not. Public records and chronicles were examined for inexplicable events, anything occurring on that date, parameters so wide there was any number of potentially linked events; sinking ships, disappearing livestock, strange lights in the sky.

    The senior bunch leaned, arms folded. So what you’re saying, someone said, is this is going to happen in our town? LKJH said that it was going to happen somewhere, but he didn’t know about any way of predicting an event with the local and temporal accuracy they were talking about. Then why, someone called up, was this international investigation saying it would happen here? LKJH shook his head, said it was the first he’d heard about it. There hadn’t been any interest at all for years, and nothing concerted or sustained. He had no information on who was behind it or how they were operating. But members of the international team were due any day, he said, and then we’d know more. He took his phone from the desk and poked at it with his thumb and chimes came from phones around the room. Some links, he said. Sites, more background, some thought. The senior bunch took out their phones, looked at screens. I saw how he savoured their downturned heads, as he watched them wonder what exactly was awaiting them.

    [Fig. 12 – Detail (6a) from Aboriginal artwork, The Kimberley, Australia. Detail (6c) from graffiti in Utrecht, The Netherlands.]

    In the back room at The Bell, where the wooden panelling shone, polished by generations of unofficial policework, the discussion grew heated. They demanded to know if it was happening or not, what exactly he was saying. I watched LKJH explain that no one actually knew when the events had begun. They might have always existed. There were holes everywhere in the records, years with nothing reported, other years with numerous conflicting accounts of disappearances. This was not the senior crew’s modus operandi. They opened the small hatch doors in the wall and bellowed for more beer. Why were they only hearing about this now? Why wasn’t this common knowledge? LKJH told them that was exactly what they should be asking themselves. Eventually, our malicious ambiguity emerged, that it was just one person, that it hardly mattered. Others nodded. Maybe, said LKJH, though what if it’s one of us? The frayed patience tautened again.

    The trucks gathered on a corner, where houses all around sat hidden behind hedges. We passed around the grid of coloured squares we’d been given back at the precinct. We found our space at the end and radioed in and sat still as other vehicles moved past towards their place. The radio crackled again, calling our car number, telling us to move out. We popped the doors and the air throbbed with engines. Someone said at least we knew who the decoys were. The biggest vehicles were stopped end to end, creating a sort of barrier around the corner. Still more pulled up tight, waved into place by back-pedalling figures. Any gaps were quickly filled with international troops in mirror shades, weapons high across their chests. Boots planted on tailgates as equipment was unloaded onto trolleys. We showed our badges and were directed to a channel between vehicles where a large white forensics canopy with zipped doorways was being erected. Technicians waved us on.

    Inside was a generous, sloping, L-shaped garden with bark-chip paths and tiered flower beds. We went up three slate steps to where the house stood behind fan-like shrubbery, the broad front door under a dark wooden porch. From there we stood and looked back down towards the technicians bringing metal cases through the plastic portal and lining them up on the lawn. The engine throb, the distant pounding of boots, the close-up clack of the handles springing closed against the metal cases.

    [Fig. 14 – Japanese investigators bow at press conference, Yokohama, Japan, 1998]

    When the international team had indeed showed up at our precinct, accompanied by government officials who briefed us on our role, LKJH’s hand was up from the start. The officials eventually paused and LKJH asked if we were the first city the ‘operation’ was being conducted in, if this predictive model had been tried elsewhere. He asked who was behind the international team, why there was this sudden concerted revival of interest in the events. The chief told him to stop, but LKJH repeated his questions. The officials reminded him our full cooperation was expected, but he asked what exactly we were cooperating in. Why now? Why here? He began to quiz the international team in broken English, name the year, name the victim, the location and circumstances, till they shook their heads, and the man in charge, a tall, thin man they’d introduced as the ‘Doctor’, frowned at the government officials, who told LKJH to shut up, and when he didn’t, to get the hell out.

    Down at The Bell, some of them had a go at LKJH. Who the hell did he think he was with his raggedy old map and his photos? He asked them why he was the only one standing up to them. For all our badges and oaths, for all our local swagger, he said, we’d been silenced, made redundant, marginalised in our own town. He reminded us that we were police officers, and we should have been investigating, asking why all this was suddenly being treated so seriously, asking whose interests this whole international operation was serving. Did they really think it was chance that had brought them to our little town? Or did they think this was just what our town needed? A little sacrifice to get the blood flowing again. Exasperation became anger and voices were raised until the barman had to stoop to the hatch doors and plead with us to keep it down. It was up to us, LKJH said as he necked his beer and stormed out, meaning, once again, that it was up to him.

    When LKJH left, the senior crew asked me what his problem was. I shrugged. When they asked if I really believed an event was going to happen here, in our town, I said the only honest thing I could: ‘why not?’

    I didn’t tell them that one time during an observation our dads had made us fight. They said we had to toughen up and learn to protect ourselves. This was deep into the magic potion. I refused, but they goaded LKJH till he came squealing at me and hit me and both of them were bellowing at me to hit him back and even LKJH hung off a bit, waiting for me to do something. The intensity in his eyes, the fear, not of violence, but of disappointing our dads. I stood there lumpen as he tried a few more exaggerated, theatrical punches, his eyes swelling with mortification.

    [Fig. 9 – Wedding ring, flowers. Máire Donovan, Castlebar, Ireland, 2020]

    The chief called me into the office. He asked if LKJH was okay. I asked what he meant. The chief paused. Could LKJH be trusted, he wanted to know. With what, I asked. The chief squinted at the wall. LKJH was taking things very seriously, he said. Very personally. How was he supposed to take things, I asked softly, rhetorically. I liked the chief. He sat silently, focusing on a seemingly tiny but essential piece of the wall. He rubbed his moustache just under his nose. He said people were constantly telling him what a big deal this was for our little town. I shrugged. I said I didn’t know. The chief then said that people were calling for LKJH to be removed. Distanced. I asked if it was our people asking. There was a knock on the door then, and people came in, and we apologized to each other as I left.

