In the meantime, here’s another David Icke rarity – his 2002 video presenting the account of Arizona Wilder, a Californian woman who claims to have been the victim of psychological torture by the reptilian elites. She claims to have had a split personality induced through trauma, and that the other personality was a sex-toy for politicians including George Bush. Grab a drink, and strap yourself in – it’s going to be a bumpy ride…

Any doubts as to the existence of such a field should be put aside after the 11.11.11 release of the film Thrive: What on Earth will it Take?, and associated website. Here’s the official blurb:

THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what’s REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream — uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.

The production standards are unusually high – perhaps because it was made, written and presented by Foster Gamble, heir to the (considerable) Procter and Gamble fortune. Which has led to some conspiracy theories of its own. But this one has everything - UFOs, crop circles, New World Order, David Icke, a coming “awakening”, the Rothschilds. Most importantly for me, it is clear evidence of how some fully-signed-up, meditating, vegan, reflexology New Agers turn to NWO conspiracies to explain why the New Age hasn’t come yet.

And don’t tell anyone, but the whole thing’s here.

First up: Wacky conspiracy theorist David Icke cashes in from world tour and booming book business, in the Daily Mail, 25/11/2011. (Full article here)

The Sun quickly followed suit with the fundamentally identical Get on yer bike, David Icke: Sun sees British oddball make mint on sell-out U.S. tour.

“If value for money was measured in words to the Pound then Icke’s stage show would be a bargain. For £45, fans are subjected to an incredible eight hours of his conspiracy theories and views of the world. The fact it is all senseless ramblings seems to matter not to his followers.” (Full article here)

Both these pieces have the standard elements: the queen is a reptilian, the disasterous 1991 Wogan interview, the observation that his fans “seem normal”. The authors seem most incensed, however, by the fact that Icke may be making money from his shows and books, and hints he may be “having the last laugh”, implying that he’s a huckster. On Alex Jones’ infowars.com, Paul Joseph Watson noted that the writer was paid for the article, and the paper also expected customers to pay to read it.

Both of these are primarily concerned with ridiculing him, but today’s Telegraph article, David Icke – would you believe it? is more interesting. The standard elements are there, but overall the tone is quizzical rather than mocking. There are some intriguing biographical details, as well as a refutation of the previous articles’ assertion that Icke is “in it for the money”. It refuses to accept that his fans are mad, and attempts to explain why sane people might be drawn to his apparently outlandish theories. Included is a quote from psychologist Dr Karen Douglas, who says:

“It’s dealing with their own lack of control over information, and empowering people to feel like they have the actual answer. In the age of the internet, this all becomes easier to tap into… You can’t make the blanket assumption that they are all fruitcakes. Most people are just looking for some kind of an explanation as to how they fit into the world.”

This is something of a simplification, which I am sure Dr Douglas is perfectly aware of; nevertheless, it’s a more nuanced and objective attempt than I have read in a mainstream newspaper before. The appearance of these articles, and the latter in particular, demonstrate that conspiracist discourse is of great relevance to understanding how culture is developing. They also suggest that my PhD is timely. I’ll be there at Wembley, and I suspect it may become quite the media event.

Image via Wikipedia

It’s now nearly two years since J. D. Salinger died. I cannot think of another case where an artist has died leaving numerous unpublished works. Not unfinished, merely unpublished; according to his daughter, there were so many that he filed them with colour-coding – red means publish as is, blue means needs editing, etcetera. I have a fascination with artists who produce something magical and then struggle to follow it up. Some, like Brian Wilson, go mad in the attempt. Joseph Heller is unusually noble in his acceptance that he’d probably never manage to top Catch 22. A very few, James Joyce or Scott Walker, perhaps, manage to equal or even top their masterpiece, though generally after a decade or more of work. But none, to my knowledge, have simply withdrawn their work from public consumption, except Salinger.

The Catcher in the Rye, his first novel, is a remarkable work, and what Salinger will be remembered for. It is a  succinct, mythical evocation of what it feels like to be a teenage outsider, and as a result, finds a ready audience. Personally, I was always more drawn to the books that followed, Nine Stories, a collection of previously published short stories, and two collections of novellas, Franny and Zooey, and the awkwardly titled Seymour: An Introduction and Raise High the Roofbeams, Carpenters. Both of these concern the Glass family, former TV quiz show alumni and all-round disfunctional siblings. The former is very good, ad works well as a collection; the latter less so, as it is rather rambling and uneventful.

