As I record in a poem I wrote several years ago, there is a very real possibility that “I acquired my English via the BBC”.
I have a theory that the uncharacteristic Standard English dialect that my twin brother Wayne and I spoke as small boys was absorbed, sponge-like, from our exposure to BBC radio programming, beginning around March or April 1964, when we were conceived.
The Standard English vibrations that Wayne and I would have first experienced through the meta-Motherese maternal mechanisms of our mother’s womb was not the language of our home, which was located in Carrington Village, St Michael, on the outskirts of Barbados’ capitol, Bridgetown.
Our parents, Jeffrey and Lucille Campbell and our four sisters, Cheryl, Yvette, Suzanne and Ava all spoke the Creole, African languages influenced “Bajan” English dialect that Barbadian “father poet” Edward “Kamau” Brathwaite and other Afrocentric academics have dubbed “nation language”.
And yet Wayne and I conversed with each other in this foreign, Standard English tongue like two Ormesby born orphans, embedded with Black Barbadian parents.
Strangers would stop us on the streets of Carrington Village and ask us, “Where are you from? Were you born here, in Barbados?”
As best I can remember, we found these questions puzzling because as far as we were concerned, we were speaking the same Bajan English as everyone else.
And perhaps we did speak Bajan on many occasions.
Perhaps our use of a foreign, Standard variety of English was intermittent.
I cannot say for sure.
I only know that our “speaking great” (Bajan for speaking with a posh accent, and therefore thinking oneself better than others) aided our reading skills and that it was a counterbalance, once we started going to school, to our generally below average performance in Mathematics.
I have no doubt that our ability to speak and write a Standard variety of English was our redeeming grace, first at Carrington’s Primary School and subsequently, when our family eventually moved away from Carrington Village, at Bay Primary.
There were other dialects that emanated from the Rediffusion radio in my parent’s home in the early 1960s and 70s.
And I sometimes think that I may owe more than I can ever estimate to spiritual forces that were beamed via Rediffusion into our house on St Hill’s Road, as my father dutifully listened to broadcasts of sermons delivered by Arch Bishop Granville Williams, a pioneer among Barbadian, Trinidadian and other Caribbean Spiritual Baptists.
Similarly, my mother’s flirtation, like so many other Barbadians, with the American evangelical fundamentalist flavored, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association affiliated messages preached by Reverend Holmes Williams during his “Christ Is the Answer” broadcasts probably had a parallel impact.
But as I indicate in that poem, it is to the BBC that I instinctively trace the shaping of my early, Received Pronunciation or “Queen’s English” flavored proficiency in, what for better or worst, is the language of the Commonwealth.
So, when I say that I believe I owe a very substantial debt of gratitude to the BBC for all that I have achieved as a holistic communications and education specialist, trading as Intelek International, I mean just that.
And I am equally sincere when I say with equal parts anger and sadness that I believe that the BBC is a deeply damaged, moral bankruptcy bordering, gender, race, religion and other ideological poison propagating organization.
In other words, I believe that notwithstanding all the good that the BBC has done and continues to do, the organization is deeply flawed.
I believe that like the Bible, the BBC has the capacity to be a force for both good and evil.
Alternately, you could say that I love the BBC but I do not always like it.
And this Black History Month is as good a time as any to say that I love the BBC because of the good it has done and can continue to do for me and others like me.
Others including little Prince Archie, his mother Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and his father Prince Harry.
This Black History Month is also as good a time as any to say that I do not like the BBC when it facilitates evil, gender, race or religion motivated attacks against me, the Sussexes, the television presenter and journalist Naga Munchetty or anyone else.
And “more to the point”, as conservative political scientist Ruth Lea might say, though in a rather more prejudicial, less sound way, I believe that the legacy of the BBC bred, ethically “brain dead”, child abuse excelling sexual predator Jimmy Saville would have left no one in doubt about the BBC’s capacity to be a gender, race and religion racketeering opportunist if that establishment embedded sociopath’s evil crimes had been holistically investigated.
This Black History Month is as good a time as any to call for precisely such an investigation and I am doing so now.
I am calling particularly for a forensic study of Savile’s ties to the Roman Catholic church and his conscious or unconscious “co-conspirator” mother Agnes’ interactions with that institution.
I believe that like the “trademark mixture of gurning and garrulity” that Saville pioneered on Top Of the Pops, his reported “sequestering” of his mother’s corpse could hold important clues about a malformed, malignant Motherese attachment with precedents in the anal retentive propensities of Christianity and other excessively book-based religions.
I explore and denounce these “bookish theoric”, brain death inducing, anal retentive propensities in The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled, which I brought to the attention of the BBC’s complaints department on 5 October 2019.
A copy of that complaint is reproduced below.
The complaint is presented in some of the best “Queen’s English” I am capable of, and if I may say so myself, represents the gracious workings of the Spirit of God in my life from the time of Wayne’s and my conception, until now.
I believe it is the grace of God that allowed me to recognize the confusion of the UNWRITTEN New Covenant with the WRITTEN New Testament that is at the crux of the “banker bride” Lea’s apparent confusion about the nature and purpose of stoicism.
Is there a fundamental difference between the marathon running, wrestling Aryan strong man “channeling” prolific pedophile Savile’s motivating force and the fascist, fundamentalist feminist spirit that animated Lea’s criticism of Duchess Meghan and, indirectly, her infant son?
I do not think so.
The only question as far as I am concerned, is the extent to which Savile was and Lea is conscious of the destructive “dance dialectics” of their anima.
I have been raising these issues with Rev Harcourt Blackett and other clergy and lay members of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches in Barbados, the UK and US for a number of years.
I call on all people of good conscience to sign that petition for the benefit of humanity.
The BBC complaints department has responded to my complaint, asking for specific examples of the kind of the “deeply flawed, excessively literalistic concept of ‘objectivity'” that my complaint is about.
I might just send them a copy of this article, in the hope that it will help focus minds at that publicly funded corporation.
As the last two sentences of my complaint indicate, I am banking on the BBC, hoping it will desist from brain dead broadcasting and possum prone programming.
If it is not sure how, a recovering evangelical fundamentalist religious bigot myself, I can provide that corporation with practical examples.
My complaint to the BBC
Full Complaint: I am concerned that a deeply flawed, excessively literalistic concept of “objectivity” is exposing the BBC to manipulation by shadowy political and economic interests. I address this evangelical fundamentalist Christianity approximating, “Biblical bullying” resembling concept of objectivity in my book “The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled” and elsewhere. Here I will only say that it induces BBC personnel to engage in the kind of empty, exploitative word play that was used in the extraordinary error of judgement that recently led to presenter Naga Munchetty being censored for a perfectly legitimate expression of her opinion. I am particularly concerned that these manipulative, shadowy political and economic interests (whose destructive influence I have personally experienced) include persons hostile to the Duchess of Sussex and are complicit in a media wide attack on her, Prince Harry and their infant son. The clearest evidence of this hostility is some BBC reporters’ use of the word “attack” to describe Prince Harry’s patently peaceful attempts to defend his wife and child from excessively intrusive, toxic market driven media scrutiny and commodification of their life stories. The BBC’s sensationalist use of “attack”, like Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s use of “surrender” in concert with the Daily Mail and other publishing and/or broadcasting interests was particularly prominent on October 2, 2019. Martha Kearney and Nicholas Witchell led the way with her report, beginning at 35:54 in this recording: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0008wn6. Kearney’s apparently excessive pro-Brexit nationalism and Witchell’s past insensitivity when reporting on Princess Margaret’s death may both be relevant in this regard. Consciously or not, Kearney, Witchell and other BBC personnel are waging psychological warfare against various targets. Like my book, my 2016 complaint to the BBC (Ref: CAS-3217340-W3GQRP) provides evidence of this. I can help. Please let me.
BBC’s response (so far)
Reference CAS-########### Dear Junior,
Thank you for contacting the BBC.
I understand you have concerns the BBC is being manipulated by ‘political and economic interests’.
Your complaint is quite general and does not raise a very specific issue for us to reply to. We regret that at present we’re not able to reply, unless we receive specific examples such as programme names, dates and timestamps, relating to one point.
We appreciate that you have provided some specific information; but would stress that our framework requires a complaint to be limited to a single item or issue.
If you can provide this information please contact us as you did before, but also include the case number above so we can pick up where we’ve left off.
Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.
Kind Regards, ###### ########
BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).
I am publishing it here as a reference point for persons involved in ongoing, direct and indirect conversations I am having with neuroscientist Dr. Becky Inkster, the “writer, academic, itinerant scholar” Dr John Rapley, “retired” educator Mrs Janice Gurney (she’s still teaching me a thing or two) and other residents of Great Yarmouth and other Norfolk and wider England-based seaside towns who are demonstrating extraordinary resilience as the confidence undercutting currents of Brexit and other psychosocial phenomena take their toll on all of us.
Readers please note that I am probably just as surprised you by the reference in this parliamentary submission to purgatory, which suggests a conscious continuity between that reference last September and the more developed treatment of the purgatory theme in the article preceding this one, published on September 30.
That was not planned. I had forgotten about the reference to purgatory a year ago.
And then there is the reference in the last sentence to “transient storms” pounding our “psychological shores”.
Might there be a message here for Barbadian prime minister Mia Mottley and other prominent Barbadian feminist leaders of the global battle of the sexes about the intersection of coastal and cerebral environmental factors?
I think Ms Mottley, who made much of the vulnerability of Caribbean and other island states after the devastation hurricane Dorian inflicted on The Bahamas, would do well to consider the possibility of a measurable “chaos theory” link between climate change and disruptions in human ecology that she, Sir Elton John, Barack Obama and other conscious or unconscious gay rights orthodoxy advocates and their reactionary religious and secular opponents have spawned.
Mottley, Bahamian prime minister Hubert Minnis, Jamaica’s Andrew Holness, Trinidad and Tobago’s Keith Rowley, Guyana’s David Granger, St Lucia’s Allen Chastanet, Ralph Gonzalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica’s Roosevelt Skerrit, Antigua and Barbuda’s Gaston Browne, other Caribbean leaders and their counterparts in Africa, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, China, India, France, Africa and elsewhere would do well to note what in my view, is a more than merely metaphorical similarity between Dorian’s “abomination of desolation” devastation of The Bahamas, and the opportunistic, Cambridge Analytica recalling flash flooding of print and electronic media and other formal and informal information and education channels with a Dorianesque deluge of deeply cynical, truth disemboweling misinformation.
And I think married to money “banker bride economist” Ruth Lea’s clearly biased, bigoted verbal assault on the Duchess of Sussex, during today’s edition of Broadcasting House is a particularly flagrant example of the destructive capacity of such divisive misinformation.
Responding to journalist Sathnam Sangera’s expression of sympathy for Duchesss Meghan, as he suggested that there is “an element of racism” in the destructive Dorianesque coverage that has been unleashed on her, Prince Harry and their baby son Archie, Lea responded “Well, there may be. But I think more to the point that she has to accept, as a royal that she will have to behave as a royal and that does mean an awful lot of self-sacrifice, which she seems reluctant to do.”