    The observations were the first thing I rebelled against. One year, I said I wasn’t going. I can’t remember how old I was, but I was as tall as my dad. I told him the events were stupid. He asked if I was denying them. No, I said. He asked what was I talking about then. I couldn’t say what I meant. It was an affront to something I couldn’t define at the time, but I knew I was right and stood my ground and refused to go. The dads sent LKJH over to try to convince me to come. He said what they’d told him to say, tried to make it his own as they’d told him to. ‘Our little tradition,’ he said. ‘Our thing.’

    I told him to get real, that the events were trivia, for trivial people, that nobody else gave a shit about them. He went back and repeated that pretty much word for word, and I don’t think my dad ever really forgave me.

    The years went by and our dads retired, pottered around, grew slow, and died. LKJH had a son and a daughter who’d shown little interest in the events despite his best efforts. The older they got, the more they dismissed him, out in the garage, the sick photos and yellowing charts. They eventually used it against him in the custody hearing. For me, the events became all but forgotten, a low throb once a year when LKJH would find me, follow me down a corridor, tell me the details of the latest, letting me know me he’d update the records, gather some info. I’d nod till he went away and took his empty throb with him. Sitting alone in the garage, staring at the map, year after year. A single candle lit.

    Maybe I should have told the chief these things. He knew I had no kids, no wife to fight for them. He could have used this knowledge to frame my contributions, to temper the breach of confidence, staring at the wall as he factored them in, factored them out. Maybe I’d been distracted by what the chief didn’t ask; why I wasn’t taking it more personally. If he’d asked, I’d have told him something. But he didn’t. As I said, I liked the chief.

    [Fig. 7 – Forensics teams mark remains on rocks. Abidemi Eze, Enugu, Nigeria, 2018]

    From where we stood under the porch, I could see through a gap in the two houses opposite, a broad slice of our town below, a wedge of oblique, cryptic crossword dozing in the valley haze. This light of ours, I noted, that hung like kind, wise words, reminding us of the onset of dusk. The sun would soon dip behind The Shoulder and the valley would be left to measure itself against deepening shadow. We didn’t pay enough attention to our light, to its daily saga, to its glorious demise. We took nightfall for granted when we locked our doors and thought that nobody could hear us think. We yawned and lay down and dreamt of an innocent morning we never suspected might not come.

    Someone said listen up, that no matter what happened inside, we were going to The Bell afterwards, okay, just us lot, nobody else, that the first round was on him. We hummed agreement. Then someone else said sorry but if it was a child, he didn’t think he’d be able to. That he was sorry, but if it was a child, no way. There was no acknowledgement. The technicians stacked the last of the cases and stared back at us across the lawn.

    [Fig. 10 – Overlaid graphs of mean age, height, weight and blood type]

    Our colleagues from the other car came through the white portal into the garden. They approached up the steps, looking drawn. Someone asked what they were doing there. What was the point of a decoy if we all ended up in the same place? One gave a thumb over his shoulder, and said ask him, and we looked and saw LKJH enter, taking his time, turning, inspecting the rows of cases. When he reached the porch, he asked what we were doing. Someone said we were waiting for the chief to arrive with the first contact team. LKJH frowned and said they were already inside. Someone asked him how he knew that. Police work, he said. We stood and reckoned on this.

    Someone asked if that meant we were all decoys.

    [Fig. 11 – Aerial view of rioting in Lyon. Rochelle Ngogo, Lyon, France, 2022]

    To be approached one day at your own front door and have a local voice tell you were a key piece in an ongoing worldwide project. To be told its purpose was to discover something solid, something to confirm that a methodology was sound, that answers lay therein. To hear how profound a victory this would be. To be led back to your sitting room or kitchen and told that they needed you to be strong, needed you to trust them, and then to watch as they stood back to weigh your stammered confusion, to note how you searched their cold, foreign faces for impossible explanations.

    The trucks fell silent and we heard the sound of the forensics portal being zipped shut. The front door creaked open and we turned. The chief leaned out, gave us a soft nod, and went back inside, leaving the door open. LKJH swept past me and straight in. Troops stooped to the handles on the equipment cases. I looked across at the image of our town between the two houses, how snug it lay in the hazy lavender sunset, though for all my romanticism I knew news of this operation would by then be rushing through its veins, and would infect the oncoming dusk with a mental neon glow. I turned back to the gaping hole of the door and stepped inside.

    The first thing I saw was the photo hanging in the hall. Parents and kids. A family smile. Low curses from those who followed me. The hallway led into a broad living room, its thick carpet and mantelled, candlesticked table, where numerous people in fatigues or lab coats already moved around. The chief stood, absently rubbing his moustache. I went and stood beside him and he said something as light as breath that I didn’t catch. There was a man and a woman holding each other on a sofa. They looked up at the matt-metal cases, the uniforms and helmets in their living room. Technicians compared readings from hand-held devices, others set up tripod stands. LKJH crouched by the couple. I heard him telling them not to worry, that the local police had their back, that the whole thing was a bit of a mix-up. That it was an exercise. At best a simulation. The international community, he said, with a familiar malicious ambiguity. The couple held each other tightly. The chief called him back in a hollow voice. LKJH stood up again, hands on hips, labouring under the weight of the rest of what he wanted to say.

    [Fig. 13 – Excerpt from the Popol Vuh. Guatemala, transcribed in 1550CE approx., from Mayan oral tradition]

    The white-coated team asked the man to make space as they worked around the woman, leaning her this way and that, whispering necessity, fixing a sensor to her temple, another on her neck. She acquiesced wordlessly. They slipped a small black ring onto her fingertip, a tiny red light with the rapid blink of her pulse. The process was distracting enough to allow her to look past them again, past us all, and just then there were muffled shouts and two little girls came running, squeezing between bodies, crying in unison, terrified. The team members who’d been assigned to them followed and reached, but stopped short as the woman took the children together, shushing and calming them, smoothing their hair. As they begged her to come, their mother’s voice washed over them, sound beyond words, a trembling melody to linger in their ears.

