1968... Mexico Olympics /  by JoFF Rae

Watching the doco SALUTE - the story of Peter Norman, the white Australian who won the silver for the 200m at the Mexico Olympics... it's a story about Tommy Smith & John Carlos making one of the most memorable statements of the decade I was bo…

Watching the doco SALUTE - the story of Peter Norman, the white Australian who won the silver for the 200m at the Mexico Olympics... it's a story about Tommy Smith & John Carlos making one of the most memorable statements of the decade I was born in!

The protest

On the morning of October 16, 1968,[2] U.S. athlete Tommie Smith won the 200 meter race in a world-record time of 19.83 seconds, with Australia's Peter Norman second with a time of 20.07 seconds, and the U.S.'s John Carlos in third place with a time of 20.10 seconds. After the race was completed, the three went to collect their medals at the podium. The two U.S. athletes received their medals shoeless, but wearing black socks, to represent black poverty.[3] Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride, Carlos had his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with all blue collar workers in the U.S. and wore a necklace of beads which he described "were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the middle passage."[4] All three athletes wore Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR) badges after Norman, a critic of Australia's White Australia Policy, expressed empathy with their ideals.[5] Sociologist Harry Edwards, the founder of the OPHR, had urged black athletes to boycott the games; reportedly, the actions of Smith and Carlos on October 16, 1968[2] were inspired by Edwards' arguments.[6]

Both U.S. athletes intended on bringing black gloves to the event, but Carlos forgot his, leaving them in the Olympic Village. It was the Australian, Peter Norman, who suggested Carlos wear Smith's left-handed glove, this being the reason behind him raising his left hand, as opposed to his right, differing from the traditional Black Power salute.[7] When "The Star-Spangled Banner" played, Smith and Carlos delivered the salute with heads bowed, a gesture which became front page news around the world. As they left the podium they were booed by the crowd.[8] Smith later said "If I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight."[3]

 International Olympic Committee response

International Olympic Committee (IOC) president, Avery Brundage, deemed it to be a domestic political statement, unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games were supposed to be. In an immediate response to their actions, he ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team and banned from the Olympic Village. When the US Olympic Committee refused, Brundage threatened to ban the entire US track team. This threat led to the two athletes being expelled from the Games.

A spokesman for the IOC said it was "a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit."[3] Brundage, who was president of the United States Olympic Committee in 1936, had made no objections against Nazi salutes during the Berlin Olympics. The Nazi salute, being a national salute at the time, was accepted in a competition of nations, while the athletes' salute was not of a nation and so was considered unacceptable.[9]

The official IOC website states that "Over and above winning medals, the black American athletes made names for themselves by an act of racial protest."[10]

the evolution of legoman <<< Bram & ARTIVIST make /  by JoFF Rae

suicide note - Mitchell Heisman /  by JoFF Rae

Mitchell Heisman was a 35 year old man from Massachusetts who published a 1,905 page book entitled Suicide Note and then committed suicide on the steps of Memorial Church of Harvard University in September 2010 (he blew his head apart with a revolve…

Mitchell Heisman was a 35 year old man from Massachusetts who published a 1,905 page book entitled Suicide Note and then committed suicide on the steps of Memorial Church of Harvard University in September 2010 (he blew his head apart with a revolver in front of tour group).

"Ordinary people seem not to realize that those who really apply themselves in the right way to philosophy are directly and of their own accord preparing themselves for dying and death. If this is true, and they have actually been looking forward to death all their lives, it would of course be absurd to be troubled when the thing comes for which they have so long been preparing and looking forward."

—SOCRATES, PHAEDO

Freedom of Speech on Trial

If my hypothesis is correct, this work will be repressed. It should not be surprising if justice is not done to the evidence presented here. It should not be unexpected that these arguments will not be given a fair hearing. It is not unreasonable to think that this work will not be judged on its merits.

This work contains a theoretical application of sociobiology to politics. Simply discussing its theories publicly can constitute an experimental test of liberal democracy’s original enlightenment claim to advance freedom of rational inquiry. Such a discussion can clarify the extent, and the particular ways, in which these original enlightenment self-justifications have been politically abandoned. The attempt to repress rather than address the evidence in this work, for example, can clarify that there are arguments of substance that are being denied a right to be heard. Persistent intolerance of certain kinds of rational inquiry can clarify that civilized means of public discourse have broken down.