This assertion of “the point” by the banking industry veteran Lea suggests an omniscience about the Duchess’ psychosomatic state and capacities that I think she will have difficulty justifying to any but her most bigoted, self-righteousness assuming anti-Meghan supporters.
Lea’s subtly aggressive, deeply arrogant assertion smacks of the “elements of fragmentation, inconsistency and incoherence” in the UK’s formal and informal communication and education channels that I identify in my letter to the House of Lords Committee below.
I assert that these social schizophrenia propagating, divide and rule elements are impacting negatively not only on the seaside city of Great Yarmouth but on communities throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr Junior Campbell – written evidence (RST0007)
My name is Junior (Jay) Campbell and I am a Norfolk, England-based Barbadian holistic communication and education specialist, trading as Intelek International.
Noting the Committee’s concern with issues around education, I write to share my observations about artificial divides that exist in coastal Norfolk’s “knowledge trading” structures and systems.
Drawing on a theory of cognitive and affective degeneration and renewal that I first articulated in my book The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled, I will be giving particular attention to the informal education channeled through virtually omnipresent 24-7-365-day radio and television broadcasts.
It is apparent to me, based on my more than 36 years formal and informal (self-directed) study of communication and education phenomena, that elements of fragmentation, inconsistency and incoherence in Norfolk’s formal and informal communication and education channels are impacting negatively not only on the seaside city of Great Yarmouth but on communities throughout the United Kingdom.
Moreover, based especially on my verbal communication work and wider interactions with Norfolk based churches, mosques and synagogues, Hellesdon Hospital, Wensum Valley Medical Practice, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norfolk Police and other organizations and individuals involved in the emergent mental health and religion marrying “Spiritual Emergency” movement, I believe that any efforts at regeneration in Great Yarmouth or anywhere else in Norfolk risk being eroded by divisive, degenerative psychosocial and sociopolitical currents that have been undermining Norfolk’s and the wider UK’s social cohesion for some time.
More than 12 years of interactions with various academics, business people, journalists, medical professionals, lawyers, police personnel, politicians, religious leaders and other Norfolk residents have led me to believe that these degenerative dynamics, characterized among other things by entrenched and opportunistic religious-secular antagonisms and competition, are reflected in the 2010 census branding Norfolk the most atheistic county in England.
Elliott cites a survey by the think tank Theos which declares the entire East of England “the most godless region of the UK.”
However, I believe that the 2011 census’ identification of Norwich as having “the highest proportion of the population reporting no religion at 42.5 per cent” is highly significant, pointing to a mentally divisive, schizophrenic understanding of both secular and religious systems of knowledge acquisition and transmission.
The typically poor performance of Norfolk schools is probably also evidence of this unhealthy, excessively competitive ideological environment in which the empathic and ethical dimensions of intelligence are de-emphasized.
The so-called affective or emotional dimensions of intelligence, the realm most crucial to the inner, psychic infrastructure of our self-awareness (and hence our capacity for resilience or personal regeneration), is apparently being devalued in Norfolk, as elsewhere in the UK, because of an excessive emphasis on cognitive intelligence: that aspect of intelligence that is evident in literacy, numeracy and related academic competencies.
Ancient and contemporary warnings of the dangers of literalism, which led the biblical author of 2 Corinthians 3:6 to warn that “the letter killeth” seem to be bearing little fruit in Norfolk, despite the claims of influential individuals and organizations based here to dependence on rigorous empirical research (that is, “scientific method”), on one hand, and deep religious faith on the other.
Both secular and religious thinkers seem to be struggling to come to terms with the dangers of intolerance of ambiguity: thinkers on both sides of that historical chasm seem prone to the folly of coast conscribing certainty in spheres of thought prone to conceptual erosion.
This inflexibility or brittle belief seems especially, but not exclusively apparent, in the realm of secular education, where the concept of faith is systemically frowned upon, consciously or unconsciously, and viewed as being at variance with and even inevitably inimical to rational thought.
And this is despite the clear operation of a secular humanist species of faith operating, for good or ill, in the academic arena.
Through interactions with “Creative Entrepreneurship” guru Ian Chance, Development Studies specialist Cecile Jackson and other lecturers and students at the University of East Anglia, I have detected evidence of a type of adherence to or conformity with the dictates of certain secular academic “apostles” or authorities that seems as highly prized as and otherwise indistinguishable from the corresponding conceptual boundaries erecting force of authoritative personalities, creeds and notions of “orthodoxy” in the religious realm.
And I may have occasion here or elsewhere to explore the rather disappointing Kalibank suggestion of one female academic that this virtually religious deference in secular academic contexts is a hang-over from male patriarchal dominance of Western education systems – as though men invented anal retentive pedagogies that promote divisive notions of faith and reason (Please note that I have raised this matter in a letter to the Committee on Gender and Equalities. The age old, interminable “battle of the sexes” certainly seems central to the diachronic and synchronic transmission of belief and knowledge systems, as the lives and work of RD Laing, Karl Jung and others from the field of psychology suggest.)
Alternately, on the other side of the same corrupted communication coin, there is evidence of an excessive reliance on “common sense” or communal knowledge and an indifference or, in worst case scenarios, outright hostility toward so-called “book learning” among Norfolk residents.
Here again, divisive, fragmentary, essentially literalistic, binary ideas about the nature and workings of the knowledge trade are the central feature.
Hence, the secular-religious knowledge divide is replaced by a common sense versus book learning antagonism, with terms like “local knowledge” and “education” being confused with the phenomena they refer to.
Overall, the elements of fragmentation, inconsistency and incoherence in both Norfolk’s secular and religious, formal and informal communication and education channels recalls the values confusion I, Barbadian political scientist Dr George Belle and others have commented on in relation to our island home’s transition to “developed” nation status.
And as in Barbados, the role of the electronic and print media in consolidating divisive, fragmentary knowledge acquisition (typically at the behest of various, competing political, religious, commercial and idiosyncratic interests) is crucial.
As economic historian and former Labour Party MP Tristram Hunt implies through the inclusion of Barbados in his ten cities that have built the British empire, Barbados’ psychic or “cosmological” coastal conundrum makes this purgatorial outpost of contrarian political, religious, gender and other currents a useful, microcosmic object of study for much that happens in Britain.
I would welcome an opportunity not only to discuss these and related matters further with the Select Committee, but also to share solutions I and others have been developing to meet the challenges of social dissolution and disintegration.
They and I have been developing “technologies of trust” to preserve both Barbados’ and Britain’s fragile domestic and external relations as the terrors and tremors of Brexit, the Trump presidency and other transient storms pound our psychosocial shores.
Junior (Jay) Campbell
What is the purpose of education? What treasures are in its gift?
Why would a woman of multi-award winning American actress Felicity Huffman’s achievements and reputation risk all that she has attained to secure access to education’s treasury for her offspring through criminal rule breaking?
I note that the Desperate Housewives star gave both her daughters the middle-name Grace, which is apparently consistent with Huffman’s own wealthy Christian family upbringing.
And yet when one scratches beneath the surface one rapidly comes to the conclusion that there is a nagging poverty and sense of skepticism at the heart of Huffman’s narrative.
In the adulterous or otherwise “illegitimate” circumstances of her birth, her battle with both anorexia and bulimia, her on-and-off relationship with her similarly successful actor husband and other biographical and biological details one can detect a desperation that predicted her current, hopefully ultimately healing and therefore transient disgrace.
I certainly see scope for Huffman, her husband William H Macy and their two daughters to rise Phoenix-like from the rubble of their scandalous education escalator rule breaking.
As I hinted in a private message to a member of their stellar family recently, while they may now feel like they have descended to the fraudsters filled eighth circle of hell, as depicted in the medieval Italian poet Dante’s Inferno, it may be more accurate and probably much more helpful to see themselves as passing through a version of that thirteenth century Italian mystic’s concept of purgatory.
And just as Bahamian prime minister Dr Hubert Minnis is urging Bahamians grieving the deaths and devastation that hurricane Dorian inflicted on their country to be encouraged by the seeming invincibility of the red and white Elbow Cay Lighthouse that has remained standing on Great Abaco island, I am urging the Huffman-Macy collective to seek the hurricane resistant lighthouse in their particular circumstances.
Sincere felicitations Felicity (or ‘What’s in a name?’)
And in this regard I would urge the family to reflect on Huffman’s first name: Felicity.
The focus in this philosophical use of the word is on the appropriateness of a specific speech act.
So as The Free Dictionary explains the performative “I appoint you ambassador” can only possess or be impregnated or populated with felicity if uttered by one in whom the authority for such appointments is vested.
I am taking this philosophical sense of felicity further, in concert with the medieval mystic Dante, and the renaissance rationalist Rene Descartes simultaneously, however unlikely that may seem.
I am taking a more theological than philosophical view of the name Felicity, and in this particular instance imbuing it with both ancient and modern, religious and secular labels transcending, real politik significance.
For me, felicity is rooted ultimately in the sovereignty of God and the grace to which every family tossed on the rough seas of life can lay claim.
According to this faith regenerating rubric, which I present as a conscience based New Covenant phenomenon in my book The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciledand elaborate on more extensively in the next article in this series, the felicity of Felicity’s words is therefore not dependent solely on her intent.
However, this divine sovereignty focused understanding of the word felicity, which is consistent with the long accepted use of the word to mean “good fortune”, does not exclude the possibility of human agency and responsibility.
It simply acknowledges that we cannot always measure and apportion it.
Just as we cannot always measure the fruit of education because intelligence is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, whatever the consciously or unconsciously Aryan supremacist science supporting geneticist James Watson, or his detractors in the African supremacist science supporting community may say.
And I think the contemporary denunciation of “whiteness” by black reverse racist reactionaries and their white academic allies, equating whiteness with everything that is backward or unwholesome, is peculiarly pernicious and carcinogenic.
It seems that the citadel of cerebral supremacy, like the Kingdom of God, a Christian theological parallel, will ever suffer the violence of academic politics.
Like Huffman, those who rationalize violence in thought, word, or deed, like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, his University of the West Indies strategic ally Sir Hillary Beckles, the Brexit Party politician and Academy of Ideas founder Clare Fox, and most alarmingly, the current British prime minister and his conscious or unconscious counterpart facilitators in the United States, Israel, Palestine, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Venezuela, Barbados and elsewhere first violate themselves.
By this ethical scale of interpretation Huffman’s and the other education system perverting fraudsters’ behavior may be seen for what it is in its most naked state: a kind of self rape.
But as professor Mary Beard of the University of Cambridge, a maximal Mariologist, arguably, has demonstrated despite a similar testing, it remains in Huffman’s and her family’s capacity to turn this tragic scandal into a watershed winning life lesson, if not a cause célèbre.
I am not sure what Czech-born philosopher, writer and journalist Vilém Flusser may have made of it, but I suspect that there is more than a coincidence in the “photo twinning” (below) of University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles’ ethical inking of a reparations deal with the University of Glasgow and the UWI Chancellor Robert Bermudez’s visit to The Bahamas in July.