    At a murmur from the doctor, the minders stepped forward again and whispered the girls’ names and the crying grew intense, the strength of a child’s cling, the arms reaching for mama and papa as the minders worked on each grip, blocked and ushered the children out. The man on the sofa blinked red-eyed confusion. The little voices grew more desperate and even the closed doors and distance along the hallway couldn’t block the sound.

    They began setting up cameras on tripods and draped light plastic sheeting across the furniture, taping more to the ceiling and letting it hang. The woman asked why, and the man stood up, mouth hanging, overwhelmed, the creak of troops leaning in. The man trembled as he asked what they were filming and the doctor rubbed the point between his eyes and the man pushed back at the figures leaning in and limbs quickly tangled and he was shouting that he just wanted to hold her, that he wouldn’t leave her, that he would protect her, but she said no, no, to be calm, that he had to take care of the girls, that he had to go to them. He struggled against the words but she said again that it was fine. That it was just a simulation. The man’s desolate appreciation of her, barely resisting as he was taken from his own sitting room. He sobbed from the hallway that she’d be fine, that they’d all be together in no time. That the girls needed her. That he was blessed to know her. That they loved her so much.

    [Fig. 15 – Screenshot from redacted government documents, on Project Argus, London, UK, 2009]

    The doctor nodded and someone threw a switch and lights came on and the plastic glared and we all looked down. The small cameras were trained and technicians nodded to each other. Surrounded but alone, the local woman sat straight in her chair blinking through tears. She asked if we were recording and someone said yes and she stared into space, into time, and controlled her breathing and began speaking again to her absent girls. She told them she wasn’t afraid. Her trembling smile as she removed tears with the heel of her hand. She wasn’t afraid. It was an exercise. There was nothing to fear. We sat around and listened, in our big boots and bulletproof shields. The sound of tapping at a laptop computer, looping differently to the woman’s speech. She paused every now and again, as if to let it catch up.

    All through which, I kept my eye on LKJH as he paced about in a corner, as it all dissolved in his hands. He asked the chief what exactly the woman had been told. The chief shushed him but he asked again, and the chief turned a pained look and said please not now, but LKJH turned to the doctor and spoke in English, clear enough to make the tall man wince. LKJH turned back to us. She doesn’t know, he said. They didn’t tell her anything about the events. Voices of compressed urgency ordering him to stop speaking, but he turned back and stepped right into the doctor’s personal space and both troops and lab coats converged to block him. LKJH told the doctor straight to his face that he was full of shit. At the doctor’s terse, glassy patter, the troops grabbed LKJH and wrestled him swiftly towards the door. Gurgling through the choke-hold as they dragged him past, he locked desperate eyes on me and I thought he trying to say something about destiny, a disoriented final appeal to ‘us’. I hope all he saw on my face was that this had never been about him and he knew it. Then he was gone and we were left alone with the only sound in the room, the woman sitting on the sofa, speaking softly to her girls.

    I only became a cop because I rebelled against it so hard, threw myself into the wild life so completely that in the end it was the only job I could have possibly got. An apprenticeship of its own. It reached the point where my dad had left me flat on my back and leaned over me and told me I could either sign up or leave town. All those times I’d told my dad that the events were irrelevant, that more people died in their bathtubs, more were killed by their pets. Maybe it was all just because I knew I’d end up here.  

    White coats whispered things, called off numbers and letters. I heard one say something about contact and people grew utterly silent. In this room, in our town of all places, it was understood that something, no matter what, was favourable to nothing. It was nothing, essentially, that scared us more. Nothing wasn’t absence; it was totality, a reset to chaos every time. In that room, we understood that sometimes a sacrifice was needed.

    Should I have spoken out when I saw all the cameras were trained on her, as she sat alone, strong, beautiful beyond words? Should I not have asked for one camera at least to be turned in my general direction? Asked for a sensor or two? A ring for my fingertip? I began to feel a strange sensation of having reached some undeniable truth. A sense of completeness, of fullness, of being far too much for this little town.

  • No Comment: Philip Smith ‘Bonfire Wars’

    [ngg src=”galleries” ids=”9″ display=”basic_thumbnail” thumbnail_crop=”0″]

  • Public Intellectual Series: George Orwell – A Crucial Man for Our Time

    George Orwell has never been unfashionable, and is in vogue now more than ever. His writing, best represented by his many essays on a variety of subjects, rather than the more celebrated novels, presage in myriad ways the problems we face today.

    Those famous novels 1984 (1949) and Animal Farm (1945) are visionary works depicting totalitarian societies, but in a more significant way it is the cornucopia of themes broached in his essays that anticipate a present era of thought control.

    Orwell despised abstractions, especially nationalism, but also extremism on the left. Accordingly, in his essays we find focus on the particular and daily life. All political concerns are deemed local. Indeed, his works is identifiable as part of British tradition of empiricism with its distrust of grand ideas and gestures.

    Mumbo-Jumbo

    Orwell would have no time for the mumbo-jumbo of post-modernism and structuralism, just as he dismissed the ideological psychobabble of fascism and Communism. Instead he venerated the common sense of the ordinary person, and was deeply sensitive to how ideologies crushed the human spirit.

    Yet he was also aware of how seductive ideologies could be, anticipating what Zizek has called ‘ideological misidentification’ – that includes voting for those who will undermine your interests, as blue collar America did in electing Trump; or believing what you read in The Daily Mail about foreigners.

    Orwell is nonetheless firmly opposed to the mentality of the mob. Were he alive today, he would surely be a genuine tribune for those on the margins of society, but decidedly against the recrudescence of Populism and appeals to bigotry.

    The casual racism he despised, now so evident in many cultures including Britain, was shaped by his experiences of British colonial barbarism in Burma, as indeed was his hatred of the death penalty, invoked in his short story A Hanging (1931), which was based on personal experience.

