Over thee last 30 years TV has been thee greatest single factor in thee control ov thee attitudes ov thee people. Even if it was unintentional, which seems unlikely, thee prevailing view ov thee world as seen by thee writers, producers and controllers ov TV companies has becoum thee accepted norm, to which thee viewer inevitably compares him or herself. Genesis P'Orridge: Thee Grey Book

Throughout human history, power has fluctuated between religious and political organizations. At times, the two have become subtly, and not so subtly entwined. Even if their relationship is unsteady, they do have a lot in common. Politicians are fond of preaching, priests are fond of making political statements {in a recent TV debate on whether Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ is anti-semitic, a catholic priest said: "I understand that the Jews have had a relatively hard time of it in the past, but why do they have to keep going on about it?"}.

Both employ theatrics, drama and ritual in order to suggest that they are a protective, supportive power rather than a system of control and oppression. Often, we find both political and religious organizations behaving in an entirely hypocritical manner - flaunting their own rules regarding sexuality in particular {and the use of drugs in the case of political power}.

In the 1970's, writers such as Michael Moorcock suggested that technology had replaced religion in the heart of western culture. In our present day, it seems that it is the media, and their command of technology, that holds ultimate power over the masses. If console game-play and web browsing are ritualistic in nature, and if watching and listening to film, music and TV are near-devotional practices, then those working within the media are our priests, and it is in their hands that the real power lies.

We often feel a bizarre kind of worship towards 'stars' {ordinary, average people who's lives and work have been elevated to a status totally at odds with their skill, their personalities and ideas: you can find people with more style, more sex appeal, more political, spiritual and sociological awareness, and more artistic ability working in your local supermarket than in the likes of Posh Spite or System of a Down}.

I'm sorry to seem so down on youth culture all the time, but there comes a time when you realize that the likes of {insert current alt-metal-guru-band here} are very good at complaining and looking angry, but they are not offering any solutions to our problems, they're just buying into the stereotypical signifiers of 'youth' and 'honesty' in the same way that their fans do. What good does shouting and looking sulky and wallowing in hatred and hostility do? Surely these things - aggression, hatred, hostility, are the tools of mainstream culture? When we deal in hatred, in any negative energy, we are playing the game according to the system's rules - we are 'rebelling' only in accordance with established forms. Ultimately, they are {perhaps unintentionally} masquerading as representatives of alternative culture - they are in the service of mainstream culture, of corporations, they produce a product of no more or less value to the system than the latest toothpaste or hair-cream.

The likes of George Bush and Tony Blair are figureheads {and inevitable scapegoats} for political parties, in the same way that the latest crop of chubby-faced stoner singer-songwriters, and pale, scrawny red neck Divas are figureheads for marketing organizations and record companies. And this gets me to my point. In the West, media, publishing, TV and film companies hold more influence than any religious or political system in the hearts and minds of the masses.

Ultimately, we are governed by our needs and desires, not by political or religious control. TV, computer games, film and magazines appeal to us precisely because they indulgence our desires, they don't oppress of them.


Ov course thee world presented on TV bears little or no relation to reality, and as a consequence thee viewer is left not only with a feeling ov failure, but also ov boredom with this "perfect" world on thee screen. Even in thee area ov news and documentary those interests which shape and control TV everywhere assume that "thee public" cannot cope with thee whole truth.
Genesis P'Orridge: Thee Grey Book


In the east, Quasi-religious political figures use the media in the same way that they employ troops or artillery. In the west, the relationship between political power and the media is something quite different. Trial by media is a real phenomenon. Look at Michael Jackson, or O.J. Simpson. The tabloid press {the propaganda wing of media power}, has the ability to create media jihads {see the recent UK paedophelia scare}, and to canonized, and then condemn the stars that they help to make.

For a brief time it even seemed that execution by media had become a reality, when it appeared that Lady Di had been persued to her death by the press. Ironic that the only royal of any real use to the media {a rare combination of both sex and ethical appeal} should be 'taken out' by its own troops.


The Joan of Arc Syndrome

Stars are often systematically witch-hunted. Only after their deaths do they become sainted in the eyes of the media: Kurt Cobain was transformed from drug-addled miserablist to spokesman for a generation in the same way that Ian Curtis, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Sid Vicous were before him; same with Marilyn Monroe, or Elvis, or James Dean. The list goes on, and will continue to do so.

Power, fast acting, vitamin enriched

Without the support of the media, political power is no power at all. In the UK, the press are polarized to the extent that liberal politics have no access to the mass public. The only thing that distinguishes Labour from Tory is that Tony used to play in a band, and the Tories are fronted by a succession of skin heads with grey complexions. In the US, it's the lesser of two cowboys. Western justice systems are equally as unjust {and prejudiced} as that of the rest of the world.

In politics, religion and media, "an eye for an eye" is taken as a literal truth, not a metaphor. In a spiritual sense, "an eye for an eye" means that, in order to begin to perceive the greater world of consciousness or spirit, we must give up our subjective way of seeing, and surrender to a more objective, unprejudiced form. In the west, spirituality is a dirty word, and yet it has very little to do with contemporary religion - or rather, contemporary religion has little to do with spirituality.

Spirituality is ultimately concerned with self-discovery, the exploration of self and surroundings: it offers personal freedom in the face of oppression and suffering. It is a process of questioning ourselves and our relationship to those around us. Religion and politics offer 'answers' and demand belief, but they do not encourage questions, and in religion, belief seems closer to desperation and fear than a spiritual release or enlightenment.

How can a Bush or a Blair hope to compete with the likes of Michael Jackson or Marilyn Manson?

The youth are far more likely to believe the scripted dialogue of a Morpheus or a Neo than the equally scripted dialogue of a George or a Tony. They'd both be better off fronting metal bands with punk clothing and boy-band looks. Or at least a guest spot on Friends or Corry...

We're all more likely to believe what we read in the gutter press or neo-fantasy fiction than what we hear from the mouths of a political figurehead. One form of fiction over another.

If the public find the misanthropic bile provided by the gutter press to be a little too rich, they can always turn to TV and the movies for spiritual nourishment {ie gratification}.

The Christian churches would do well to take a lesson from Spielberg or the Wachowski Brothers: Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, Buffy and The Matrix are the only brush with spirituality that the youth are likely to crave. I'm only surprised that we haven't seen a 'Crowley, The Movie', the ultimate personification of contemporary need for attention, material wealth, quasi-spirituality and misanthropy.

The rails of our social rollercoaster are on a kind of social, political and ecological Fibonacci Spiral. We don't know what's at the centre, but we're on our way, and the ride has its ups and downs...

This essay was brought to you in association with M.C. Noize and the Stray Dog City Soup Kitchen.

Rollo Kim