The IMF Hates Bitcoin Because It Loves Total Control

The IMF Hates Bitcoin Because It Loves Total Control

Authored by Shawn Amick via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The IMF hates Bitcoin because its decentralized protocol and programmatic monetary policy defies the control the fund wants to implement on us all.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), along with a string of other financial institutions, really does not like Bitcoin. So, let’s do the usual, thinking through what the IMF is and why it even matters.

WHAT IS THE IMF?

The IMF and the World Bank are like the parallel universe versions of Shaggy and Scooby-Doo. They have no idea what they are doing, and yet the decisions they make determine how the show ends. The only difference is that no one wants to watch this version of the show, because Shaggy and Scoob keep debasing your currency into oblivion.

Sticking with the IMF alone for this article, its mandate is as follows:

“The IMF promotes monetary cooperation and provides policy advice and capacity development support to preserve global macroeconomic and financial stability and help countries build and maintain strong economies.” 

IMF.org

For oversimplification, let’s just imagine the IMF as dictating a short- and medium-term global monetary policy. It responds to what is in front of it at any given time and “influences” global markets. This, obviously, requires a large amount of control, or centralization, if you will.

So, who makes up the IMF?

“IMF loans are funded mainly by the pool of quota contributions that its members provide.”

IMF.org

It’s not a secret that a bunch of rich people influence the entire globe’s monetary policy. This is public information that’s easy to find. Obviously, these guys have good reason to maintain the status quo.

So, as I said, the IMF doesn’t like Bitcoin. But why?

PREVENTING THE FOURTH TURNING

For those unfamiliar, the “Fourth Turning” is a concept that states there is a cyclical progression in society, typically with 20 years or so in each turn, the last of which results in a crisis that topples the old systems of power and ushers in a new era.

Bitcoin is often thought to be the crisis moment of the Fourth Turning by toppling the financial institutions of old (here’s a summary).

Following that track, over the past two years, the world has been rocked by a pandemic that led to the debasement of many global currencies, the U.S dollar being a very clear one, as outlined in this article by Jerry Goddard. The IMF knows all of this and has made it clear that it means to maintain control.

On July 29, an article was posted on the IMF blog, including the following quote:

“There is a window of opportunity to maintain control over monetary and financial conditions, and to enhance market integration, financial inclusion, economic efficiency, productivity, and financial integrity.” 

IMF blog

It’s honestly kind of smug how indiscreet this statement is. Clearly, through central banks in nation states, the World Bank and other institutions, the goal of the IMF is to maintain control. In the classic Bitcoiner phraseology:” Bitcoin fixes this.”

But seriously, this is what Bitcoin was made for.

HOW DOES BITCOIN FIX THIS?

I’ll spare everyone the details of rehashing what Bitcoin is. Let’s stick to the basics:

1. Bitcoin is decentralized. There’s no group of developers, miners or businesses that can band together to manipulate the protocol. If consensus is not met, the hell with it, it isn’t happening. Understandably, the IMF, which settles short- and medium-term economic issues between countries by issuing out loans based on the currencies that it constantly has a hand in debasing, probably doesn’t want the money supply controlled by an unbeatable algorithm that makes you play the game the way Bitcoin wants to play.

2. Bitcoin has a programmatic monetary policy. We know how many bitcoin exist now, we know how many will exist in total and we know when the new bitcoin will be issued. We know all of this, and it’s publicly available to anyone willing to look. Not being able to control the supply or its issuance is a crucial concern for any central authority attempting to maintain power in the legacy system. They cannot control the protocol or the system of Bitcoin, and they cannot control the currency of bitcoin, either. These would be transparent reasons for not wanting it to succeed.

THE IMF WANTS TO INITIATE BITCOIN PANIC

“Digital money must be designed, regulated, and provided so that governments maintain control over monetary policy to stabilize prices, and over capital flows to stabilize exchange rates.”

IMF blog

Read that first part again: “Digital money must be designed” for government control. The IMF will claim this is for consumer protection. We hear about the impending regulations on the darkening horizon constantly.