    Orwell would definitely understand how, through social media and the machinations of Cambridge Analytical the ordinary man is manipulated – brainwashed even – by subliminal messaging and online influencers. Perhaps the docile uncritical consumerism we are creating is best represented in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian 1932 novel Brave New World (1932), a companion piece to 1984 and Animal Farm for understanding our troubled zeitgeist. Either way, both Orwell and Huxley saw what was coming.

    Throughout his writing Orwell emerges as the champion of the underdog, and zealous opponent of vulgar nationalism, whether emanating from state authorities, or the untutored blatherings of brainwashed victims.

    Orwell had no truck with popular prejudice, esteeming instead basic decency. Doubtless, he would recognise how the populace could be whipped into a mass frenzy today and vote in crypto-fascists or even for Brexit. He was sensitive to how popular decency could be corrupted by propaganda into anti-Semitism and the portrayal of Eastern Europeans as degenerates, as he addresses in Notes on Nationalism (1945).

    Uncommon beliefs

    Orwell thus is a believer in the common sense of the common man, but not popular prejudice or vulgar nationalism, or especially not the racism that spills forth from the mouths of those subjected to propaganda.

    He is prescient about how an ordinary person intuitively believes in the Rule of Law. Thus, in ‘The Lion and The Unicorn’ (1940) he argues that the English believe in law, not power. He further opines in ‘Inside The Whale’ (1940) that this stems from a lack of experience of violence and illegality: ‘With all its injustices England is still the land of habeas corpus and the overwhelming majority of English people have no experience of violence and illegality.’

    Homage to Catalonia (1938) is an account of his his Spanish sojourn fighting on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War against Franco’s fascists. There he saw clearly how extremism of both left and right has no restraints or humanitarian boundaries, and that a society morphs rapidly into lawless banditry.

    Dotty Dreamland

    The dotty dreamland of England, then and now, is suffused with moderation, incrementalism and a lack of experience of licensed thuggery. This is the basic decency Orwell finds in the novels of Charles Dickens, along with a sympathy for the underdog.

    Living in London I now recognise that the British do not seem to understand, rightly so – and certainly do not tolerate – the manipulation or abuse of law by power.

    In this, arguably, they stand alone in Europe, where we see the law used as a tool of oppression in Spain by proto-fascists, who have imprisoned those with the temerity to hold a peaceful independence referendum; not to mention the crypto-Nazi enclave of Orban’s Hungary, and with the rise of La Liga in Italy; more insidious in Ireland is the undermining of decency and corporate takeover.

    The championing of the underdog is a noticeable feature of British life, and the obligation to vindicate the rule of law against the interests of the powerful is still taken seriously, unlike in Ireland which endorses the interests of the corporations to such an extent that the state resists a tax windfall of €13 billion.

    It is not for nothing that the reasonable man test, or the notional man on the Clapham Omnibus, is intrinsic to British legalism and the Rule of Law.

    That is perhaps why the British became so resistant to the idea of their interests being undermined by faceless bureaucrats for Europe, although tragically the result of Brexit may be to deliver them into the hands of a worse set of faceless bureaucrats in the shape of the American corporatocracy.

    In ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ (1940) Orwell emphasises how the British are repelled by miscarriages of justice, and believe in holding power accountable, which demands impartial administration of justice by independent officials, who are not bought or compromised. This originates in patterns of independent and generally depoliticised appointment not evident in most other European jurisdictions.

    Use of language

    Orwell is highly attuned to the misuse of language. A prevalent theme is how expression should be clear and unequivocal, in a plain style emphasising the virtues of informality and flexibility. Thus he sedulously exposes techno-babble, and the notorious doublespeak encapsulated by slogans such as ‘four legs good two legs better’ from Animal Farm, which anticipate the arrival of political spin doctors. In short, he saw post-truth coming.

    This includes the fakery of our present narratives, where innocent slogans conceal and occlude a multitude of evils. So terms like ‘austerity’ or ‘fiscal stabilization’, or even ‘ethnic cleansing’, are adopted to mask individual and societal destruction.

    Similarly, the anodyne word ‘evacuation’ was used neutrally by Nazi Reinhardt Heydrich at the Wanassee Conference in 1942 to convey crimes against humanity and genocide. Today sloganing by advertisers, hucksters and snake oil salesmen of all shapes and hues are inducing a form of corporate fascism, and state-sponsored murder.

    1984 is a novel about the totalitarian left, as well as the right. Orwell had a ringside seat on the evils of both in Barcelona during The Spanish Civil War, documented brilliantly in Homage to Catalonia (1938).

    Piquant Irony

    It is a piquant irony of intellectual discourse that the left should have embraced the meandering nonsense of post structuralism from the 1960’s onwards only to see it appropriated by the alt right. Truth is not truth Donald as he must have been advised, and Mr .Giuliani echoes.

    Thus as Derrida can change meaning from one sentence to another, so can Trump or Bannon.

    In The Politics and The English Language” (1947) Orwell cauterises the elevation of grammar and syntax as indicia of anything, and focuses on the precise use of language and the avoidance of cliché, or what he terms Americanisms.

    In fact, focusing on grammatical form, at the expense of content, is the classic sign of a box-ticking pedantic and second-class intelligence, or an establishment ruse designed to avoid engagement with arguments of substance.

    The post truth universe that he saw on the horizon is a feature of most his writing. Thus, in ‘Looking Back at The Spanish Civil War’ (1942) he observes that totalitarianism denies that objective truth exists, and in ‘Notes on Nationalism’ (1945) he points out presciently: ‘Since nothing is ever proved or disproved, the most unmistakeable fact can be impudently denied.’

    These are tactics evident in Mr. Giuliani aforementioned denial of objective truth and Ryanair’s Mr. O’Leary denial of climate change. An approach which, by being reported on, rather than dismissed outright, is given a veneer of respectability

    It is also increasingly evident that that those in power blind themselves to their outright criminality, as long as it comes from their own side, including the Neo-Cons and Blairite proponents of just war, known euphemistically as ‘humanitarian interventions.’