The basic problem with a sociobiological self-analysis for liberal democracy is that it does what its free speech principles were designed to do. Sociobiology can help expose the distortions, lies, and falsehoods of the powers that be — that power being liberal democracy itself. Findings of sociobiology have refuted the original theory of human nature underlying liberal democracy. The constitutional right to freedom of speech was built upon this pre-Darwinian view of man that findings of sociobiology have refuted.

In consequence, an accurate sociobiological theory of liberal democracy presents the fundamental test of this political system’s claims to freedom speech. The system cannot be understood on the basis on its own premises and assumptions. This sociobiological theory about liberal democracy requires going beyond liberal democracy and this is what makes sociobiological self-understanding inherently controversial and liable to be repressed within a liberal democracy.

Those who think that sociobiology fully applied to the human-political sphere should expect a fair hearing on the grounds of freedom of speech have committed an error. The error falls, not on liberal democracy itself, but on those who have overestimated it as a political system, failing to grasp its inherent limitations. Even under ideal conditions, the freedom of speech method cannot be expected to publicly separate empirically true statements from empirically falsified statements in every instance. The empirical validity of the theories in this work cannot be expected to be verified by the public freedom of speech method of liberal democracy.

The freedom of speech hypothesis states that since the controversial nature of sociobiology in a liberal democracy cannot fundamentally be ‘fixed’, the repression of this work may empirically verify this theory of liberal democracy through the very act of repressing it. It also applies to other related sociobiological theories. Unwarranted rejection of this sociobiological theory of liberal democracy should follow, not accidentally and randomly, but predictably and routinely. From those socialized or invested in the system, repeated rejection or repression of this work in the face of overwhelming evidence should inspire, not surprise, but boredom. Its regularity would have the character of a general law, and hence, I call it the freedom of speech hypothesis. Testing this hypothesis in the form of a free, open, and ongoing public debate would constitute what Tocqueville called an “experiment in democracy”.

Can we speak with freedom about the things that demonstrate the limits of freedom of speech? The freedom of speech hypothesis predicts only that attempts will be made at repression, not whether or not these attempts will be successful. The only scientific way to verify or falsify the freedom of speech hypothesis would be to collect evidence of repression, whether successful or not, of it and related sociobiological theories.

Examples of evidence that could constitute its verification include more than the inhibition of the distribution of this work. Silent, inconspicuous, and seemingly innocuous methods of repression that preempt even the opportunity for consideration of alternatives, and extirpate even the awareness of the existence of other points of view, are so often the most effective. After all, why should censors burn books or other media when they can simply pull them from access or availability? Ultimately, the methods available for repression are flexible and multifarious. Consequently, any attempted or actual repression could constitute a verification of the freedom of speech hypothesis, regardless of the particular adaptable, evolving, and unpredictable means of repression.

There should be no bar for anyone to access this work. This work should be distributed for free; not for profit. I will likely be unable to defend its content against (further evidence for its repression through) media manipulations such as falsification, misrepresentation, decontextualization, and distortion. I can only point out that to verify a position, the position itself must first be disclosed in its veracity.

Yet the question remains whether the theories presented in this work stand up to the evidence or not. The problem is this: if the views expressed in this work are only attacked, dismissed, denounced, repudiated, maligned, or vilified with slander, defamation, marginalization, misrepresentation, or denigration, how can one tell if this is only a method of evading the real issues of substance? The substance of one person’s disagreement might be unreasoned ideological-political value commitments. For such a person, rational reflection on human nature might be less important than the political outcome that the theories presented here are ultimately discredited. This criterion holds no less for anyone who agrees on scientific grounds: there is no reason to assume that one can resolve one’s integrity as a scientist with one’s commitments as a political partisan.