And when discussing digital assets, the IMF made sure to speak directly on Bitcoin later on in the post:

“The least stable of the lot, which hardly qualify as money, are cryptoassets (such as Bitcoin) that are unbacked and subject to the whims of market forces.” 

IMF blog

The only cryptocurrency named was bitcoin. (I hear you maxis, I know you don’t like us to call Bitcoin “crypto.”) It was named because it is feared. It stands before the IMF as an unstoppable algorithm designed as a relic of the new age. Debasement and financial instruments that enable it will fade to forgotten dust as a bygone age is swallowed whole, along with the financial legacy framework.

IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT CONTROL

It’s about IMF’s funding too. What happens when a governing body needs to raise capital quickly? That’s right, it issues garbage bonds. Well, what happens if other products result in larger yields in a shorter time frame, such as what is happening in the world of stablecoins and DeFi?

“Countries are concerned with several scenarios. Substantial CBDC or stablecoin demand might absorb a large share of government bonds. This could affect the yield curve, and in the case of stablecoins whose reserves cannot be lent out, the availability of collateral. And stablecoins fully backed by central bank reserves could immobilize and segregate central bank liquidity which would otherwise be freely lent between banks to satisfy daily payment shocks.”

IMF, “The Rise Of Digital Money”

For the United States, this is what is referred to as the “Federal Funds Rate.” This is the rate at which banks borrow money from each other or the central bank overnight to meet a reserve requirement (a percentage of the deposits you hold), each night. As you can imagine, the loss of bonds and the loss of another revenue stream via the Federal Funds Rate isn’t something any centralized player wants.

BUT THAT’S NOT ALL, FOLKS!

In December 2020, the IMF put up a post on its blog that discussed using your browser history to affect your credit score.

“As Big Techs gather data, manage customer relations through ubiquitous digital platforms (as opposed to networks of physical branches), and become essential to better design and customize financial services, they will keep an increasing share of the producer surplus.”

IMF, “What Is Really New In Fintech”

The IMF is ecstatic to talk to all of us about the opportunity to add every single thing we do on the internet to be calculated into our ability to get a credit card. It doesn’t want to simply have access to your finances and control that information on a global market anymore. No, that got too boring. Now, it wants to control who you are and control every digital action you make.

Can you guess if Bitcoin fixes this?

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/31/2021 – 09:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3EtXKZu Tyler Durden

Hong Kong’s New Film Censorship Law Could Ban Netflix & Amazon Streaming 

Hong Kong’s New Film Censorship Law Could Ban Netflix & Amazon Streaming 

The implications and consequences of Hong Kong’s sweeping pro-China ‘national security law’ of June 2020 continues to be felt, with the latest on Wednesday being that a new far-reaching film censorship law has been passed and implemented, which even works retroactively.

All films that are deemed a threat to national security can not be made, with Hong Kong’s chief secretary – which is considered the second highest office in the HK government – having sole discretion over what movies are “found to be contrary to national security interests,” according to Reuters.

Image: Associated Press

Filmmakers, including movie creators and producers as well as documentary makers, could face up to a $128,000 fine and three years in prison if found in violation. The law appears designed to also impose a restrictive atmosphere of self-censorship given special licenses will be required to make and screen movies, with a group of inspectors being authorized to enter any production or viewing premises to ensure conformity to the law.

Though obviously subject to very broad interpretation by a mere one or a few powerful individuals in government (and no doubt also officials in Beijing), the law spells out that films are prohibited from any content aiming to “endorse, support, glorify, encourage and incite activities that might endanger national security.”

It was first announced last summer that censors would begin inspecting movies, and what’s worse is that the law can be retroactive, giving authorities the ability to purge past moves deemed as going against “patriotism”

A new China-imposed security law and an official campaign dubbed “Patriots rule Hong Kong” has since criminalized much dissent and strangled the democracy movement.

…But the law passed on Wednesday by the city’s legislature — a body now devoid of any opposition — allows scrutiny of any titles that had previously been given a green light.

It empowers Hong Kong’s chief secretary to revoke the screening license of past and current films that are deemed “contrary to the interests of national security”.