    Increasingly, the true subversives among the state and corporate oligarchy inflict criminality on others with impunity. As Orwell writes in his ‘Notes on Nationalism’ (1945): ‘There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when our side commits it.’

    They ask: are you with us or against us? One of us, or representing the demonised and excluded Other. This is particularly prescient in an age of increasing fractiousness, intolerance and division.

    Orwell chose the middle way, however difficult that path may be. Today being reasonable is often not viable. Alas, he who shouts loudest gains most in our present distorted politics.

    The Enemies of Truth

    In ‘The Prevention of Literature’ (1946) we find Orwell revealing that the enemies of truth and freedom of thought to be press lords and bureaucrats. Then as now, and let us add for good measure include social media manipulators and multinational corporations.

    Perhaps his definitive essay is ‘How The Poor Die’ (1929), a crucial text for these times of austerity, where social supports are being steadily withdrawn. The unthinking consequences of an awful ideology, or rather a deliberately planned extermination of anyone deemed unworthy, alongside the cartelisation of wealth into ever decreasing bands, and hands.

    The focus of Orwell is of course also on secularism and the Enlightenment; the repudiation of false Christian values.

    In an essay on Jonathan Swift the author of Gulliver’s Travels he suggests the one-time Dean of St. Patricks Cathedral rejected the Christian idea of an afterlife, a view commended by Orwell. Swift himself was also highly attuned to the interests of the poor in Ireland, subjected to the excesses of Malthusian capitalism, a theme which he brilliantly parodies in his disturbing ‘A Modest Proposal’. (1729). The consumption of babies is used to highlight a meltdown in human fellowship familiar to our present time.

    So there we have it, George Orwell, dead in 1950 but not as Dead as Doornails. Right back in fashion in fact and on the money.

    Why? Well in essence his own time of totalitarianism, economic meltdown, fascism and propagandistic post-truth are replicated in our own, while his fiction, and especially his essays, are an intellectual counterweight more relevant than ever.

    Let us thus secularly worship Eric Blair, not Tony Blair. He was the prince of journalists, a writer of mystic prescience and curiously, perhaps the single most relevant intellectual for our day and age.

    All references are from The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell (Secker and Warburg 1968).

  • Cora Venus Lunny Launches New Album ‘Numinous Soup’

    Numinous Soup is an album I quietly made by myself in my spare room on child free evenings, releasing mp3s on Patreon as they became ready and eventually combining my favourite tracks into this collection.

    ‘Mindsomereve’ is something I made almost absentmindedly, and didn’t think was finished, but as I kept listening to it to see where to go next, I realised I liked it as it is.

    ‘I Want… Bodily Autonomy For Everyone’ – it is a vast and all-encompassing thing that I deeply wish for every person in this world. You might hear both frustration and hope in my playing here.

    ‘Incapacitate The Ecocidal Machine’ uses field recordings of frogs from Wicklow and a vast machine from Amsterdam, as well as my usual strings. I never got a glimpse of the machine but the sound was something else. It filled the air, vibrated the ground, vibrated your eyes in your head. I never managed to catch sight of it. Which machine am I talking about though?

    I named the album after ‘Numinous Soup’ because it’s my favourite track on the record, and I think it’s quite soothing. It made me think of a cold day in a remote castle, getting a bowl of tasty neon green swirly glowy soup that sends you into a dream of another dimension, possibly involving a boat slicing elegantly through still, reeded, misty waters at sunset, three moons in the aurora-splashed sky, a golden whippet in your lap. It’s also the one track that doesn’t go into any scary noise places so I thought it was a good one to finish on.

    Click on….

    http://www.patreon.com/trancebranches

    http://www.bandcamp.com/trancebranches

  • Poetry – Mark Burrows

    The Resistance 

    I never knew what they really felt
    how they survived the one world
    we shared across layers of fear
    and indifference never grasped
    the bold grip of hatred that sears
    the eye and numbs the mind of
    the last shreds of decency never
    expected that the good would
    outlast all this in a world where
    the question of fair isn’t even
    mentioned in the interim report
    and could hardly imagine that
    despite all this greed would not
    have the last word in this life with
    its unspeakable joys and woes
    where the promise holds that
    the lost will somehow be found
    and the last impossibly first

     

    The Occasion

    —for Mark Jordan, with abiding gratitude

    What if beauty is a substance
    in this world of accident and remorse,
    finite and particular and dispersed
    like the sound of larks singing

    frivolously into the morning silences,
    regardless of audience or absence or
    any other need? What if our single
    purpose here is to seek what often

    falls into the crevices of disregard,
    gratefully reaching into the stream
    with dry hands and parched lips?

    And what if time is but the occasion
    for gathering these shards of loveliness
    into the heart’s hungry vestibule?

     

    The Work of Love 

    It is early, though the late night is still holding
    the long hems of darkness; dawn has not yet

    begun to imagine what the day might bring
    of shadows and of light, and those I love are

    still wrapped in the mantle of their dreams.
    But I am sitting here with a cup of tea cradled

    in my hands as I begin to bring forth the edges
    of a poem, drawing words and bits of song from

    the drifting play of dreams. And as I begin I’ve
    not yet made a single mistake; no word is out

    of place on the empty page, no thought has
    strayed into the cravings of jealousy or rage,

    and no good deed has been undone. It’s like
    this sometimes with art, as with the work of

    love, when the heart wakes to join the lark
    in her propensity to amazement and to song.

     

  • ‘Economic theory changes one funeral at a time’ – An Interview with Warren Mosler on the True Nature of Money

    It’s the grease that makes the economic wheels turn. But ask where your taxes go after you pay them; or how a bank makes a loan; or what it means when you hear central banks are ‘printing money,’ and you’ll get different answers depending on who you talk to.

    Why should you care? Because a grasp of how the modern monetary system works is essential to understanding everything that has to do with money – from government austerity and stimulus spending, and everything in between.