In response, I stress that what is scientifically relevant is not whether one agrees or disagrees, but why one agrees or disagrees. What are the reasons a given theory might be accepted or rejected? If one thinks that I am wrong, then demonstrate why I am wrong. If one claims to judge this thesis by its scientific merits rather than unreasoned loyalty to extra-scientific commitments, then there is no need whatsoever to repress it and one should be able to confront my arguments point by point. Can the critic offer a better explanation of the evidence than the ones presented in this work? Why should anyone be convinced by anything less than an alternative theory that can better account for all of the evidence? I challenge anyone to resist public and political pressures and confront this application of sociobiology to politics on the basis of its scientific merits.

The Saxon/Norman origin of liberal democracy in the English-speaking world is the key to understanding why the discoveries of sociobiology have appeared to be so congenitally politically controversial. Stated briefly, a long-term consequence of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was a nepotistic “class” system imposed over the defeated Anglo-Saxons. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “although this constitution was violated and set at naught by Norman force, yet force cannot change right. A perpetual claim was kept up by the nation” for “a restoration of their Saxon laws.” This ongoing kinship-ethnic conflict broke out most radically as the English Civil War (1642-1651), the American War for Independence (1775-83), and the American Civil War (1861-65). Liberal democracy in the English-speaking world originated, in part, through the evolution of this tribal struggle.

As a logical fulfillment of the enlightenment founding of liberal democracy, this work puts liberal democracy on trial. It is a test of liberal democratic justice; if based on its own standards of justice, the evidence can be judged on its merits, unmarred by political interests. It is a test of whether America can be true to itself.

The Parasite Project <<< a collaboration of global film makers /  by JoFF Rae

A global film project, a unique and unprecedented traveling art installation exploring the entanglement of culture, environment, science, nature and universal connectivity.

The installation will consist of two components: a sculptural, structural installation and an indoor video installation housed in a number of spaces within the structure.

The premier of the installation will be in Asia’s non-stop metropolis, Hong Kong after which it will begin it’s migration around the world.

The project is about connectivity, how we all feel like outsiders but are actually all connected. It is also about the spread of ideas, like a virus, the project deliberately infects other artists, filmmakers and locations as it moves around the world.

 

http://www.parasitefilm.com/

What we need to do:

The Parasite Project have created a shot list of around 60 shots (see ‘Shot List’ below) and need people to film the same shots but in their own way, in their location. The final presentation is dozens of screens, in many environments within the installation, all playing the same shots but from different filmmakers, in an intelligently edited sequence.

We can film each element multiple times on different occasions. The more of each shots we get the better.

If we can only film a few of the shots that’s fine too, each shot submission will make a difference.

We can use existing footage from your previous work, or that of friends.

The Parasite Project are not National Geographic trying to film the world of human experience; we are trying to find abstract rhythms that are universal. They are looking for edgy, gritty work, not TV commercial style.

Wherever possible shoot high speed so we can go slow motion, but otherwise any camera quality is fine from lo-fi to super HD.

Talking/conversation/noise is fine whether from camera guy or subject matter but not necessary.

We will invite our friends and other filmmakers to take part, the more footage we can get the more effective and impactful the film will be.

 

The Shot List

Public

  1. Stand in the centre of busy streets, day or night, amongst masses of people and film for at least 15 seconds. Still shot.
  2. Large amounts of people walking toward you at pedestrian crossings.
  3. People in busy nightclubs and a view of the dance floor with many people in shot, as if you are in the middle of it.
  4. The moment in the nightclub/rave/concert where the tune kicks in and everyone goes wild. Ideally a shot over the heads of the crowd from the back of the venue so you see all the hands rise.
  5. People ranting.
  6. Mass police activity, waiting outside banks that are being robbed, waiting for protesters, suicides, at fires, etc.
  7. People getting roughed up, like in protests or demonstrations, shots from inside that type of riot atmosphere.
  8. People asking what the camera guy is doing, whether aggressive or curious.
  9. Someone who has just been attacked, bleeding, in pain.
  10. Anyone completely fucked on drugs in any situation.
  11. The camera operator being hassled/approached/ attacked.
  12. People stumbling out of nightclubs drunk. Also people trying to get in to night clubs drunk, arguing with the door staff.
  13. Any street fight/violence/hooliganism or people kicking off, shouting loudly, couples freaking out.
  14. Any obvious unusual incidents – police cars racing by, crashes, people falling, fights…all difficult I know but good to keep an eye out.