“The goal is very clear: it’s to improve the film censorship system, to prevent any act endangering the national security,” Commerce Secretary Edward Yau was cited in Reuters as saying.

This has left many questioning the implications for popular movies and streaming services coming out of the West – for example even services like Netflix or Amazon streaming shows.

“Pro-Beijing lawmakers criticised the government for not including online streaming companies in the current wording, meaning services like Netflix, HBO and Amazon may not be covered but the new rules,” writes AFP. “In response, Commerce Secretary Edward Yau said all screenings, both physical and online, were covered by the new national security law.”

Thus this latest film censorship law has overnight brought the former British colony a huge step closer to living under the kind of Communist censorship regimen that exists on the mainland. Over in China, President Xi has launched a broad campaign that seeks to prevent the nation’s youth from being exposed to “effeminate” pop culture imagery coming from the West, including greatly restricting time spent playing video games. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/31/2021 – 08:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BwGwZx Tyler Durden

Ghanaian Legislator Sues Prominent Video Commentator for Libel

The case is Agyapong v. Taylor (E.D. Va.), filed Friday:

Plaintiff is [a 5-time-]elected MP of Ghana’s Parliament …. As an MP, Plaintiff is the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee of Security, Defense, and Intelligence. Plaintiff is also, by appointment by the President of Ghana, the Board Chair of Ghana Gas Company Limited….

[Defendant Taylor] is the founder of [Defendant Loud Silence Media]. Mr. Taylor also operates and hosts a program on LSM via its YouTube Channel, ‘Loud Silence TV,’ and Facebook Platform, ‘With all due respect – Loud Silence Media.’ The latter show is streamed on many other platforms as well….

LSM identifies itself on its Facebook and YouTube platforms as a media outlet that brings “the latest in relevant culture, human interest, and entertainment stories live from the front lines in Ghana …” LSM is popular on YouTube and Facebook and has over forty-seven thousand (47,000) subscribers on YouTube and almost three hundred and forty thousand (340,000) followers on Facebook. Its shows are also streamed by other media and individual accounts on Facebook and YouTube….

Since July 2021, Defendants have falsely stated via the LS platforms that Plaintiff is a criminal and have falsely attributed numerous crimes to Plaintiff including “murder,”  “drug dealer and drug addict,” “immigration fraudster,” and “theft.”

I can’t speak to the merits of the libel claim, but it’s an interesting counterpoint to the other recent lawsuit over libels related to West Africa. And I do think this claim isn’t going anywhere:

Count III (Virginia Computer Crime’s Act) (In Violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-152.7:1) …

Virginia Code § 18.2-152.7:1 (Harassment by computer) makes it a crime for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, to use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act….

Defendants have repeatedly used a computer to post online the false publications described above in an effort to continuously harass Plaintiff….

I don’t see how the allegations would be covered by the statute (which in any event doesn’t appear to create a civil cause of action). And if such speech about a person (rather than just unwanted speech to a person) were covered, then I think the statute would be unconstitutionally overbroad.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CwERVp
via IFTTT

90% Of Unvaxx’d Germans Say They Won’t Get It

90% Of Unvaxx’d Germans Say They Won’t Get It

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

90 per cent of Germans who haven’t taken the COVID-19 vaccine say they won’t get it, with only the remaining 10 per cent saying they will “probably” get it or remaining undecided.

A recent survey carried out by Forsa on behalf of the Ministry for Health found that 65 per cent of Germans say there is “no way” they will get the COVID vaccine over the next two months.

A further 23 per cent said they would “probably not” get the COVID jab in the near future while 2 per cent said they would “definitely not” get the jab at any point.

Out of 3000 respondents, only 10 per cent were still undecided or said they will “probably” get vaccinated in the near future.

According to the Local, the poll results emphasize how, “people who have until now chosen to remain unvaccinated against Covid are unlikely to be convinced.”

The survey contradicts Thomas Mertens from the Standing Vaccinations Committee (STIKO), who claimed that unvaccinated Germans were not “hardliners” but were merely sitting on the fence and could be convinced.

Doesn’t look like it.