    Warren Mosler spent much of his life attempting to understand what modern money is, what drives its circulation, and how the internal ‘plumbing’ of the modern monetary system sits together.

    What he discovered is a stranger picture than you would imagine. A word of warning, Mosler’s views on modern money are highly unconventional, running contrary to just about every economics textbook.

    Q&A with Warren Mosler

    Chris Lowe (CL): for readers who might not already know, CNBC calls you ‘one of the brightest minds in finance.’ You regularly comment on monetary matters and you’ve written two ground-breaking books on fiat money: Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, and Soft Currency Economics. But you’re about the furthest thing from an armchair theorist anyone can imagine.

    You started your career in retail banking in the early 1970s, going on to work at Wall Street broker Bache & Co., at Bankers Trust, and at Chicago investment bank William Blair & Co. Then, in 1982, you cofounded your own investment fund, Illinois Income Investors (III).

    It was a spectacular success. III had only one loss-making month in the 15 years you were at the helm. And financial newsletter MARHedge ranked it No.1 in the world through 1997, when you left.

    Later, you even developed your own automobile line, Mosler Automotive. (Star Wars director George Lucas was the first to take delivery of one of his models – a supercharged, intercooled, V-8 supercar, the MT900S.)

    And finally, you’re a pioneer in a new field of economics called Modern Money Theory (MMT)[i] that’s making big ripples in academia and on the policy level.

    So, what first got you interested in business and Finance?

    Warren Mosler (WM): The first thing was just getting out of school and going to work. I went to work in a small savings bank in my home state of Connecticut. That was probably my first interest – working in money and understanding how it works and how it doesn’t work.

    CL: You have a BA in economics. But you’re largely self-taught. Can you remember any economics books that made a big impression on you?

    WM: I read very little. But I read one of John Kenneth Galbraith’s books in the 1960s. I liked the idea that the world understands things one way when in fact it’s another way – which is what he was talking about. I used to take apart watches to try to figure out how they worked. I was that kind of kid.

    CL: MMT describes the day-to-day realities of using government-backed tokens as money instead of gold or some other commodity. Is it fair to call MMT the study of the fiat money system?

    WM: It’s the study of how any monetary system works. There’s quite a good level of understanding of how the gold standard worked, but almost no understanding of how a fiat system works. That’s why MMT has gotten that kind of attention.

    CL: Up to 1971, the world economy was on the gold standard. Foreign central banks could still, theoretically at least, convert their dollar reserves into gold. And foreign currencies were exchangeable for dollars at a fixed price.

    Since 1971, the supply of dollars is no longer linked to the supply of gold. And currencies ‘float’ against one another, based on supply and demand.

    Why did the system change?

    WM: No one goes off the gold standard because it’s working so well. We go off it during war, when it’s in the way of funding military spending, or during depressions, because it breaks down horribly. That’s what happened in the U.S. Most people forget. But we first exited the gold standard during the Great Depression.

    CL: What led to that first break with gold?

    WM: A good starting point is the Panic of 1907. That was a very bad gold-standard depression. The whole money system pretty much went down. And it got bailed out by a consortium of private banks led by J.P. Morgan.

    After 1907, Congress decided we needed to have a central bank – the Federal Reserve – so that this would never happen again. And in 1913, it passed the Federal Reserve Act. This created the Federal Reserve System, America’s central bank.

    Then, sure enough, in 1929, it happened again… we got another gold-standard depression. The idea that these gold-standard panics wouldn’t happen again with a central bank didn’t work.

    In 1933, about half of the commercial banks in the U.S. were closed. They were insolvent. In 1934, they reopened off the gold standard and with deposit insurance. And there’s never been a gold standard-type panic since.

    [In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Gold Reserve Act. This limited the ability to convert dollars at a fixed exchange rate to gold to foreign central banks. It also revalued gold from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce.]

    It was going off the gold standard in 1934 – not the creation of the Fed – that prevented the kind of depressions we used to have. But they left the Fed there. Somebody had to vote on interest rates. So they just left it there.

    CL: What was the trigger in 1971?

    WM: Under the gold standard, the government would buy or sell gold – $35 an ounce was the most recent price they did that at. It was also supposed to be making sure it had sufficient gold reserves to back the dollars in circulation. But it didn’t…

    A lot of people see 1971 as the big change in our monetary system. But we’ve really been ‘off gold’ since 1934. Of course, it wasn’t until 1971 – when France asked to convert its growing pile of dollar foreign exchange reserves into gold – that we went off the gold standard officially.

    But if France had asked for the gold in 1935, we probably would have said no and formally gone off gold then. But I don’t know that. I’m just musing on what happened.

    CL: So why do we all value paper money if there’s nothing tangible backing it?

    WM: American economist Hyman Minsky used to say that anyone could print money… it’s a question of having somebody accept it and give you something in exchange. If I print my own ‘money’ and try to buy something with it, why would you sell me something? If I come with a bunch of raffle tickets, and there’s no prize, why would you buy them?

    CL: I see your point. Why is there demand for fiat money, then, if it has no intrinsic value?

    WM: Let’s start at the beginning… The government wants to provision itself. It wants soldiers. It wants a legal system. It wants to move goods and services that are currently in the private sector to the public sector.

    How does it get them there? How does it move people from the private sector to the public sector?

    Well, it could take slaves in a war and force them to do things for it. That used to be common. The British used to go into bars at night and hit people on the head and drag them out. They’d wake up in the morning on a ship in the Royal Navy.

    There are different ways to get people out of the private sector and into the public sector. We pretend to be more civilized. The first thing we do is impose a tax on something that nobody has, such as U.S. dollars.

    So, imagine, on day one, George Washington says, ‘Okay. There is this new thing called the U.S. dollar. And everybody owes me $100 in taxes. Or else you’ll lose your house or something.’

    Of course, nobody has any dollars. What are they supposed to do to get them?