In hindsight, informed by a mindfulness of UWI’s susceptibility to the kind of scholastic skulduggery that Jeffrey Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell practiced, Bermudez’s Bahamas visit could be construed as a premonitory prelude to the death and devastation that hurricane Dorian has inflicted on that multi-island state.
The “biblical” battering that Dorian inflicted on the the majority black Bahamian populace may be construed as a signal of the perversity of Sir Hilary’s signing of a pact with the University of Glasgow which risks giving legitimacy to the mind boggling bigotry that he, David Comissiong and other morally bankrupt or ethically disabled/handicapped Afrocentric advocates have allowed to pollute Caribbean people’s legitimate claims to reparations for the inhumane brutality and related excesses of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
As I have previously documented, Beckles and other reparations campaigners have injudiciously turned a deaf ear to my own and others warnings of the injustices that rapacious, reverse racist mishandling of the legitimate claims of many Caribbean people to redress for that trade’s brutality and lethal legacies risks.
Indeed, Dorian’s “abomination of desolation” approximating depopulation of Abaco island and other Bahamian residential spaces could be construed as a manifestation of divine justice for key Bahamians’ complicity in Beckles’ and others’ hijacking of the legitimate claims of people everywhere, in every era of human history to justice and peace.
The relative diversity of the Bahamian population is notable in this respect. The country’s majority black population can be considered a demographic gloss, concealing submerged wheels within wheels of Pan African, Pan European, Pan Caribbean (including indigenous American Indian) and other complementary and conflicting interests.
And by key Bahamians, I mean persons who, like Beckles, Comissiong and Barbados prime minister Mia Mottley in the Barbadian context, are failing to use the lofty positions that they have ascended to, to properly look out for and care for the welfare of all in their societies.
And McGarvey’s possible struggle reconciling his idea of personal resilience with his patent partiality toward a socialist world view is reminiscent of my own, to some extent.
It also recalls the vaginal vacuity of Beckles’, Selma James’ and other Marxist model muddled economic historians’, fundamentalist feminists’, carnivorous capitalists and other inflexible ideologues’ failures to engage meaningfully with women’s role in reproduction and child-rearing as the nucleus of matriarchal power and authority.
Where is the Giraffe’s mother?
Has she abandoned it?
Or might it have followed her into a social mobility trap?
McGarvey’s metaphor recalls the failure of bioarcheologist Stacy Hackner and other “science communicators” to recognize how women’s primary partnering role in procreation is undermined by the institutional excesses of scholastic, commercially co-opted and related fascist tendencies and vulnerabilities of an emergent, evangelical Christianity mirroring, homosexual experience homogenizing gay rights orthodoxy.
And anyone familiar with the desolation of the dancing Quaker population in the United States through their own puritanical, insular, homo-ideological marital policies will appreciate the validity of comparing them with fundamentalist evangelical homosexual advocates like Sir Elton John immediately (I may have opportunity to address the role of William Sayle and other British Puritan settlers in the evolution of Bahamian society elsewhere).
He may not have anticipated it anymore than Flusser might have anticipated my metaphysical “appropriation” of his photographic phenomenology, but the Glaswegian McGarvey’s baby giraffe resilience reference coincides with and complements the investigation of Dorian’s depopulation of The Bahamas rather providentially.
It certainly facilitates the floating of notions of homo-ideological bloating that attach to the submersion and subversion of the notion of biological motherhood, and by extension, the prominence of women in communication, through their role in early childhood language development: their role as propagators of what I and other linguists call Motherese.
And I am convinced that the conscious or unconscious devaluation of Motherese and other high sensitivity dependent communication skills by Hackner, Sir Elton, Stephen Fry, Beckles, his Garveyite theological comrade Robert Beckford and others is in large measure a manifestation of their own “baby giraffe in quicksand distress”.
Sir Elton’s insatiable appetite for media attention and festive flooding of parental vacuums in his life through his much documented conspicuous consumption points to such distress, surely.
Just as current British prime minister Boris Johnson’s “big girl’s blouse” insults point to a rather childish preoccupation with physical strength and a corresponding, “complementary” failure to value the soft power of vaginal, feminine vulnerability.
But unlike the speculative coordinates between the Beckles and Bermudez photo twinning, a serendipitous event facilitated by UWI’s alumni connecting Nexus magazine, a mapping of the links between Britain’s submersion and subversion of the careful, care-filled conversation that is mothering and the instructively named Johnson’s Bin-Lorry-Bin-Ladin Harry Clarke recalling hard Brexit strategy can be established rather easily.
I note that the flooding of the Bahamian employment market with doctors, was raised by Bahamian Minister of Education Jeffrey Lloyd when Bermudez visited, as reported in this news story.
Can there be a clearer demonstration of the cost of inadequate social mobility strategies?
And the perverse profiteering of some Bahamian pilots reported in this article recalls some of the worst race racketeering, exploitative, decency outraging behavior I witnessed in 2001, not least when Comissiong, Aaron “Buddy” Larrier and other Pan Africanist reparations campaigners turned on me, because I insisted that the role of Africans in the slave trade as traders should be fully ventilated.
Comissiong’s claim to African identity is as tenuous as Jimmy Savile’s was to altruism I think.
But Comissiong remains a darling of Diane Abbott, “Sista Doctor” Sandra Richards, Beckles and other academics, journalists, politicians and others who control the Caribbean’s mainstream news feeds.
People like Barbados Today publisher Peter Harris, the Barbados adopted “Black Bajan” of Indian ancestry.
. “Calling it another ‘elephant in the room’, Minister Lloyd addressed the concern of subvention payments for Bahamian students attending UWI. He suggested that there is an uncertainty of whether all students who are receiving those subventions are actually Bahamians. Both the Minister and Chancellor agreed that a system needs to be put in place to ensure that only qualified students are accepted, and benefiting from such subventions,” the article reporting on Chancellor Bermudez’s visit to the Bahamas reads.
Might Bermudez, a prominent Trinidad and Tobago born business leader fingered by Beckles for the top position at UWI have spoken the tropical system that birthed Dorian into existence unconsciously?
If we accept the link proposed by chaos theory between the flapping of a butterflies wings and the development of hurricanes like Dorian, does it not also make sense to consider the consequences of plosives and other linguistic disturbances of the physical cosmos by our verbal utterances?
To what extent might it be said that Beckles, Bermudez and other elites presiding over UWI, do so like the destroyer Dorian, which sat over The Bahamas penetrating her deeply?
To what extent might it be fair to say that the Bahamas was seduced and raped by a false sense of security?
And what lessons may those of us who see the hand of God in acts of nature learn from this Bahamian depopulation or desolation tragedy?
This view is rather simplistic and does not take account of the influence that Barbadian politicians, business people, religious leaders and other solitary or celebrity figures can exert, openly or secretly, like Epstein and Maxwell, on international affairs.
Might a phenomenological, chaos theory based study of former Barbados government minister and “porn prince” Donville Inniss’ activities over the past several years put him in the path that hurricane Dorian traced from Africa to the Caribbean?
Or taking a longitudinal meta-linguistic approach, what might we deduce from Dorian’s visitation of devastation upon The Bahamas if we study it as a fractal photographic commentary on the legacy of that country’s controversial “Father of the Nation” Sir Lynden Pindling?
Apologies to all who may find my metaphysical analysis painful.
I mourn with those who mourn, truly.
Condolences to the people of The Bahamas.
May you find the grace of God in this time of need.
On the night of Friday, July 26 2019, two fourteen year old girls were sexually “assaulted” by an adult male as they sat chatting on a beach in Caleta de Fuste, a resort town on Fuerteventura, one of Spain’s Canary Islands, located off northwestern Africa.
I use the word “assaulted” tentatively because while one of the girls, Shona Corbett was repeatedly touched on her shoulder, neither her nor her friend Lily Campbell (my daughter) suffered physical harm.
Their injury was mainly psychological, as they were made to fear for their safety. The incident may therefore satisfy the legal definition of assault, at least as far as the English legal system is concerned.
One online dictionary defines assault thus: “At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
But the legal and language difference challenges are just the start of the communication and conceptual hurdles I am having to overcome in dealing with this matter.
The duty of responding to the assault as a parent intersects in complex ways with the burden of responding to assaults against my own person.
That duty is compounded by the burden of responding to Barclays Bank’s robotic, consciously or unconsciously racist, rapacious psychological offensive and other psychological assaults that I have suffered both before my visit to Fuerteventura and since my return to Brexiting Britain’s hostile environs.
Add to this complexity my mindfulness of my duty to prosecute the Fuerteventura incident as a matter of principle, for the protection of other children with whom that offender may come into contact, as I pointed out to Deborah Edginton, the Caleta De Fuste councilor for tourism, beaches, accessibility and citizen participation, and the weight of my intersecting ethical burdens become more apparent.
And yet amid the swarm of concurrent responsibilities, as I navigate the hurrying and harrying of this hurricane-like intersection of personal and social responsibilities I have access to the peace of the eye in the storm.
I have a sense of both the crisis and opportunity of this historical moment, as I recently indicated to a Norfolk and Suffolk Victim Support counselor who is helping me respond to the careless, and even reckless conversation behavior that I and others have been warning our contemporaries about for millennia.
I told her that while it is clear to me that some people in the UK seem keen to follow Israel’s and India’s examples in officially relegating some of their residents and/or citizens to a “sub-universal-human-rights” entitlement level, I will be honoring the commitment to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights for which Errol Walton Barrow, Barbados’ ‘Father of Independence’ fought in World War II.
I am mindful of the violence being done to Barrow’s legacy, consciously or unconsciously, by the pedophile grooming approximating excesses of University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles, demagogue-turned-diplomat David Comissiong, morally muddled educator Dr Sandra Richards’ and Garveyite apartheid approving academic theologian Dr Robert Beckford.
From my perspective, whatever legitimacy their and others’ rudimentary reparations advocacy and related African identity politicking may have achieved through the University of Glasgow’s embracing of their campaign does not detract from the great harm that hubris hardened advocacy has done.
I see very little ethical difference between that Spanish pedophile’s despicable sexual objectification of my daughter and her friend and the racial objectification that professor Beckles, Comissiong and others are subjecting present and past generations of Caribbean people to in pursuit of their “smash and grab” rape of Caribbean people’s reparations conversation.
And my use of words employed by England’s Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to describe the current British prime minister Boris Johnson’s audacious silencing of the British Parliament through prorogation is not accidental.
In September 2018 University of Glasgow historians professor Simon Newman and Dr Stephen Mullen published Slavery, Abolition and the University of Glasgow, a report which quantified financial gains of that university from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and recommended a programme of reparations.
Are they aware that the “Call and Response” exhibition which, according to its website “intends to continue the conversation by widening the range of responses to the archives, books and objects held in the University Library and The Hunterian” is in fact perpetuating the silencing of my and other critics of professor Beckles and other reparations hardliners voices?
The curators of the exhibition ask “What lessons can we learn from studying the cultural legacy of previous generations of University of Glasgow staff and students?”
Might they be willing to hear the lessons about racially motivated academic objectification and rape that I can share with them on the basis of the marginalization and mental anguish I have been subjected at the hands of Beckles and others who control UWI’s reparations research program?