Only 5 per cent of respondents said they would get the jab if hospitals were “overwhelmed with patients,” while 89 per cent said it wouldn’t change their mind even if intensive care units reached their capacity.

Emphasizing how vaccine passports actually harden people’s opposition to getting vaccinated, 27 per cent said imposing restrictions on the unvaccinated would make them even more determined not to get jabbed, while only 5 per cent said it would encourage them to get jabbed.

It’s also worth noting that the 10 per cent figure who say they will get the jab or are undecided is probably lower given that some respondents will be telling the pollsters what they think they want to hear, and are actually not planning on getting vaccinated at all.

As we highlighted back in January, German authorities announced that COVID lockdown rulebreakers would be arrested and detained in refugee camps located across the country.

Earlier this summer it was also confirmed that the unvaccinated would be deprived of basic lifestyle activities like visiting cinemas and restaurants.

The editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild shocked some people by apologizing for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/31/2021 – 08:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bHtlL7 Tyler Durden

Ghanaian Legislator Sues Prominent Video Commentator for Libel

The case is Agyapong v. Taylor (E.D. Va.), filed Friday:

Plaintiff is [a 5-time-]elected MP of Ghana’s Parliament …. As an MP, Plaintiff is the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee of Security, Defense, and Intelligence. Plaintiff is also, by appointment by the President of Ghana, the Board Chair of Ghana Gas Company Limited….

[Defendant Taylor] is the founder of [Defendant Loud Silence Media]. Mr. Taylor also operates and hosts a program on LSM via its YouTube Channel, ‘Loud Silence TV,’ and Facebook Platform, ‘With all due respect – Loud Silence Media.’ The latter show is streamed on many other platforms as well….

LSM identifies itself on its Facebook and YouTube platforms as a media outlet that brings “the latest in relevant culture, human interest, and entertainment stories live from the front lines in Ghana …” LSM is popular on YouTube and Facebook and has over forty-seven thousand (47,000) subscribers on YouTube and almost three hundred and forty thousand (340,000) followers on Facebook. Its shows are also streamed by other media and individual accounts on Facebook and YouTube….

Since July 2021, Defendants have falsely stated via the LS platforms that Plaintiff is a criminal and have falsely attributed numerous crimes to Plaintiff including “murder,”  “drug dealer and drug addict,” “immigration fraudster,” and “theft.”

I can’t speak to the merits of the libel claim, but it’s an interesting counterpoint to the other recent lawsuit over libels related to West Africa. And I do think this claim isn’t going anywhere:

Count III (Virginia Computer Crime’s Act) (In Violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-152.7:1) …

Virginia Code § 18.2-152.7:1 (Harassment by computer) makes it a crime for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, to use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act….

Defendants have repeatedly used a computer to post online the false publications described above in an effort to continuously harass Plaintiff….

I don’t see how the allegations would be covered by the statute (which in any event doesn’t appear to create a civil cause of action). And if such speech about a person (rather than just unwanted speech to a person) were covered, then I think the statute would be unconstitutionally overbroad.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CwERVp
via IFTTT

Brexit Blowback: European Fishing’s Dependence On British Waters

Brexit Blowback: European Fishing’s Dependence On British Waters

Nearly a year after the conclusion of the trade agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, Statista’s Martin Armstrong reports that the issue of fishing remains a major source of tension between London and Paris. In conflict with its British neighbor over the number of fishing licenses granted to boats, France has tightened its controls in the English Channel and is threatening the UK with retaliatory measures.

The post-Brexit fisheries agreement provided for a transition period until the summer of 2026, when European fishermen are expected to give up 25% of their catches in UK waters, as recalled by L’Express. In the meantime, EU fishermen will retain access to certain areas off the British coast, but must demonstrate to the British authorities that they were already fishing in these areas during the reference period 2012-2016 in order to obtain a license. It is this point in particular that is fueling tensions.

Infographic: Brexit: European Fishing's Dependence on British Waters | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

As shown in Statista’s infographic above, which is based on data reported by Le Télégramme, European fishing is very dependent on British waters. Not only does the United Kingdom have the largest fishing zone on the Atlantic/North Sea coast, with an exclusive economic zone of 756 thousand km2 – more than those of France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany combined – but the waters it covers are also, by far, the most fish-rich.