    So, Washington says, ‘I’ll pay you $30,000 to serve in the Continental Army.’ Or, ‘I’ll pay your $10,000 for a new road.’ Or, ‘I’ll pay you $5 for a chicken.’

    The government imposes a tax on something nobody has. Then it imposes a penalty for nonpayment of that tax. This creates what we call ‘unemployment’ – people looking for paid work that pays in that currency. Unemployment is not people looking for volunteer work at the American Cancer Society. They’re looking for money.

    The reason we’re all working for U.S. dollars is because there is this incessant liability – this drain out of the economy – we call taxation. This creates a shortage of dollars. People are constantly faced with the need for dollars to pay off their tax liabilities.

    Without tax payments at the end of the chain, fiat money loses its value. For instance, when the Civil War ended, the South didn’t collect taxes anymore. And the value of Confederate currency went to zero. It kept a million men in the field for five years. But it lost its value when the South could no longer collect taxes effectively. Or take somewhere like Lebanon. When tax collection ceased there, the currency stopped having any value.

    CL: So money is an invention of the state… a government technology, if you like?

    WM: I think John Maynard Keynes used to say, ‘The government writes the dictionary.’ The Japanese government taxes in yen. So, they have yen. Sterling is what you need to pay taxes in Britain. And so on.

    What’s interesting is that any government that issues its own currency has to spend money first before it can collect it back in tax. It also has to spend money first before it can borrow it back. When a government that issues its own currency borrows, it’s actually just borrowing back money it just spent.

    I was in Pompeii, in Italy, about two months ago. The guide was saying, ‘Here are the coins we found. The government would collect the coins and then it would spend the money on infrastructure. Because people wanted Pompeii to be a nice place to live.’

    And I said, ‘Well, they spent the coins first and then collected them.’

    And he goes, ‘No, no, no. They collect the coins in taxes first. And then they spent them.’

    I asked him, ‘Where did the coins come from?’

    ‘The government made them.’

    ‘Okay. How did anybody get them?’

    ‘You’re saying they had to spend them first and then tax?’

    I said, ‘Yeah, what else could they do?’

    ‘I don’t know.’

    He was very confused…

    CL: Most people think the government needs to collect dollars – either through taxes or borrowing – before it can spend.

    WL: First, the government credits bank accounts when it spends. Then, it debits bank accounts when it taxes. You can’t debit an account first. That’s an overdraft – a negative balance. And a negative balance is a loan from the guy who allowed the negative balance: the government.

    That would mean the government loaned the money first before it collected it for tax, which doesn’t make sense. As a simple accounting logic, you can’t debit an account without crediting it first.

    What I’m telling you is known by all the senior staffers at the Fed. The way they say it is: You can’t do a ‘reserve drain’ without a ‘reserve add.’ They all know this. There’s nothing esoteric, or new, or secret about it. It’s how they function every day.

    None of this stuff is really subject to any dispute. Some people don’t like it. Or they can’t reconcile it with what they’ve heard. But they can’t dispute it, either.

    CL: One thing that shocked me – I think it was in your book Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy – is that if you paid the IRS in cash for your taxes, they’d give you a receipt for your money and then shred the dollars.

    WM: Well, the IRS doesn’t shred it. It gives it to some other agency that does the shredding. But yes – that’s what happens.

    CL: Why doesn’t the government take those dollars and recycle them back into the system?

    WM: If you pay them with old $20 bills, they’ll just throw them away. If you pay with new $20 bills, they may give them back to the banks. But today, it’s easier to give banks money off the new pile when they want it – it’s all wrapped up and nice and everything – than it is to take somebody’s old money with germs on it and try to wrap it up again.

    It’s like selling tickets to a football game. Would you collect all the old tickets and try to reuse them? Or would you just tear them up and throw them away? It’s easier to just take them off the new roll than it is to collect them all and then try to sell them again. And nobody would ever think a football stadium should collect the tickets before it sells them.

    CL: Then why does the government tax?

    WM: The government has to have tax liabilities. Otherwise, nobody would be a seller of goods and services. Nobody would be selling labor or food or whatever else the government wants. Nobody would be looking for jobs that pay in dollars if there wasn’t a tax. So, the government has to tax to create the basic need for its currency.

    CL: And why does the government borrow?

    WM: The government used to borrow because, when it spent dollars, those dollars were convertible into gold. It didn’t want people being able to take all the gold out of Fort Knox. So, it sold Treasury securities. This borrowed back the dollars for a certain amount of time.

    A Treasury is a one-year, or two-year, or ten-year security, or whatever. If you swapped your dollars for a Treasury security, you couldn’t get the dollars again to get the gold for one year, two years, or ten years.

    This kept people’s hands off the government’s gold supply. And it stabilized the gold in Fort Knox. The purpose of borrowing was to keep that money from being able to convert itself into gold right away. You had to wait until your Treasury security matured first.

    Since 1934, that reason is gone. But the government keeps borrowing anyway. It had the appearance at the time that you were borrowing to be able to spend. That’s an easy stance to perpetuate. So, they perpetuated it.

    CL: Under the gold standard, government borrowing competed with private sector investment. Money was a scarce commodity. It could either go into government borrowing or into private sector investment. People worried that government borrowing ‘crowded out’ private investment. Is that still a worry?

    WM: So, you have government spending first. When the government spends dollars, it puts them in a bank’s reserve account at the Fed. If the government decides to borrow back those dollars, it just shifts them from its reserve account to another account it has at the Fed called a securities account. They give them fancy names. They call them reserve accounts and securities accounts. But they’re really just checking and savings accounts.

    The government creates new dollar balances. It puts them in one type of account. Then it shifts those dollar balances to another type of account. We call that ‘government debt.’

    CL: You say governments need to run budget deficits and that budget surpluses can be disastrous for the economy. Can you explain what you mean by that?

     

    WM: Sure. Let’s say the government runs a budget surplus, which means it taxes more than it spends. That means it’s draining money out of people’s bank accounts. Eventually, this would empty people’s accounts.