Intriguingly, the assault on my daughter and her friend by the pedophile who, based on his appearance, I believe is in his late 50s or early 60s, occurred not long after the youthful Spanish band Postcode performed a song calling for better communication and understanding between their own and previous generations.
Might they be interested in the parallels I could show them between pro-slavery advocates’ discreditable, selective human rights arguments and conduct, Johnson’s coup like, predatory prorogation of Parliament and the legal and language challenges that have harried my pursuit of justice for Lily and her friend Shona so far?
Might University of Glasgow principal and Vice Chancellor professor Anton Muscatelli and others at that esteemed institution be remotely interested in engaging with alternative visions of reparatory justice, like the one I have been developing around the Gnubia Bank project.
Or might they consciously or unconsciously prefer to follow Barclays Bank, the pedophile “prorogating” Fuerteventura’s positive tourism prospects and others who perpetrate cruelty and degradation against vulnerable persons in defiance of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and similar, universally attested principles of care filled, careful conversation.
I note that the University of Glasgow was founded by papal bull in 1451. m
Might that university’s links to dead letter dicta of the Holy Roman Empire of old be playing some role today, as they apparently did in times past, when its profiting from the slave trade it objected to occured?
Might that university be interested in learning the lessons that I am arguably best positioned to teach them about principles of care filled, careful conversation, whether those principles exist in written (New Testament) or unwritten (New Covenant) form?
I have two bank accounts with Barclays Bank. One is a business account and the other is a personal account.
But the conduct of some Barclays personnel has led me to consider closing both of those accounts.
Two of these Barclays employees have acted with such bewildering bigotry and extreme prejudice that they have compounded the sense of threat that I live with every day as a member of the Black Minority Ethnic (BME) community bracing for the belligerent, buccaneering British prime minister Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit.
The matter is currently with the Financial Ombudsman. Following is an extract of my complaint to that financial industry watchdog. I share these and other details of my Brexodus (Brexiting Britain) journey pursuant to my own cathartic writing and publishing processes and for the benefit of others in both the BME and wider, White British society who might find themselves in similar circumstances.
On July 5th 2019 I was bullied by a Barclays branch manager in Norfolk into accepting a dismissive, insulting monetary settlement for a complaint I had raised with that bank.
Having started out as a conciliatory conversation that made me feel heard and validated, my approximately 20 minute interaction with the Barclays Bank manager deteriorated into a deeply denigrating, intimidating experience.
Mr Blackman, known as “Marine A” achieved notoriety when he summarily executed a wounded, defenseless enemy combatant in a grotesque show of “bravado” for two of his marine subordinates.
The manager’s excessively assertive, Marine-A-mimicking behavior unfolded when I requested some time to think, after she asked me to put a monetary figure on the inconvenience, anxiety and distress I had suffered because of some of her call center colleagues’ negligence.
Her colleagues had basically given me very bad advice leading to me not having card access to my bank account just as I was about to take my daughter on a four hour trip, to compete in a cheer leading competition.
I had already explained that I expected to be refueling my car at least once during the trip, so I would need card access to my money for that reason.
Dismissing my request for more time, the Norfolk branch manager refused me the opportunity to reflect on what I had gone through.
Asserting that Barclays has a standard quantum of compensation that they award in the circumstances, she left me with the impression that if I did not accept her offer, no compensation was available.
I therefore reluctantly accepted her offer on that basis.
However, as I reflected on her conduct over the next few days, I became increasingly dismayed at the way she had spoken to and treated me.
I felt prejudged and treated with disdain – like the vulnerable, wounded man that Blackman killed.
And if my comparison of the treatment I suffered with that of someone who was brutally killed seems extreme, think about what daily life can be like for a child victim of rape or a similarly “walking wounded” individual whose efforts to obtain justice are being persistently derailed and frustrated by people in positions of authority (police, politicians, journalists, religious clerics, for example).
I felt that despite asking me what I thought would be fair monetarily, the bank manager had assessed my worth and was determined to impose a settlement based on her own limited knowledge and value judgement.
I therefore raised the matter with Barclays via their Twitter customer service on Sunday, July 7th.
And as I informed the Financial Ombudsman earlier today, in my lay law opinion, the branch manager’s behavior may even amount to fraud by abuse of position or criminal negligence.
This opinion was strengthened by subsequent interaction with a Barclays level 2 complaint handler.
After explaining to that Barclays employee that if I had been allowed time to think, I probably would have sought to engage the bank in a mutually respectful and beneficial process, in line with the “Technologies Of Trust” project that I had already introduced to Barclays marketing department last year, that complaints handler accused me of trying to bribe the bank.
Could there have been a more poisonous, communication polluting characterization of my efforts to be conciliatory and constructive?
Is the concept of an articulate, intelligent and authentically generous spirited Black man so alien to Barclays?
Who is Barclays Bank confusing me with?
Is there some information in the data that Barclays holds about me that might justify that level 2 complaints handlers’ characterization of my “Technologies of Trust project as an exercise in bribery?
What could justify that characterization of a project I was hoping to collaborate with Barclays marketing department on as criminal enterprise, and me a fraud?
Why would Barclays pollute the the “oxygen of publicity” I sought to share with it?
“So how’s it going at work?” It’s a common question. The kind of question which normally opens a nice warm catch up between friends. But if you are a non-white academic, the question carries a different connotation.
You might respond to it with an eye-roll and a sigh, which tells your friend what they already know – work isn’t going well at all. For years I have been having this same conversation. It begins with that question. And just like that, we share.
We share the all too recognisable stories of racism. The frustrations and the relief that we are not alone, paranoid, or being unreasonable. These conversations equipped me mentally, they prepared me practically, and in doing so they have helped me to survive my workplace for the past 12 years.
But as I continued in my academic career, I soon got to thinking about all those people who were unable to share, who haven’t had the luxury of having others to speak to, who have felt alone, excluded and isolated. And so the foundations of my research began, as I sought to speak to those silent voices who as yet have not had the opportunity to fully communicate the depth and complexity of their answer to the question: “So how is work?”
The fact is everyday racism is hiding behind a string of superficial tag lines that have come to brand universities across the UK. Myths about the “liberal” university can often be seen touted in marketing brochures, job announcements, and website pages, promoting the values and responsibilities of the institution.
Myth 1: Universities encourage inclusivity and diversity
Myth 2: Universities invest in non-white academics
Myth 3: Universities are “post-racial”
Myth 4: Universities desire curriculum reform
Myth 5: Universities are committed to race equality
Beyond these false advertising scams, the real message is clear and simple: racism in British universities is endemic. Academic research has pointed to this fact for well over a decade. Alongside the studies, there is also a catalogue of data that explicitly shows the bleak prospects for non-white academics. For example, statistics around Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) representation in universities continue to demonstrate that non-white academics are marginalised from British universities.
This article is part of Conversation Insights
The Conversation’s Insights team generates long-form journalism derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges. In generating these narratives we hope to bring areas of interdisciplinary research to a wider audience.
Data generated from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in 2012-2013 revealed that out of 17,880 professors, only 85 were black, 950 were Asian, 365 were “other” (including mixed race). The majority of 15,200 were white.
As a result of this skewed landscape, non-white academics are on the whole less likely to be shortlisted, appointed, or promoted in comparison to their white counterparts. In addition to this, it has been reported that BME academics at top universities across Britain earn on average 26% less than their white colleagues.
The data is therefore showing us that very little has been done to encourage progress and racial equality in British universities. The failure of senior managers to accept or even acknowledge the existence of systematic racism operating in their universities, departments and boardrooms is where the heart of the problem lies. My research exposes the entrenched practices of structural and everyday forms of racism in the white academy.
I conducted 20 in-depth interviews ranging from early career, mid-career, and advanced career academics, working either as lecturers or researchers, on permanent, part-time or fixed-term contracts. I spoke with a fairly equal mix of male and female respondents, and they came from a range of racial, ethno-national, and religious groups based at Russell Group and post-1992 universities across Britain.
The research is a collection of different voices. These people shared with me their pain, their strength, their challenges, their courage, and their resistance to racism in the academy. Whether in their office, or in a coffee shop, the conversations flowed. For some, it was like they needed the space to finally get things off their chest – a kind of therapy session, where they could speak about their experiences in the academy.
There were tears, sometimes from them, and at other times from me. There was also a sense of defiance, perseverance, and hope. Some conversations were particularly emotional and harder than others. On some occasions, hours and even days after they had taken place, I found myself replaying their experiences in my head, overcome with a deep feeling of sadness that our bodies had all been injured in some way or another by systemic, structural, and symbolic manifestations of racism in our universities.
Subtle practices of racism in the form of micro-aggressions are often more challenging because they operate against the common sense understanding of racism as easily identifiable. My interviews reveal the way in which micro-aggressions – the everyday slights and indignities non-white people encounter all the time – are intensely bound up with forms of structural “liberal” racism.
In the British university setting, liberal racism is perhaps the most dominant form of racism practised by white faculty staff members. For Eduardo Bonilla Silva, professor of Sociology at Duke University, liberal racism – or what he characterises as “colourblind racism” – takes the form “racism lite” or “smiling face discrimination”.
What is essentially being described here is the idea of the “post-racial” which signals an apparent “end” of racism. This post-racial logic has steadily cemented itself into the very culture of our universities. The idea that we are “over race” is precisely how racism is sustained. This manifests itself in the dismissal or trivialisation of racism and operates to both facilitate and embolden it. The liberal, post-racial culture of denial, which my interviewees say is operating in British universities, has meant the daily realities of racism experienced by non-white academics are obscured, as white faculty members are unable to conceive themselves as perpetrators of racism.
As one said:
Racism is much more insidious in HE (Higher Education). It’s this idea that they don’t want to look bad that gets to me the most.
The notion that white colleagues are more nuanced in their exercise of racism – as they are keen to present themselves as “nice”, “respectable” and “tolerant” people –- was also echoed by another respondent:
People in academia are a bit smarter, they’re more subtle and they understand what they can’t say. Everything is just a bit more institutionalised. But you get the sense that it’s also the place where things are unchecked. I think in general people try to be nice and they want to be nice but they have all these ingrained biases.
‘Sometimes it’s just so damn subtle’
My participants frequently felt that such enactments of liberal racism produced hidden forms of differential treatment, which in most cases could not be placed as direct discrimination due to their very subtleties. Another academic told me:
The problem with the day-to-day encounters of racism is that it’s difficult to pinpoint them down. I’ve felt that I’ve not been included a number of times, or I am the last person to be consulted on something. Sometimes it’s just so damn subtle. It’s in the gestures, it’s in what’s not said.
Feelings of otherness, marginality, and white discomfort around difference, were all common, everyday experiences. Those I spoke to shared examples of their names being mispronounced by white staff members, being mistaken for the only other academic of colour in the department and being made to feel both visible and invisible at the same time.
These daily realities are indicative of the racism lurking beneath the “liberal” university, in which white colleagues like to claim that they are tolerant, and certainly not racist. But the examples given by my interviewees show that when confronted with these situations they can only revert back to their ingrained biases.