The average volume of fish caught by EU fishermen in British waters, for example, was 760,000 tons per year before Brexit (between 2012 and 2016), while their British counterparts caught only 90,000 tons in EU waters by comparison, more than eight times less. This imbalance in fishery resources is largely explained by the natural reproductive cycles of fish in the region. Fish are born and raised on the continental coast and in the southern North Sea, before moving out to the colder and deeper waters of the United Kingdom as adults.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/31/2021 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BAAas1 Tyler Durden

Watch: MEPs Protest “Oppressive” Vaccine Passports, Question Why “Political Elites Push This Agenda This Hard”

Watch: MEPs Protest “Oppressive” Vaccine Passports, Question Why “Political Elites Push This Agenda This Hard”

Via Off-Guardian.org,

In the latest editions of This Week in the New Normal, we mentioned a group of Members of the European Parliament who held a press conference where they opposed mandatory vaccination and the “Green Pass”.

On the 28th five of those same MEPs held another press conference, and while the whole thing is worth watching (embedded above), the highlight is definitely German MEP Christine Anderson who speaks for two of the truest minutes in the EU’s history:

Full Transcript (emphasis ours):

All through Europe, governments have gone to great length to get people vaccinated. We were promised the vaccinations will be a “game changer”, and it will restore our freedom…turns out none of that was true. It does not render you immune, you can still contract the virus and you can still be infectious.

The only thing this vaccine did for sure was to spill billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

I voted against the digital green certificate back in April, unfortunately it was adopted nonetheless, and this just goes to show there is only a minority of MEPs who truly stand for European values. The majority of MEPs, for whatever reasons unbeknown to me, obviously support oppression of the people while claiming – shamelessly – to do it for the people’s own good.

But it is not the goal that renders a system oppressive it is always the methods by which the goal is pursued. Whenever a government claims to have the people’s interest at heart, you need to think again.

In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the well-being of regular people. What makes any of us think that it is different now? If the age of enlightenment has brought forth anything then, certainly this: never take anything any government tells you at face value

Always question everything any government does or does not do. Always look for ulterior motives. And always ask cui bono?, who benefits?

Whenever a political elite pushes an agenda this hard, and resort to extortion and manipulation to get their way, you can almost always be sure your benefit is definitely not what they had at heart.

As far as I’m concerned, I will not be vaccinated with anything that has not been properly vetted and tested and has shown no sound scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the disease itself in possible long-term side effects, which to this day we don’t know anything about.

I will not be reduced to a mere guinea pig by getting vaccinated with an experimental drug, and I will most assuredly not get vaccinated because my government tells me to and promises, in return, I will be granted freedom.

Let’s be clear about one thing: No one grants me freedom for I am a free person.

So, I dare the European Commission and the German government: Throw me in jail, lock me up and throw away the key for all I care. But you will never be able to coerce me into being vaccinated if I, the free citizen that I am, choose not to be vaccinated.

 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/31/2021 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZyJK1s Tyler Durden

The Kinks vs. the People in Grey


culture1

“My gran used to live in Islington in this really nice old house, and they moved her to a block of flats, and she hasn’t got a bath now,” the rock star told the reporter. “She’s got a shower because there isn’t room for a bath. And like she’s 90 years old, she can’t even get out of the chair let alone stand in the shower. They haven’t taken that into consideration. And they knew she was going to move in because it’s a new block and they took her around and showed her where she was gonna live and she didn’t have any choice….The government people think they are taking them into a wonderful new world but it’s just destroying people.”

It was 1971. The Kinks had just released a new album, and the man who wrote and sang its songs was sitting down with Circus magazine to promote it. But explaining the L.P. apparently entailed talking about architecture. “It’s just very disturbing,” Ray Davies expounded, starting to sound like the Jane Jacobs of classic rock. “They’re knocking down all the places in Holloway and Islington and moving all the people off to housing projects in new towns. They say the houses they’re tearing down are old and decayed, but they’re not really.”