    The U.S. has had seven depressions. All seven followed the only seven budget surpluses in history. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    A government deficit, on the other hand, happens because the government spends more than it taxes. This net spending adds money into people’s bank accounts. This may cause inflation. But nobody is going to run out of money because of it.

    CL: Again, most people see it differently. For instance, at the end of the 1990s, President Clinton took the U.S. into a budget surplus. Why did he do that, if it was so bad for the economy?

    WM: The way Robert Eisner, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, used to tell the story was that he was at the Clinton White House explaining to the president that running a budget surplus was draining money out of the economy… and that it was going to cause a crash. And Clinton said, ‘Yeah, you’re right, Bob. But this is not about economics. It’s about politics.’

    Some people understand it. Some people don’t. In 2003, I was in the White House having a conversation with President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card. The economy was bad. Low interest rates weren’t working. And I told him more or less the same thing I’m telling you – that we needed a much larger deficit. In other words, we needed to either lower taxes or increased public spending.

    Card was a quick study. He’s an engineer. He got it. And he asked, ‘By how much?’

    I said, ‘About $700 billion.’ Which, back then, was a large number.

    ‘We don’t have much time, do we?’ he asked.

    I said, ‘No.’

    I wasn’t a Bush supporter or anything. But he was the president, and the economy wasn’t doing so well. A week later, Bush made an interesting statement. When he was asked about the deficit, he said, ‘I don’t look at numbers. I look at jobs.’

    He passed every spending bill he possibly could. He also got through every possible tax cut. Six months later, the deficit was about $200 billion for the quarter, which was about $800 billion for the year. The economy had turned around. And it didn’t cost Bush his second term.

    From time to time, there are people who understand how the system works enough to make intelligent comments about it and, in the case of Andrew Card, to do something about it. But then it kind of fades away.

    CL: One important thing that MMT predicted was that quantitative easing (QE) would not lead to runaway consumer price inflation, as many people feared. The idea you heard – and you still hear – a lot was that central banks were ‘printing money.’ And that this money was going to flood the economy and cause inflation… or even hyperinflation. But we’ve had seven years of global QE. And this still hasn’t happened. Why hasn’t QE led to consumer price inflation?

    WM: It depends how you define ‘money.’ The government is ‘printing money’ only under a very narrow definition of money supply.

    If you have your money in a checking account, and I have my money in a savings account, it’s not like you have money and I don’t. But when the government looks at the money supply, it counts the dollars in checking accounts – reserve accounts – as ‘money.’ But it doesn’t count the dollars in savings accounts – Treasury securities – as ‘money.’

    All central banks do under QE is buy somebody’s savings account and pay for it by putting money in their checking account. People say, ‘We’re adding to the money supply. We’ve added $4 trillion to the money supply.’

    But if you count the dollars in both accounts as money – like you’d count the dollars in your checking and savings accounts as money – nothing has changed. All that’s happened is people decided they’d rather the extra liquidity of a checking account instead of having a savings account, because the interest rate on their savings account was so low.

    QE just moved money from savings accounts to checking accounts. Somehow, central banks thought that was going to cause spending, and inflation, to rise. But it didn’t.

    CL: You refer to them as ‘checking accounts,’ but what exactly are bank reserves?

    WM: Reserves are just investments banks have at the Fed. They give the Fed money and earn a quarter of a percentage point [0.25%] in interest. Reserves are a liability of the Fed… and they’re a bank’s asset. It’s just like when a bank loans you money – the loan is your liability and the bank’s asset.

    CL: Why won’t banks ever lend their reserves to their customers?

    WM: Reserves are just assets that banks own. They’re loans to the Fed. People have that backward. You don’t loan out assets. There is no such thing.

    CL: So, how do banks make loans in the modern monetary system? I think there’s a lot of confusion over this point…

    WM: It’s simple. Banks make loans anytime they can find somebody to pay them more interest than their cost of funds. If a bank’s cost of funds is 0.25%… and it can lend to a big corporation at 1%… it’ll do it. It’ll make what’s called a ‘spread.’ Banks just try to make a spread against their cost of funds. It’s not about having money or not having money.

    Let’s say you go into your bank and borrow $100,000. You sign for the loan. The bank creates $100,000 that didn’t exist before and puts it in your account. But it’s not the bank’s money. It’s your money.

    The new money doesn’t belong to the bank that loaned it into existence. People act as though the banks are creating money for themselves. They’re not. Whoever borrows the money is the one who gets it, not the bank.

    CL: Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, recently gave a speech in which he talked about banning physical cash and then imposing negative interest rates on bank deposits to stimulate growth. Cash would allow you to escape the negative interest rates on bank deposits because you could always just put it under the mattress or whatever. So, Haldane also proposed banning cash to make negative interest rates more effective. Is that a good way to stimulate economic growth, in your view?

    WM: First, central bankers have got the interest rate thing backward. They think lowering rates will somehow stimulate the economy. But negative interest rates are just a tax. You start off with a certain amount of money – say, $100. If the rate is negative 1%, then you have $99 at the end of a year.

    How is taking money away from me supposed to stimulate the economy?

    CL: Aren’t central bankers channeling Keynes? As I understand it, they believe that seeing your money disappear like that will make you rush out and spend.

    WM: Right. But if you’re trying to save for retirement, all of a sudden you’ve got to save a lot more money because you’ve got a lot less income. Isn’t there some theory that says when people’s money goes away, and they have less, they spend less?

    CL: At what point do central bankers admit that lower interest rates aren’t working? Or do they just keep doubling down on something that’s clearly not working?

    WM: Somebody once said that economic theory changes one funeral at a time. Nobody really changes their minds. You’ve got to have somebody new coming in.

    This interview was conducted in 2014.

    [i] Peter Coy , Katia Dmitrieva and Matthew Boesler ‘Warren Buffett Hates It. AOC Is for It. A Beginner’s Guide to Modern Monetary Theory,’ Bloomberg, 21st of March, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-21/modern-monetary-theory-beginner-s-guide