My participants went on to point out that the lack of other minorities within the institution produced feelings of alienation and discomfort as they were positioned as “outsiders”:
I always feel like an outsider in the academy … like I am the only one … my experience of the academy is that I’m a black man in a white world. All it takes is for you to go to a meeting and you immediately realise that the one thing that is missing here is colour – there is no colour … it’s a colourless environment.
Teaching and decolonising the curriculum
The classroom is often thought to represent a “safe space” that encourages critical learning and the exchange of ideas. But it would be naive to simply suggest the classroom is free from antagonism because it sits within the broader university environment which is structured by institutional racism.
In fact, my research demonstrates how the classroom can often become a key site in which white students may express feelings of resentment and guilt, as well as a place to confront their privilege. One respondent recalled:
A white male undergraduate student challenged me on a series of issues when I explained the topic of political violence. He started to ask questions and make points that were Islamophobic. He was talking about child molestation by the Prophet Muhammad, how Islam had been a religion spread by the sword, how Muslims believed in female genital mutilation, and so on. I was constantly having to explain and defend a religion of over a billion people, because somehow in the eyes of the student, I was Islam. So I found that to be a really uncomfortable experience.
All my participants said they were made to feel as though they lacked authority and credibility by many of their students. The notion of having to “prove” themselves was an experience that came up time and again. These incidents demonstrate the insidious workings of racism at play, whereby non-white academics have to almost always go the extra mile to prove their competence.
For example, another participant recalled how students “snigger”, “roll their eyes” and walk out of their classes and how uncomfortable this makes them:
I start sweating, I start rushing my material and I just want to get it over with because it’s such a horrible experience. They make out over and over again that I don’t know what I’m talking about, or that I’m biased and it makes me extremely uncomfortable.
From direct insults, to accusations of being biased, my interviews reveal that for some non-white academics, teaching can be a challenging experience. By being made to feel as though they lack authority or having to prove themselves, non-white academics encounter disruptive behaviour that is fundamentally racialised in nature.
The inability of the largely white student body to critically reflect upon their own histories, practices, and structures of oppression is symptomatic of white privilege, white entitlement and a lack of awareness of other cultures in general.
This suggests the need for universities to take seriously calls to decolonise the curriculum as a way to dismantle discourses and practices that reaffirm white superiority. Currently, intellectual agendas in British universities operate to maintain a narrow, inward looking perspective that reinforces the logics of Orientalism (the Western attitude that views Eastern societies as exotic, primitive, and inferior).
The call to decolonise seeks to equip students with more complex and critical understandings of global debates and issues as a way to generate more productive and insightful accounts, beyond eurocentric narratives. Decolonising the curriculum is vital to both the transformation of higher education and the development of inclusive, non-hostile spaces where difference is respected, not denigrated.
But beneath these jamborees the reality is dire. My respondents shared their experiences of being unsupported in applications for promotion, a lack of mentoring, job insecurity, and an overwhelming sense of being undervalued. The obstacles and challenges that they have encountered in relation to hiring practices and career progression are immense and for the most part appear impossible to overcome. One of my interviewees said:
I don’t get the support networks, I don’t get the mentoring, but I get overburdened with teaching. I don’t see a future where I will progress. I see my white colleagues being encouraged, but that never seems to happen to me. There really is no support. It’s dismal.
Both my research and my own personal experience have shown that non-white academics are at a real loss without proper mentoring. It is so often the case that we go to other non-white academics (externally and informally), who take on mentoring in an unofficial capacity. This support has often been crucial for us, however, at the same time – as my respondents pointed out – it is utterly disgraceful that they have had to actively seek support in other places as a result of their own institutions failing to provide them with sufficient or appropriate mentoring.
Feelings of being “expendable” or “disposable” were common across my interviewees who frequently said employment opportunities tended to be “rigged” in favour of white candidates.
The inability to access (white) hidden rules or (white) hidden networks was a common experience across my interviews. The academics felt their future prospects, particularly in terms of promotion, were negatively impacted as a consequence. One said:
I’ve always struggled to know what the rules are. I’ve gone to sessions on what you need to do to get promoted, but I think there’s a whole set of hidden rules that I don’t know or that I can’t find out and that’s frustrating.
It comes as no surprise then that many of my respondents, despite having all the skills and knowledge, often found themselves continuously blocked from promotion and career advancement opportunities that were frequently afforded to their less established, white peers.
Another respondent commented:
I know people are less experienced than me, who might have a similar role, but are on higher pay and at a higher grade. I look at the rate at which white colleagues are promoted and I often think how have they got that? I thought promotion was to be based on your value and what you put in, and it seems that isn’t the case. This is definitely about race.
Meanwhile another academic said:
We have to be exceptional just to be ordinary. And I’m so sad this has manifested in higher education the way that it has. There’s no reprieve for us, there’s no meritocracy.
Discriminatory practices are entrenched within the university environment. My respondents felt that no amount of achievements could surpass whiteness, in other words, meritocracy in the academy is a myth. If non-white academics are to feel truly valued and supported then a series of structural, intellectual, and ethical obligations, must be implemented in higher education to ensure advancement and inclusion for all.
There must be a commitment across the university sector that recognises racism as a fundamentally structural issue. This means engaging with strategies that actively promote the inclusion of non-white academics and students (including those who are classified as international) to ensure that their needs are being addressed appropriately.
Those of us from non-white backgrounds working and studying within British universities are quite simply fed up of the racism that we continue to endure on a daily basis. If universities are serious about tackling racism, discrimination and under-representation they must take the following steps.
1) Senior management must set annual targets to increase BME representation. To ensure this process is formalised, they must implement a systematic monitoring unit to measure hiring rates of BME staff and student admissions against targets. Regular audits of the data must be made available to all staff and failure to meet quotas should result in penalties.
2) Race equality needs to be on the agenda in every department across every university in the UK. Management committee meetings must report on these issues as a standing item to demonstrate the work that they are doing to tackle institutional racism.
3) Mentoring schemes for new and current BME staff members need be formalised, and they should be partnered with a colleague who is sensitive and fully committed to supporting their needs around career progression and personal development.
4) Promotions committees must take equality issues into special consideration for BME applicants.
5) An independent ombudsman must be established who can properly investigate racist and other discriminatory practices.
6) A commitment to decolonising the curriculum must be led by university management.
7) University and departmental policies on race equality must be fully implemented and formally reviewed and updated on an annual basis.
For too long, non-white academics have been absent from the conversation. We need to feel like we are included within the debate and that our voices matter. The day-to-day and structural racist operations of the university need to be systematically reviewed and these failures need to be addressed seriously. Race equality must be practised in the academy, not just preached.
I ended the previous instalment of this evolving critique of Rachel Maddow’s news analysis of April 11 by noting the similarity between the unwritten New Covenant communication technology challenges that I and others face currently, in “the year of our Lord” 2019, and similar communication challenges that followers of Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth have had to contend with since the first century AD.
Before continuing, I want readers to know that I was not aware of Maddow’s existence until my attention was drawn to that broadcast by a Youtube notification on my mobile phone.
So, the doubts that ensued from Maddow’s somewhat wonky language use, the technology of trust communication challenge that I am seeking to resolve through this series of articles, could be construed as a matter of unfamiliarity, largely.
I had never seen or even heard of The Rachel Maddow Show until April 11, you see.
I did not know that she is one of the most highly regarded journalists in the United States.
I did not know that The Rachel Maddow Show is credited with enabling MSNBC to overtake CNN in the US news ratings.
I did not know that she is the first openly lesbian person to host a major prime time news program in the US.
I did not know she shared roots with Attorney General William Barr and special counsel Robert Mueller in the Roman Catholic faith.
All I knew about Maddow when I took issue with her language during that April 11 broadcast is what I had seen in the Youtube video, brought to my attention by an algorithm, presumably, that monitors the kind of news I am interested in.
Until then, I knew no more about Maddow than I did about the Irish journalist Lyra McKee, shot and killed in Belfast on April 18, seven days after Maddow’s reporting rocket “crashed”, like the Israeli’s Beresheet into my cognitive-affective Sea of Tranquillity.
Would it have made a difference if I had known more about Maddow? I do not think so.
I took issue with Maddow’s use of the words “absurd” and “freelancing”, not with her gender, sexual orientation, political leanings or any other facet of her private or public identity.
So I am happy to concede that the disquiet I felt, and still feel to some extent, stemmed at least initially from my unfamiliarity with Maddow’s personal context.
I am happy to concede that though I did not get that impression at the time, Maddow may in fact share my sense of outrage at Bill Barr’s apparent perversion of the course of justice and corresponding imperiling of the United States’ and wider Western democracy.
She may be just as indignant as I am at president Trump’s effective pauperization and dismemberment of US democratic traditions: his apparent determination to “make America grey again” even as he extolls the shine of whatever former glory Americans have achieved.
In other words, I readily concede that my concerns about how Maddow characterized Barr’s behaviour, may be misplaced.
I readily concede that she may share my sense of indignation but express it in a manner unique to her: in a word, idiosyncratically.
Alternately, one could say, she may have been using Maddowspeak.
Perhaps persons more familiar with her style of presentation would have read the “text” of her facial expressions and other aspects of her speech and broader body language differently.
However my goal here, as in my tweet to Maddow, has never been to reject her analysis completely.
It is, rather, to offer an alternative, less “lighthearted”, more grave reading of the situation she is addressing.
And in line with the grave, surgical, simultaneously scientific and spiritual reading of history that distinguishes this blog and my wider holistic communications and education praxis generally, my goal is also to address matters that Maddow did not address verbally but to which details of her personal context, and especially her “sexual orientation” speak voluminously.
Consistent with my clairvoyant, cosmic cricketing sensitivity to changes in the weather and other playing conditions, my analysis is augmented by attention to ostensibly unrelated details, including, the tragic death of Trinidad born, Barbados-based journalist-broadcaster Veoma Ali on April 9; the catastrophic berth of the Israeli rocket Beresheet on April 11; the fire at the famed Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on April 15; the previously cited death of the journalist and lesbian activist McKee on April 18 and other arguable minutiae of real politik.
Minutiae or not, these “signs and wonders” have been burdening this series of articles, through which I am seeking to discharge my peculiarly prescient, clairvoyant brief for just over a month now.
And whether or not Maddow or any similarly prominent presenter with the BBC, CNN, Fox News, Reuters, Russia Today or comparable, secular Western knowledge traders think such Gaia groanings are relevantant, I will continue to draw attention to “twin” earthquakes between England and Barbados, like those that I tweeted about earlier this month, and similar, seemingly unrelated geopsychic developments.
Like Judge Murray Gurfein, who refused to issue an injunction prohibiting publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, I feel compelled to reveal matters that Maddow and other journalists would conceal, cosciously or unconsciously.
Responding to efforts by the Nixon administration to bar the American public’s access to sensitive details of American foreign policy that informed the catastrophic Vietnam war, Gurfein wrote in his judgement of June 19 that “[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”
I believe this “right of the people to know”, a corollary of the people empowering New Covenant, is being threatened by an emergent homosexual orthodoxy that has largely hijacked the voices and votes of gay people, consciously or unconsciously.