Despite the declining critical response, Salinger continued to write about the Glass family, and in particular Seymour, a prodigy who committed suicide in A Perfect Day for Bananafish in 9 Stories. Salinger’s last published story, Hapworth 16, 1924, in the New Yorker, took the form of a rambling letter from the seven year-old Seymour Glass to his parents whilst at summer camp. It was particularly poorly received, and Salinger never published again. He didn’t stop writing, however, and between Hapworth in 1965 and his death in January 2010, is alleged to have written some 16 novel-length works. That is, at least four times his published works. So where are they?

Given that Salinger published only one novel in his lifetime, it may be that what is left in the vaults doesn’t measure up. Even so, that doesn’t mean it’s without merit. I want to pursue Salinger’s madness wherever it might roam, regardless of quality. Imagine: several millions of words, possibly all concerning the Glass family, from the pen of one of the most important novelists of the 20th century. Surely it’s of interest whether or not it’s well-written. Or sane.

We can only assume there is some dispute between the children. But Catcher will still sell in its millions; I don’t know what they have to lose.

What’s that you say? That’s the sort of cultural bricolagé guaranteed to get you all aflutter?

Then Muktuk: Hard-Boiled Shaman by Terry LaBan is the web-comic for you. Produced as a Masters thesis (now why didn’t I think of that!), do not let the frisson between the cartoony drawing style, noir narration and accurate portrayal of Siberian shamanic practices. Recently completed, the full thing will be online for a little while longer, until Terry finds a publisher. I doubt he’ll have to wait too long. Please do have a read.

Here’s the first page for your delectation:

The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick – 944 pages of drug-induced metaphysical psychosis.

I’m still reading Ubik, which PKD felt was important to his interpretation of what happened to him in February and March of 1974, so I haven’t started it yet. But from the introduction, the structure looks intriguing – the editors have included every letter and note from the immediate aftermath, then become more selective when PKD’s explorations become more voluminous, tangential and repetitive.

What happened to PKD? I’ll pass you over to Robert Crumb…

Lecturer in Religious Studies, Faculty of Arts

We are seeking to recruit a colleague to join our team of academics within the Department of Religious Studies, whose focus is broadly ‘contemporary religion in historical perspective’. You will support the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes taught or supported by the Department and contribute to the research culture of Religious Studies at The Open University.

You will have excellent qualifications in Religious Studies or in the rigorous study of religion from a methodological position, such as History or Sociology, be familiar with the fields covered in courses offered by the Department, and have sufficient academic flexibility to work on interdisciplinary courses.

You will have experience of and enthusiasm for distance learning, and be familiar with developments in teaching using electronic tools such as Moodle and VLEs appropriate to The Open University context.

You will be expected to make a valuable contribution in the forthcoming REF, therefore your research should be of ‘international’ standard or potential.

The Faculty has a strong commitment to collective working in teaching and scholarship and we encourage applications from those who want to work in such a culture.

Closing date: noon on 10 November 2011.

Interview date: 9 December 2011

Theresa May is alleged to have come off stage after her infamous “Catgate” speech to the strains of “Rocks” by Primal Scream. Primal Scream today issued the following statement:

Primal Scream are totally disgusted that the Home Secretary Theresa May ended her speech at the Tory party conference with our song Rocks.

How inappropriate. Didn’t they research the political history of our band?

Hasn’t she listened to the words? Does she even know what getting your rocks off means? No. She is a Tory; how could she?

Primal Scream are totally opposed to the coalition government, Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Howard, Clegg etc. They are legalised bullies passing new laws to ensure the wealthy stay wealthy, taking the side of big business while eradicating workers rights and continuing their attacks on young people, single parents and OAP’s by slashing education and social security budgets, and persecuting the poor for being poor.

We would like to distance ourselves from this sick association.

The Tories are waging a war on the disenfranchised, They are the enemy.

Primal Scream