This wasn’t your ordinary rock-interview fare. But Muswell Hillbillies, which turns 50 on November 24, wasn’t an ordinary rock record. A concept album about the evils of urban renewal programs, it barely even gestured toward the pop mainstream, delving instead into country, blues, early jazz, and the British music-hall tradition. (On one track, the horn section reportedly played their instruments in a bathroom, the better to recapture the sound of an ancient recording session.) The songs’ topics weren’t your standard Top 40 fodder either, ranging from a Dixieland ditty about paranoid schizophrenia to an ode to the curative powers of tea. Small wonder that its sole single failed to crack Billboard‘s charts.

But some of us think it’s the best goddamn album ever made.

The sleeve art establishes the setting before the music even begins to play. On the front: the band enjoying some beers at an old-fashioned English pub, surrounded by drinkers old and young. On the inside: an iron fence surrounding a leftover wartime bomb site in the middle of the city. And then, when the music actually starts, you hear a song cycle about a community of particular people in a particular place, all trying to keep a grip on their lives in the shadow of the era’s enormous faceless institutions. Davies describes those characters with the same attentive detail that those planners failed to display when they gave a 90-year-old woman an apartment without a bathtub.

He sings about those planners too. In “Here Come the People in Grey,” the authorities prepare to rip down the narrator’s home: “The borough surveyor’s used compulsory purchase to acquire my domain/They’re gonna pull up the floors, they’re gonna knock down the walls, they’re gonna dig up the drains.” The singer has a reverie of resistance: “We’re gonna live in a tent, we’re gonna pay no more rent….We’re gonna buy me a gun to keep the policemen away.” But that’s just a daydream. “Some way, gonna beat those people in grey/But here come the people in grey to take me away.”

It’s a dystopian vision—but only to a point. There are cracks in this dystopia, little eruptions of color against the gray: eccentric neighbors, fussing relatives, familiar little traditions. The album’s title alludes to Muswell Hill, the North London suburb where Davies lived as a boy, and its verses are filled with references to people and places he knew growing up.

It also refers periodically to places he only imagined as he was growing up. As they lived their lives in Muswell Hill, these Londoners’ dreams kept drifting to America.

* * * * *

While Muswell Hillbillies was shipping to stores, America was listening to its own soundtrack. As the late 1960s melted into the early ’70s, the great culture-war anthem on this side of the Atlantic was Merle Haggard’s No. 1 country hit “Okie From Muskogee.”

First released in 1969, the same year Vice President Spiro Agnew called on the “silent majority to stand up for its rights,” the song seemed to draw a sharp line between Middle America and the counterculture. On one side, there was marijuana, LSD, draft card burners, swingers, long hair, hippies, San Francisco, beads, sandals, and campus rebels. On the other, there was chaste courtship, Old Glory, leather boots, football, respecting your elders, and maybe some moonshine when things got a little wild. The narrator put himself firmly in the second camp: “I’m proud to be an Okie from Muskogee/A place where even squares can have a ball.”

Some critics have argued that the song was intended as a joke. I’m inclined to understand it as a dramatic monologue: “Okie” reports how one of those Middle Americans feels about the cultural changes around him, and whether you react by nodding or laughing is up to you. But in 1971, almost everyone read “Okie” as an anti-hippie jeremiad. That’s certainly how Robert Palmer was invoking it in his New York Times review of The Kinks’ album. When he got to the L.P.’s closing track, a country-rock yawp called “Muswell Hillbilly,” Palmer declared that it “has the foot-stomping fervor of ‘Okie From Muskogee,’ but rather than aggravate existing conflicts, it stresses the unity of the disaffected young and society’s older victims in the face of an interlocking power structure bent on the destruction of human dignity and, eventually, human life.”

It’s a shrewd comparison, and not just because the songs share a shit-kicking spirit and some musical DNA. With “Muswell Hillbilly,” as with “Okie,” it’s best not to confuse the singer with the narrator. As you listen to it, ask yourself: Who’s telling this story?