Like veteran Barbadian communication specialist Hallam Hope, I am deeply concerned about the political ambitions of “the gay rights movement” and especially about the fascist fathering and misandric mothering of gay orthodoxy pushing oracles like “Rocket Man” Sir Elton John.
Apparently, Sir Elton would have us believe that there is no difference between biologically based, heterosexual parenting and the legally facilitated homosexual parenting arrangements that may be Peter Thiel’s and some other gay people’s ideal “family plan”.
The pop icon John’s success at forcing the gay designers Dolce and Gabana to retract their questioning of this emergent gay orthodoxy has demonstrated the lengths to which he, Thiel, Peter Tatchell and other influencers seem prepared to go to silence contemporary versions of the second century Christian oracle Montanus: those aspiring to be direct, divine line curating and broadcasting New Covenant messengers today.
I believe that Maddow and other mainstream journalists may be aiding and abbetting a threat that secretive, “gay mafia” media elements pose to American and wider Western democracy, even as they seek to protect our democratic institutions from Trump administration threats to a free press and to political transparency, ironically.
I am concerned that Maddow, colleagues of the tragically killed McKee and other journalists may be unaware of the capacity of political homosexuality, like political atheism, political Buddhism, political Christianity, political Hinduism, political Islam, political Judaism and any other politicised ideology to induce heart hardening and brain death through freedom of conscience suppressing legalism and related infelicities.
And for all his erudition, which I applaud in principle, I believe former US president Barack Obama dropped the ball by endorsing the legalization of gay marriage with scant regard for the deep-seated legalism and related corruption and degeneration that plagues Christendom perennially, as it does all book-based faiths and scholarly sourced secular ideologies.
I believe it was a failure of judgement stemming at least in part from Obama’s and his US-born, Barbados-traced attorney general Eric Holder’s over-reaching empathy: an aspirational expression of compassion that, ignoring or not being familiar with the limitations of the law, inevitably leads to fossilization and fragmentation of faith and morality.
From such good intentions can ensue the destruction of one’s moral compass or the casting aside of one’s conscience and consequent shipwrecking of one’s faith (1 Timothy 1:19) to which the passage from the book of Isaiah that I quoted in the first article in this series speaks. It reads:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)
The susceptibility of writers and others who excel in academics to such faith fossilization or ideological intransigence and confusion was dramatically demonstrated by England-based American bioarcheologist Stacy Hackner during a talk she gave at a London Skeptics meeting this past January.
Hackner and I had two very significant exchanges while she was taking questions from the audience.
The first occurred when I challenged her interpretation of the archeological evidence she had presented, as she had repeatedly ascribed low status to women minding children and engaging in related mothering activities.
It was only when I pointed out that motherhood entails very difficult work and is potentially the most important job on earth, that Dr Hackner conceded that she had internalized the same patriarchal view of women’s work that she was challenging.
She basically conceded that she had been ignoring and undervaluing the fact that mothers are compelled to be masters of diplomacy and are on the front lines of national security against domestic threats by virtue of the care they are obliged to provide for their families.
She had basically undermined the role of mothers in the domestic domain of national security that judge Gurfein was addressing.
And the theme of Hackner’s talk was biases in archeological depictions of ancient male and female routines and roles, ironically!
As I insisted in an April 6 Twitter conversation with Sid Rodrigues of London Skeptics, Hackner’s confusion is important because it points to a fundamental matriarchal contradiction that feminists need to address.
And I have been urging University of the West Indies(UWI) professor Sir Hilary Beckles, the relatively rehabilitated revolutionary-turned-diplomat David Comissiong, their collaborator Dr Sandra Richards and other Afrocentrics to address similar contradictions and anomalies in their Pan Africanist educational offerings.
Among other logical transgressions, my former Pan Africanist colleagues have been advocating for reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery on the basis of sweeping generalisations about “whiteness” that equates it with evil, while associating “blackness” with innocence and virtue, implicitly or explicitly.
Like the Garveyite academic theologian Robert Beckford, they therefore mimic the robotic, ratings focused elements in Maddow’s and other feminists’ reasoning, to some extent.
And I am still waiting for a response from Phil Baty of the Times Higher Educational Supplement (or perhaps from his subordinates Duncan Ross or Billy Wong) to my request for information about the rationale by which my alma mater UWI achieved its impressive inclusion in that publication’s World University Rankings.
I made that request in January and followed it up with a tweet on March 15.
In the mean time, so far as I can tell, my former Pan Africanist colleagues continue to perpetuate the politically motivated mischief that began with the printing press and has been exacerbated by radio and other kinds of electronic broadcasting.
And just as the conscience searing coalescing of mechanistic matriarchal and patriarchal rivalries are polluting Western political discourse with poisonous, gender polarising particulates, so too gangster mentality aggregating, pseudoscientific Afrocentric simplifications are combing with their Aryan supremacist counterparts (the kind of stereotypical drivel spouted by disgraced geneticist James Watson) to produce a destructive psycho-social synergy.
I have been urging a number of Parliamentary Select Committees and other influential entities here in England to view writing as a form of elementary artificial intelligence.
However, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has apparently not been able to grasp literacy’s potentially lethal, addictive power and corresponding capacity to immerse us in a compulsion coded virtual reality world.
Consequently, the threat being posed to the cognitive and affective development of young, impressionable children through the book-based equalities indoctrination being propagated by the gay rights activist Andrew Moffat and other Obama-like, empathy excessive educators, is therefore not receiving the critical attention of that Committee that it deserves.
That Committee’s chairman, Damian Collins MP and other members seem incapable of the holistic, interdisciplinary, joined-up thinking that the Committee’s title “digital, Culture, media and sport” encourages us to think they are capable of.
If one did not know better one might think the members of that Committee, the trade unionists, BBC and other journalists who have come out in support of Moffat’s programme, were restricting their critical thinking skills to finding fault with Christian and other religion-based “gay conversion” therapies.
Could such blatant bias be what they intend?
I am hoping to alert Maddow, Moffat, Beckles and other influential formal and informal educators to the risk they run of being “helpful idiots”, co-opted by shadowy, unscrupulous interests to advance fundamentalist feminist, glory grabbing gay mafia, popish Pan Africanist and similarly questionable political capital accumulating programs that lump or Clump people together according to gender, sex, race or religion without regard for the interior, conscience derived, DNA determined, heterosexually sourced complementarity that makes us all unique.
My goal is to assert the unlimited possibilities to which we all have access when we login to the livestream of the unwritten New Covenant’s personal empowerment.
This is the simultaneously particular and universal phenomenon that Emory University’s illustrious poet-professor Jericho Brown referenced as he praised the rooted reach of fellow oracle Christell Roach’s poetic gift.
And I would gladly share the link to Emory’s website page where I discovered that tribute to Roach, on May 1.
But it seems to have disappeared.
Yet there has ever been and will ever be only one password between us and the idiosyncratic, profoundly personalized power that is a basic biological right and the natural heritage of every human being.
And it is not a Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram or other social media password.
It is not a British or Barbadian passsport, an American visa or other certification of nationality or legal resident status.
It is not the favour of Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, or the richly resourceful Oprah Winfrey, God bless her.
Despite what the 2016 electoral success of the bigly bragging, female-genitalia-grabbing-advising current US president suggests, the cynical calculation that he and his current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson demonstrated that year has always and can only ever deliver temporary relief from the written New Testament malware that manacles and menaces true, New Covenant spontaneity and liberation.
If you are going to escape that malware matrix of virulent virtual reality and access the unwritten New Covenant code in which poets, mystics and others conversant in oracular, glossolalic communication live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28), you need only one password: honesty.
Maddow, “America’s wonkiest anchor” reputedly, projects that honesty to a significant degree.
I want to help others enjoy a similar degree of balanced self-acceptance and self-criticism.
It is what I believe Joshua, the incarnator of the New Covenant expects of me.
And it’s Bart out to bat
It is toward the goal of encouraging honest communication that I cited academic theologian Bart D Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus, marketed as “The story behind who changed the Bible and why” in part “a” of this article.
I value Ehrman’s work to the extent that it illuminates the similarity between the unwritten New Covenant communication technology challenges that I and others face currently, in “the year of our Lord” 2019, and similar communication challenges that followers of Joshua have had to contend with since the earliest days of Christianity .
However, I was also careful to note that Ehrman “may not be as pained about the damage Christianity, its Jewish antecedent and its Islamic and other book-based successors have been doing to themselves and other segments of humanity as I am” because he probably “has not grasped the fact that the greatest, most catastrophic misrepresentation of Joshua’s life and work consists in the confusion of the UNWRITTEN New Covenant with the WRITTEN New Testament.”
I thereby invoked and bore witness, indirectly, to a truth articulated by the second century “Church Father” Tertullian who has given us this exquisite enunciation of the contribution of Christian martyrdom to the 2000+ year-old Judeo-Christian family tree: the blood of the martyrs is seed.
Yet this awareness of the biological basis of faith was apparently not enough to steer Tertullian away from an excessive creed coded course.
It is apparent that the confounding of Joshua’s New Covenant message by Tertullian and other consciously or unconsciously fascism prone Church Fathers was tantamount to putting Joshua’s and his life’s work to death in perpetuity.
And the perpetual martyrdom mirroring misrepresentation of Joshua’s message, the shedding of his blood in perpetuity, consists in Barr-like behaviour of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and other male Christian clerics, with the conscious or unconscious complicity of the misanthrope mothers who, among other tragedies, have made the abandonment of their motherly potential and, at its worst extreme, the legalization of abortion a cause celeb of civilized, democratic, “developed” countries.
The arc of the covenant that these men and women have constructed jointly, and for which every generation of them since the first century have been washing their hands like Pilate and refusing to take responsibility,re runs through the prolific scribe Tertullian’s bibliography, literally. Actually, as I note in The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled (TBBTR) it was Tertullian, whose surviving works date from between 196 and 212 AD who first referred to written materials as the “New Testament”, Latin novum testamentum.
“By so doing”, I argue “he either initiated the confusion of the New Covenant with written matter or else, through his sanction as a recognized leader in the early church, made official this confusion which may have already existed in the minds of many Christians – as a result of their preoccupation with these scriptures.”
And this is in fact a very useful insight into the workings of written material induced faith fossilization, heart hardening and brain death, if I say so myself!
Also, considering the complicity, conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect, intentional or unintended of Roman Catholic and Protestant literalism in the death of Mckee, another ancient saying comes to mind poignantly: the letter killeth.
Attributed to the apostle Paul, these words, found in 2 Corinthians 3:6, summarise the lethal capacity of literacy when mismanaged in religious, academic and similar potentially volatile political contexts.
They underscore the difference between the unwritten New Covenant, a metaphor for conscience, and the written New Testament, as I argue in TBBTR.
And my suspicion that Ehrman, who is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is unaware of the catastrophic confusion of the spiritual New Covenant with the literal New Testament has been strengthened by the apparent absence of the name Montanus from his book.