Transport/Travel

  1. The road ahead while traveling in a vehicle.There are a few parts to this shot: first sitting in a car filming the road ahead from the back seat while vehicle is moving fast, then also film the view ahead from the front seat. The horizon must be centered on the road ahead, the road being in the centre of the shot. Day or/and night. You should also try to film a section with a black or white car in front of your view around 30m ahead in the centre of your shot.These shots could also be captured from a camera on motorcycle handlebars/helmet.
  2. Illegal vehicle activity, street car racing, motorbike racing, burnouts.
  3. Planes passing overhead at the end of the runway both filling the frame and from a distance.
  4. A car crash. Could be cars crashing into each other, into objects, into walls, at different distances. This is a key shot so needs some attention. Ideally slow motion.
  5. A car coming towards the camera and stopping at the last second, or going over the camera.
  6. Driving shot while traveling through a long tunnel. Again, horizon and road ahead should be centered.
  7. In dark streets catching headlights flashing by and illuminating the scene momentarily.

Landscape

  1. Stunning/stark landscape still. No humans.
  2. Any street/location, that would normally be very busy, deserted. The same spot/view crowded.

Emotion

  1. Any negative human emotion – people upset, arguing, crying, people freaking out.
  2. Individuals discussing love, an experience of love, who they love.
  3. Any situation that feels like fear – a dog barking at the camera, or being warned away at the edge of violence, situations spinning out of control
  4. Genuine human consideration, caring for others, whether known or strangers.
  5. Sex/physical romantic activity.
  6. Human tragedy and the response to it.

Nature

  1. The sky – panning up and then down.
  2. Sunrise & sunset.
  3. Anything caught in a light when it’s dark, bugs, dust, things that look like bright dots of light in darkness such as snow falling at night.
  4. Tall grass moving in wind and walking through tall grass.
  5. Horses, running or close up still.
  6. Rain.
  7. Sunshine.
  8. Thunder coming, or events where it feels like a heavy thing is coming towards us, a building noise, industrial or organic, big trucks approaching, etc.
  9. Ocean with no people around, close up of the water, the waves meeting the shore, or the view out to the horizon, with the horizon central in the shot.
  10. The slaughter of animals.
  11. Film a scene reminiscent of the scene in The Deer Hunter, an animal standing staring at you in the wilderness, a dark forest or open plain.
  12. Things burning, unintentional fires.

Shots Specific

  1. A head emerging from water.
  2. Turning on night vision in the darkness to reveal something suprising or unusual.
  3. Someone asleep then waking up.
  4. The footage produced by a camera as it falls out of a window or from a structure from different heights. The higher the better!
  5. Women very pretty/good looking swearing or using gutter language. Head and shoulders and full body shot.
  6. Anyone falling, just to the floor or from height. Ideally slow motion.
  7. Person drawing a gun/knife or showing they have one.
  8. Following people running or people running by, especially if not in running gear/exercising, where other people are still, as if escaping or running from something. Follow the runner from the side also. The camera should be steady, so film it from a car/ bike/ dolly if you can get one – whatever works.
  9. People underwater, not scuba divers.
  10. Nudity or partial nudity.
  11. Anyone famous talking about either loss/tragedy or a pivotal event in their life.
  12. A person jumping in slow motion or in mid-air.
  13. A camera being thrown from one person to another – filming as it is thrown.
  14. People in masks, especially with hint of violence, ie; pseudo bank robbers.
  15. The camera rising steadily, as if going up in a glass elevator or helicopter, the ground receding away.
  16. Machinery moving. Close up so it fills the frame, it’s not important that the viewer knows what the machinery is.

Important Scene

A woman (preferably nude) falling or being struck by something unseen. It should mirror my painting style. Ideally slow motion. Also a girl in a dress being thrown to the floor or falling through space, as if hit by a car. Take some time with this one, multiple shots of each subject.

Your Shot

We film whatever we want, that one scene we always had in our mind but never found a place for.