The first verse sets the scene, sketching a character in a manner that’s both merciless and affectionate:

Well, I said good-bye to Rosie Rooke this morning
I’m gonna miss her bloodshot, alcoholic eyes
She wore her Sunday hat so she’d impress me
I’m gonna carry her memory til the day I die

That’s all we hear about the alcoholic in the Sunday hat. (Rosie Rooke was, apparently, a real person: a friend of Davies’ mother.) But in verse two, we learn a little more about the narrator:

They’ll move me up to Muswell Hill tomorrow
Photographs and souvenirs are all I’ve got
They’re gonna try and make me change my way of living
But they’ll never make me something that I’m not

Note the preposition: They’ll move him up to Muswell Hill. This isn’t a song about being pulled away from the community where Davies grew up. It’s about someone being resettled in that neighborhood, back before Davies was born.

Who’s telling this story? Not the man singing it. But it’s someone he knows. “My parents had grown up in Islington and Edmonston and had later moved out to the suburbs called Finchley, Highgate, Muswell Hill away from the inner city and the Victorian factories,” Davies wrote in 1994’s X-Ray: An Unauthorized Autobiography. “It must have been unrecognizable then.”

In the same paragraph, Davies said the song was about “a family similar to my own.” So maybe the narrator is one of his parents, or maybe it’s simply someone a lot like his parents. It doesn’t really matter which. It was not typical, in 1971, for a rocker to sing a verse from the POV of either his own parent or a parental stand-in, and it was even less typical for the parent to be the rebellious young star of the story. There’s more generational unity here than Palmer probably realized.

There is another song from the period that pulls off a trick like that. It was sung by a man from California whose parents had moved there, during the Depression, from Oklahoma. It’s written from the perspective of someone who is from Oklahoma, and the man who co-wrote and sang it has said it was inspired in part by people like his father—”proud people whose farms and homes were foreclosed by Eastern bankers. And who then got treated like dirt.” The song is “Okie From Muskogee.”

“Okie” still reflects a generation gap, or at least a culture gap; the narrator is full of complaints about hippies and student rebels. “Muswell” has none of that. As Palmer says, it damns a system that afflicts old and young alike. That system has already had a cameo in the song: It’s the “They” who are uprooting the narrator and plotting to change his way of living.

We’ll hear more about They in a bit. But first there’s a chorus, and the chorus turns everything upside-down:

‘Cause I’m a Muswell Hillbilly boy
But my heart lies in old West Virginia
Never seen New Orleans, Oklahoma, Tennessee
Still I dream of those Black Hills that I ain’t never seen

Wait. What?

This isn’t the United States that Haggard lived in and sang about. It’s an imaginary American vista, a landscape that an Englishman might visualize while listening to a Haggard record. Our narrator is dreaming of something he never experienced but feels like he faintly remembers, a past he thinks he recognizes in garbled images of America.

The album prepared us for this with another song, the haunting “Oklahoma U.S.A.,” about a woman who makes her neighborhood rounds lost in a Hollywood trance (“In her dreams she is far away/In Oklahoma, U.S.A./With Shirley Jones and Gordon McRea”). But the Muswell man’s daze draws on more than just a single movie—it’s a montage of fragmented impressions. West Virginia hillbillies, Oklahoma Okies, New Orleans jazzmen: together they seem to signify something old and authentic and free.

In fact, none of them (save those Black Hills) are as old as Muswell Hill, and the narrator is frank about how inauthentic his connection to them is. As for freedom: Davies was well aware that the sorts of bureaucrats that he decried in England had been tearing down homes in America too. He even recorded a song called “Mountain Woman,” left off the original album but eventually attached to a CD reissue as a bonus track, in which a pair of bona fide hillbillies—not the Muswell kind—lose their land to the U.S. government, which floods it, builds a hydroelectric power station, and moves the couple to “the thirty-third floor of a man-made concrete mountain.”

But in “Muswell Hillbilly,” Davies isn’t singing about the actual America across the ocean. He’s singing about a dream. Oppressed, he dreams of freedom; uprooted, he dreams of roots.