I have only read up to page 63 of his 218 page text so far. But Ehrman’s preoccupation with the reliability or not of the written New Testament as an accurate record of Joshua’s teaching does not suggest that he is aware of the significant body of evidence, including evidence associated with the charismatic oracle Montanus’ story, which suggests that Joshua probably never foresaw or intended the creation of the New testament.
And the absence of Montanus’ name from the index of Ehrman’s text also supports the conclusion that even though the former evangelical Christian turned evangelical atheist (or at least agnostic) is probably familiar with Montanus’ story, as one would expect of any New Testament scholar, frankly, he apparently has not grasped its relevance to Joshua’s oracular, unwritten New Covenant mission, method and related existential realities. I am therefore inclined to view Ehrman’s scholastic achievements as a shipwreck in progress.
I question the soundness of the trajectory of his Beresheet rocket. But readers should bear in mind that this inclination is based on my very limited knowledge of Ehrman’s work, especially of his more recent work (efforts to contact him have so far proved fruitless).
Whether or not he mentions Montanist in the book I am reading, Ehrman’s account of the various kinds of scribal errors that underly the composition of the New Testament is very informative and I am as grateful for it as I am for Maddow’s analysis.
Yet I cannot help but lament Ehrman’s apparent scholastic shortcomings because as the references to Montanus in TBBTR indicate, I believe Montanus’ story provides indispensable insights into how Joshua’s familial formations focused, freedom of conscience affirming New Covenant teaching was initially submarined by conscious or unconscious Barresque misquoting and misreporting.
So, from my perspective, limited as it is, while Ehrman is to be applauded for his attempt at a “deep-dive analysis” of the history of the New Testament, his analysis, like Maddow’s remains rather shallow, at least in this important respect.
Moving with Montanus and Maddow: dance dialectics
And I have appropriated the term “deep-dive analysis” from a 2017 Rolling Stone article in which journaist Janet Reitman describes the format and vision for Maddow’s show on MSNBC.
From my perspective, the story of the Maddow foreshadowing, second century news broadcaster Montanus and the Montanist movement that he spawned, with the aid of two other oracles, Prisca and Maximila, his main collaborators, provides vital insights into how Joshua’s message, like Mueller’s report, was consiously or unconsciously distorted, first by Joshua’s brother James, probably, then by others who similarly claimed to know Joshua best and love him most.
(And the award-winning television series Everybody Loves Raymond comes to mind here for more reasons than may appear initially.) Apparently, Montanus, who rose to prominence in Phrygia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) found himself immersed in a communication technology challenge somewhat like Maddow’s, McKee’s, Barr’s, Ehrman’s and my own because of his New Covenant affiliated belief that Joshua incarnated or initiated a church-based dispensation of divine, direct, spoken word messaging through what he and his followers, the Montanists, called New Prophecy.
I celebrate Montanus and his “New Prophecy”, an oracular, transcendental cousin of jazz music, and of jazz’s improvisational scatting particularly, in a poem named for him in my 1994 collection Standing. The first stanza of that poem reads:
Speak Montanus, speak/today/the things you know, and understand/better than/another man,/who in times past spoke/aloud,/and now is read behind a/ shroud/which oft veils the simple light,/giving way to heart’s/deep night.
And readers of this discourse who may have been struggling to see Montanus’ relevance to this discussion of America’s current democratic deficit and related free press undermining, fake news reporting phenomena, may now be beginning to see the parallels between the submarining of Montanus’ New Prophecy doctrine and the attempted torpedoing of Mueller’s report, by his long time friend Barr more clearly, hopefully.
Certainly, with the redacted Mueller report now in the public domain, it is now clear that despite those two men’s shared Roman Catholic faith and long years of friendship, Barr’s four page summary of that report has shrouded its content audaciously.
Maddow is to be congratulated for drawing attention to Barr’s dereliction of his democratic duty, even if her rhetorial rocket ultimately crash landed, from my perspective.
And therein lies a fundamental difficulty of this treatise: the challenge of appropriately praising Maddow’s effort even as I criticize it firmly. Having the very high regard that I do for academics and academia, I want to ensure that like journalist-musician Tom Sturm I give Maddow, “a graduate of Stanford University and Oxford and recipient of a Rhodes scholarship”, the honour due her “extensive and impressive” academic achievements.
And I am quoting here from “Wonk and circumstance”, an article published by Sturm in 2010.
And Maddow’s response, when asked by Sturm if she sees higher education as an essential key to success, is instructive.
She says “Everybody’s got to find their own path, and there are a lot of great ways for people to prep for careers. That said, I think that rigorous, classical liberal education is a form of intellectual training that helps in just about every career, and in life. The Enlightenment is a really handy inheritance for, you know, civilization—it’s worth deliberately learning its lessons.”
What Enlightenment lessons do Maddow have in mind?
Might those lessons explain the collegial relationship she had with the late, latterly disgraced misogynist Chairman and CEO of Fox News and Fox Television Stations, Roger Ailes?
My evolving knowledge of Maddow’s seed, the crossword puzzle, if you will, of her life and work that I am piecing together to reconstruct the trajectory of her largely impressive but ultimately ill-fated 11 April Beresheet analytical journey, is also indebted to the Reitman interview cited previously.
And it is Maddow’s insistence in that interview that she is “a liberal for sure” that I find a key cause for worry.
I can only hope that her lesbian “liberalism” does not predispose her to Obama and Holder approximating oblivion to the fascist tendencies of Sir Elton and other proponents of gay parenting orthodoxy. Unfortunately, Maddow’s confessed fascination with the Republican Party suggests that like John she may be on course for a gender, race and religion racketeering “rocket man” catastrophy.
Explaining her fascination with that party she told Reitman:
I’m like a sociological student of the Republican Party – even absent Trump. There is a robust, well-funded, decades-old, superorganized, focused, competent conservative movement that exists outside the Republican Party that yanks the party’s chain whenever they want to. The Republican Party is like an old burned-out husk of a Ford Pinto that blew up ’cause its gas tank was in the wrong place, but it’s attached to a giant jet engine. The Democratic Party is like a Honda Civic. It putters through the world in a predictable way, and you like it or not depending on if you find small, unpowerful things cute. But the Republican Party has this incredible propulsion and no way to steer it.
I believe that a key component of that “giant jet engine” is the 2000+ year old Judeo-Christian faith in which Maddow was schooled as a Roman Catholic.
I believe she has experienced the workings of that belief system intimately. And I believe her battle with depression is evidence that she is both a beneficiary and a casualty of that faith’s constraint by written creeds.
And having learned just recently (May 10) through a CBS interview of Maddow’s fascination with guns, which fits with the information offered by Reitman about a G.I. Joe she owns, my sense of the warrior woman instinct that motivates Maddow is more or less complete.
Her comparison of the cameras beaming her image into televisions (and phones, as in my case) like a bullet could therefore be considered an unneccessary accessory.
Maddow was already dressed to kill, so to speak.
Coincidentally, I recently posted a question on the social networking site for scientists and researchers Researchgate, asking if it matters that Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth probably never envisaged the creation of the collection of writings called the “New Testament.
Explaining the rationale behind the question, I suggested that the answer to it has implications for “the battle of the sexes”, as intimated by Charles Dickens’ succinct denunciation, in his novel Oliver Twist, of the Victorian legal notion that men always have the final say in their marriages.
Through his character Mr Bumble, Dickens declares “If the law assumes that, the law is a ass!”
That marriage can be a kind of martyrdom, has always been clear to me. And thanks to the excesses of fundamentalist feminists like Barbados’ Reverend Sonia Hinds, it is becoming increasingly clear that Tertullian’s belief that the blood of martyrs should be expended on the maintenance or expansion of church membership needs to be revisited radically.
How does that belief differ from the Islamic State’s, Boko Haram’s or other violence rationalizing Jihadi Joe’s recruiting strategy?
As I insist in my open letter to the theologian Bonfiglio, the family, not the church, is the primary soil in which Joshua’s New Covenant seed germinates and should grow.
Does Maddow’s and her partner Susan Mikula’s decision not to get married, mentioned in the CBS interview, suggest that they share this perspective?
Might Maddow be a “closet” Christian, despite all her claims of liberalism. If she has retained the faith of her parents, as I suspect, might her decision to keep that to herself be an expression of her liberal, lesbian instinct. Might she be less like Montanus and more like Valentinus: an extraordinarily gifted gnostic.
One benefit of being mindful of the cyclical, or as I like to say spherical, dimension of communication technology challenges like Montanus’, approximately two milennia ago and Maddow’s and mine today, is the peace and tranquility that it can bring to those anxious about the current global climate of technological turbulence and related sociopolitical disruption and violence.
Accordingly relatives and friends of the late scribe and oracle McKee might find some consolation in the New Covenant knowledge sharing of Prisca and Maximilla, the two women who worked with Montanus closely.
The environment in which the trinity sought to practice and propagate their faith was at least as hostile as Belfast today, or London, if you are a member of the Black and Minorty Ethnic (BME) community.
And I have previously noted that the threats of air pollution, road traffic accidents, Brexit exacerbated racism and other gender, race and religion related tensions mean that life in England can be just as hazardous as life in Afghanistan and other war zones for many of us.
Martyrdom was a distinct possibility for Montanus and his fellow oracles, as it was for all members of the emergent Christian sect in the second century AD.
Yet where the Israeli Beresheet rocket failed to reach its intended physical destination, the lunar Sea of Tranquility, Montanus, Prisca and Maxililla can be said to have succeeded spiritually.
Long regarded as a heretical faction by institutional, orthodox Christianity, the Montanist missilic message of direct connection and communication with God, challenging the need for the clerical class that eventually dominated what Ehrman has called proto-Christianity, was in fact largely vindicated in its own time and is being vindicated today increasingly, especially through comparisons with the modern Pentecostal movement apparently.
Academics like Jonathan Taplin, Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, can also find some comfort in the knowledge that humanity has faced and survived the suppression of the unwritten New Covenant for more than 2000 years, despite the designs of succesive generations of Thiel type misappropriations of notions of interiority and privacy.
Taplin is the author of Move Fast And Break Things, a study of “How Facebook, Google and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy”.
But I think Mark Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Bezos, Thiel (or should that be Thief?) and other disruptive fast movers can usefully be viewed as extraordinarily slow moving learners of ancient, tried and tested principles.
Considers how impervious they seem to the historical principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Similarly, I am suggesting that Maddow and other mainstream journalists, especially those propagating what I call a fundamentalist feminist worldview, have been moving fast and breaking things, consciously or unconsciously, for at least a century!
And as in my landmark Fundamentalist Feminism essay, first published on the eve of International Woman’s Day 2005, and resurrected last March, with an overture to the regrettably inflexible Marxist feminist oracle Selma James, my concern is that Maddow, James, Barbadian prime Minister Mia Mottley, poet Margaret Gill, UWI’s Sir Hilary, his popish Pan Africanism preaching comrade Comissiong and other feminists or feminist sympathizers may not only be colluding, consciously or unconsciously with Barr, US Vice president Mike Pence and other Trump administration officials in a subversion of American democratic institutions but also accelerating the threat that a jaundiced jihadi, perversely politicised practice of feminism poses to women, men, the family and ultimately humanity.
My concern about the threat that fundamentalist feminism and its Pan Africanist, white supremacist and other ideological counterparts pose to human ecology, not just to women and men, is shared by the much abused British Women’s Refuge founder Erin Pizzey, who features in my FF essay prominently.
It may also be shared by Joseph “T-Bone” Burnett, an American music industry veteran who endorses Taplin’s analysis of the rocketing recklessness of the technology giants enthusiastically.
Burnett’s comments on Taplin’s text are relevant here to the extent that he appreciates the threat that too rapid technological “progress” poses to human ecology, that is, our survival as a species.
Burnett writes “Move Fast and Break Things goes on my bookshelf beside a few other indispensable signposts in the maze of the 21st Century—The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul and The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan. I pray the deepest and highest prayer I can get to that this clarion warning is heeded. The survival of our species is at stake.”
And while I have not yet read Taplin’s timely testament I would happily endorse Burnett’s comment – if I could be sure that his concern about the threat that technological innovation poses to the survival of humanity is matched by a corresponding concern about the threat posed by fundamentalist feminism and its militant, perversely political homosexual orthodoxy advocating extremes.
From my vantage point, Burnett’s musical collaboration with the artist-activist Sir Elton, who, again, apparently sees no distinction between biologically based heterosexual procreation and legislation based “reproduction” of that unique product of heterosexual complementarity raises serious questions about Burnett’s views on technology.
From my perspective, the Grammy-award winning producer Burnett’s comments, like Maddow’s commentary, may be clouded by a failure to distinguish between reality and “virtuous reality” consistently.
But that does not undermine and should not distract from the cosmological correlation and essential agreement between the title of Taplin’s book (and Burnett’s endorsement of it as a check on indecently hasty, reckless embrace of risky technology) on the one hand, and the democracy derailing, rocket wrecking risk that is one of this articles central themes.
The link should be as clear to and as instructive for the commonest clairvoyant in Israel, the US, the UK, Barbados and elsewhere as it is for me. I note that Taplin came to my attention (or one could say landed softly or stealthily on my cerebral Sea of Serenity) through what I described in an April 2 tweet as the “#ImprecisePrecisionPassing, via retweeting” of an apparently ardent politics and comical camel-riding enthusiast calling him/herself Shai (pronounced like Chay?), retired academic Chris Salewicz and Paul Carroll, associate professor of media design at the School of Art, Media, and Technology at The New School’s Parsons School of Design.
And while I am cautious about the weight I give to my own clairvoyant capacities, as some British law enforcement authorities are aware, I am inclined to label the 11th April crash of the Beresheet rocket a lesson to the heavy footed, hardline taking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his tough talking American ally president Trump.
I believe the wrecking of that rocket, coinciding with Maddow’s metamimetic messaging malfunction at a critical moment in the socio-historical evolution of Western democracy, was a signal to the hawkish Netanyahu, Trump and other hardliners about the care needed to ensure a “soft landing” in a hostile territory.
And the metaphor extends to Barr’s reading of the Mueller report with something like time transcending relevance, given the Hebrew name of the Israeli rocket, Beresheet, which means “a beginning” or genesis, and is the name of the first book of the Torah and the Bible.
Consider too the implications of that providentially(?) aborted rocket’s ruined berthing: the implications for the Netanyahu-Trump marriage and its expected or unexpected offspring.
What precise or imprecise message might the lesbian-anchor- activist Maddow have been passing to them, consciously or unconsciously, through her cloudy commentary?
And what shall we make of the fire at Notre Dame Cathederal on April 15: Our Lady of Paris consumed amidst her renovations; the spectacle of her missilic spire on fire, crashing into a pyrotechnic papal see.
I have also addressed the tragic slaying of the journalist McKee and the hijacking of her and Maddow’s lesbianism, possibly, by gender, race and religion privateers and racketeers who traffic in the political capital of contested identies, consciously or unconsciously.
I believe McKee, like Joshua, riskes being martyred in perpetuity by Barr-like summarisers of her report to humanity.
Those matriarchal, patriarchal, Pan Africanist, Papist, Protestant, Capitalist, Communist and similar low blow landing, label leveraging thieves excell in the kind of flesh fraud fake news falsifications and unwritten New Covenant “counterfeiting” that the French academic painter William Bouguereau graphically depicts in his painting Dante et Virgil (Dante and Virgil).
As the Musée d’Orsay website informs, that painting was inspired by “a short scene from the Inferno, set in the eighth circle of Hell (the circle for falsifiers and counterfeiters), where Dante, accompanied by Virgil, watches a fight between two damned souls: Capocchio, a heretic and alchemist is attacked and bitten on the neck by Gianni Schicchi who had usurped the identity of a dead man in order to fraudulently claim his inheritance.”
If they do not respect origins, how could they possibly respect originality?
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)
On April 11 I published a two-tweet thread in response to MSNBC oracle Rachel Maddow’s use of the words “absurd” and “freelancing” as she described the very questionable, seemingly unjust and unethical, president-Donald-Trump-impunity-serving behaviour of United States Attorney General William P Barr in the latter part of the above video.
In a summary beginning at 20:19, intriguingly because we’re in the “year of our Lord” 2019, Maddow uses the adjective “absurd” and the verb “freelancing” to describe what she says is the latest stratagem in the Trump administration’s “epic effort to submarine” special counsel Robert Meuller III’s report of his investigation into possible Trump administration collusion with Russia in the 2016 US presidential election and obstruction of justice since then.
Maddow says “Barr’s handling of this started off weird: it is now absurd! And, he is obviously freelancing; he is obviously making this up as he goes along.”
Tweeting directly to Maddow, I first suggested that instead of “absurd” the word “obscene” would better describe Barr’s apparent justice obstructing, ethical-legal accountability barring behaviour, which Maddow had already likened to that of Richard Nixon defenders, during the Watergate scandal.
I tweeted “Heartfelt thanks for this @maddow… But your characterization of Barr’s behaviour seems off. I wouldn’t call what you’ve described absurd: I’d call it OBSCENE.”
And declaring my own status as a “freelancer”, my second tweet takes issue with Maddow’s use of the word “freelancing” to describe what I consider Barr’s full-time, president-Trump-personal-employee-like actions.
It reads “I’m similarly concerned about your use of the word ‘freelancing’. I’m a freelancer. Barr seems to be on @POTUS’ personal payroll. #BarrBananaRepublic”
I tweeted these opinions (heresies?) because from my perspective, Maddow, whose apparently unscripted, at least partly improvisational, jazzy commentary was punctuated with incredulous sniggering and similar liminal laughing expressions, was failing to communicate the gravity and urgency of Barrr’s and the wider Trump administration’s threat to America’s democratic development.
In my opinion, she had failed to model the indignation that I believe citizens of what is reputedly the world’s leading democracy, should be feeling in response to Barr’s and other Trump supporters’ very questionable attempts to deny American taxpayers and voters direct access to Mueller’s report.
As the hashtag with my second tweet suggests, I believe that despite his best intentions, the 45th president of the US, aided and abbetted by his devout Roman Catholic attorney general Barr, his devout Roman Catholic vice president Mike Pence, his Catholic schooled counsellor Kellyanne Conway, the self-confessed Christian cynic Dr Ben Carson and others possibly harbouring antisemetic, homophobic, islamaphobic and similar prejudices, risks reducing the world’s all-time greatest secular democracy to a banana republic.
Despite referencing the Nixon administration’s tactics, Maddow’s commentary failed to convince me that she is fully alert to the urgency of the crisis confronting America’s democracy safeguarding justice system and its free press.
It may also be that because Maddow demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of what had transpired under Nixon, she may have unintentionally channelled a tone of glibness or complacency.
Could I have been put off by an unintended, perhaps subliminal suggestion in Maddow’s presentation, especially perhaps, in her body language, that we had seen it all before?
I cannot say for sure.
What I do know is that the more I have reflected on Barr’s behaviour and Maddow’s commentary, the more I have come to believe that she, and by extension MSNBC, were mischaracterizing a hugely consequential historical moment (And I will be addressing the peculiar historical-political worldview of Maddow’s boss Phil Griffin at my earliest opportunity).
I believe that like the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet spacecraft lunar mission, Maddow’s ambitious commentary had crashed and burned, on this occasion.
And the pain propelling me to share my perspective stems from my sense that Maddow and other media influencers are to some extent colluding with Barr, consciously or unconsciously, by misrepresenting the seriousness of the Trump White House threat, in much the same way that the unwritten New Covenant, a key democracy dispersing principle of Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth’s teaching and legacy, has been distorted and submarined by successive generations of his followers since at least the AD 30s.
As I make clear in my book The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled (TBBTR), the conscience based, personal responsibility focused sunsum (part of an ancient African metaphysical tradition that is similar to the Qi [pronounced “Chi”, as in “Tai Chi”] of Chinese culture) or driving force of Joshua’s life-story has been mischaracterized since approximately AD 30, the year of the first “Good Friday”.
My April 11 Twitter appeal to the “strict Catholic family raised”, gay rights activist Maddow could be viewed as an imprecise-precise passing of a burden of truth I have been bearing for at least 36 years now.
It could be considered both a cry for help and a clarion call that dates back to my 1992 poem The ‘Illiteracy’ of Christ; a poem I penned in 1992 and featured on page 21 of my first poetry collection, Standing, published by Roots Academy, (the predecessor to my current Intelek International proprietary label) in Barbados in 1994.
My poem “The ‘Illiteracy’ Of Christ”. There is also a song version of this poem, which I hope to produce for lovers of meaningful music one day.
Last month I tried to get some help bearing the weight of this burden by initiating an online conversation with Ryan Bonfiglio, an Atlanta, Georgia based American theologian.
But there seems to be a Barresque barrier obstructing Bonfiglio’s engagement with me.
Perhaps my missilic missive effort to engage with him has suffered some internal messaging malfunction and crashed and burned, like the Israeli rocket Beresheet.
I do not know.
I do know that there is an irony here though, because Bonfiglio leads the public access and engagement efforts of the Candler School of Theology, at Emory University.
And while I have no reason to cast aspersions on his, Candler Dean Jan Love’s, her personal assistant Jenka Fyfe’s or any other Emory employee’s character personally, I do wonder if some seemingly unjust and unethical, politicized gender, racial, religious or related racketeering impunity-serving individual or entity has intervened.
Sadly, more than 30 years of dealing with this kind of sabotage of my and others’ New Covenant “relationship rocket” building interference obliges me to consider this possibility.
But this kind of New Covenant communication copying and corrupting has been happening since the first century AD, as I feel certain academic theologian Bart D Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus, will agree.
Having said that, if as I suspect, Ehrman, has not grasped the fact that the greatest, most catastrophic misrepresentation of Joshua’s life and work consists in the confusion of the UNWRITTEN New Covenant with the WRITTEN New Testament, he might not be as pained about the damage Christianity, its Judaism antecedent and its Islamic and other book-based successors have been doing to themselves and other segments of humanity as I am.