That dream makes him defiant:

They’re putting us in identical little boxes
No character, just uniformity
They’re trying to build a computerized community
But they’ll never make a zombie out of me

“They” are back in this verse, and their totalitarian intentions are becoming more clear. The narrator insists that They won’t succeed. And on reflection, we know he’s right, because we’ve been listening to a series of stories about the people of Muswell Hill, all persisting in their distinctive individuality.

The phrase “identical little boxes” calls to mind Malvina Reynolds’ “Little Boxes,” a rather smug song about suburban conformity (“little boxes made of ticky tacky…little boxes, all the same”). In 1960 and 1961, shortly before Reynolds wrote that song, the sociologist Herbert Gans interviewed dozens of people who had moved a few years earlier to a freshly built New Jersey suburb. He found more heterogeneity than the stereotypes of the time suggested; the town’s residents, he wrote in his 1967 book The Levittowners, “made internal and external alterations in their Levitt house to reduce sameness and to place a personal stamp on their property.” Character overcame uniformity, in Levittown and in Muswell Hill.

They’ll try and make me study elocution
Because they say my accent isn’t right
They can clear the slums as part of their solution
But they’re never gonna kill my Cockney pride

We’re back in Haggard territory here. “Listen to that line: ‘I’m proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,'” Haggard told Nat Hentoff in 1980. “Nobody had ever said that before in a song.” Okie pride and Cockney pride come together in the chorus, though the allusion to Oklahoma has been replaced by something else the second time around:

‘Cause I’m a Muswell Hillbilly boy
But my heart lies in old West Virginia
Though my hills are not green, I’ve seen them in my dreams
Take me back to those Black Hills that I ain’t never seen

On the album’s first track, Davies invoked the ghost of William Blake: “What has become of the green pleasant fields of Jerusalem?” And in the final stanza of the L.P.’s final song, we find ourselves in Blakean territory again, dreaming of green hills among these dark Satanic Mills. But now the paradise to be erected is not Jerusalem; it’s West Virginia and South Dakota. Kinks will not cease from mental fight, nor shall guitar sleep in their hands, til they have built America in England’s green and pleasant land.

* * * * *

The reference to Blake’s Jerusalem came in “20th Century Man,” a song where Davies declares: “I was born in a welfare state, ruled by bureaucracy/Controlled by civil servants and people dressed in grey/Got no privacy, got no liberty/’Cause the 20th century people took it all away from me.” Combine those lyrics, and you’re evoking Clement Attlee, prime minister from 1945 to 1951, who not only built the British welfare state but did so promising a “New Jerusalem.” And part of this New Jerusalem was the New Towns Act of 1946, which started the process of relocating Londoners from homes deemed substandard (or homes that had simply been bombed out) to planned communities outside the city limits.

That’s what Muswell was reacting against, but what was it for? Davies’ father voted for Attlee’s Labour Party, and Ray Davies found himself voting Labour too, even after he began growing disillusioned with the party. He even voted for it after it became New Labour and adopted what Davies derided as “a seamless blend of polite socialism meshed into conservative policies and a dreaded political correctness.” The party was “an outdated and somewhat ineffective force,” he explained in his 2013 book Americana, but the Tories didn’t have much appeal for him either, even if he “valued many traditional aspects of the past that are associated with conservatism.”

There’s a track on Muswell Hillbillies called “Uncle Son.” (The title again conjures the idea of old and young uniting, though it was apparently named for one of Davies’ actual uncles.) One of its verses recites a series of ideologies, then shifts gears and reminds the listener that some people don’t have that sort of ideology: “Liberals dream of equal rights/Conservatives live in a world gone by/Socialists preach of a promised land/But old Uncle Son was an ordinary man.” Change wasn’t worthwhile, the song suggested, unless it kept the Uncle Sons in mind. “Bless you, Uncle Son/They won’t forget you when the revolution comes.”

Muswell eschews grand visions: Its politics are rebellious, even revolutionary, but it doesn’t want a revolution that isn’t built on real families and neighborhoods, on actual individuals and their concrete freedoms and attachments. Otherwise you end up with an alleged New Jerusalem that exiles a woman from her comfortable old home and moves her to a flat where she can’t bathe.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31jh7X1
via IFTTT