History rhymes?

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/08/28/fentanyl-addiction-fuels-u
nderground-shoplifting-economy-in-las-macarthur-park/

If one lives long enough, one will realise that history has an unmistakable tendency to repeat itself. Occasionally, the roles are reversed, with the initial victims now taking on the role of the aggressor. At times, history also rhymes, featuring different players in somewhat altered contexts.

The latest thing that caught my eye is how the USA is raising such a hue and cry over the fentanyl problem that has hit the country. They are creating quite a scene on the international stage, squarely blaming the issue on China. The raw material, allegedly synthesised in China, has found its way into America through agents in Mexico and Canada. Recently, India was also called upon to assist, as it serves as a stopover for the merchandise, or perhaps some of its components are manufactured in India, the capital of pharmaceuticals.

The amusing thing is that it is primarily the USA that is so severely affected by the recreational use of fentanyl. Other Western countries are not as impacted. Interestingly, the potency of fentanyl has increased substantially over the years, leading to even accidental deaths of American paramedics attending to overdosed patients through mere inhalation or skin contact. The US (the West) is crying foul.

Interestingly, over two hundred years ago, such a fiasco dealt a significant blow to one of the two wealthiest nations in the world, China, which took over a hundred years to recover from the consequences.

The Western imperial powers believed they were providing a valuable service by introducing cannabis to China. The East India Company (EIC) viewed the business in which the Portuguese were engaged as notably profitable. The British were willing to spend excessive amounts on Chinese silk, porcelain (which they affectionately referred to as "china"), and tea. As a result, Britain was losing a considerable amount of silver to China, depleting the national coffers.

https://images.app.goo.gl/4LBwmSgZZa4yB9vZ7

Opium was widely available in India, and by the end of the 18th century, the country was under the control of the EIC. It began cultivating opium on an industrial scale. Many farmers were coerced, lacking choices or under compulsion, to grow this highly prized commodity destined for China. Numerous local traders and middlemen benefited from this arrangement. Even the Mughals became involved by cultivating opium in the fields they owned.

 

In China, the limited access imposed on foreigners confined their business dealings to Guangzhou (Canton), Xiamen (Amoy), and Zhoushan. From these ports, smuggled opium was transported to the mainland. Over time, this transformed the once-mighty Middle Kingdom into a land of addicts. At its peak, there were between 10 and 12 million addicts in China.

It culminated in two opium wars, treaties, territorial losses for China, legislation regulating the opium trade, the rights of foreigners to engage in trade, and the permission for Christian missionaries to traverse China. Subsequently, the Qing Dynasty fell. It took nearly a century, marked by numerous coups, upheavals, and shifts in political systems, for normalcy to be restored. That is how long it took for a generation to recover and for the nation to reclaim its dignity.

 

So, the last time a country fell into the clutches of addiction, what did the rest of the world do, and what did the opportunists within the country do? They reaped the benefits that arose from other people's miseries. Nobody truly helped; they simply asked, "What's it for me?"

British faux pas. Pinning poppy flowers at the Hong Kong handover ceremony
in 1997. Reminding the former owners of the real reason why they lost
 Hong Kong in the first place. Or is it their way of giving the middle finger?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Man with so many Dark Secrets!

A Convenient Death (2020)
The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein
Authors: Alana Goodman & Daniel Halper

The turn of the 21st century witnessed the rise of conspiracy theories, including Pizzagate, #MeToo, following the exposé of Harvey Weinstein, and QAnon. One prominent news story that captured public consciousness was that of Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein began life as the modest son of a refuse collector in Coney Island. Although poorly qualified and lacking a university degree, he fabricated his resume to secure a teaching position at a school. He was an intelligent man, but when his deception was revealed, he transitioned to the money market. Despite lacking formal qualifications, he succeeded in persuading his clients to invest significantly through him.

Epstein claims to have made millions for his clients, but some insist that he keeps the liaisons going through well-crafted blackmail.  

He is said to have made tonnes through his shady business of pimping minor girls and arranging them for some 'special' clients. His close clientele may include Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Bill Gates, Woody Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Alec Baldwin, MBS, Ehud Barak and maybe Trump.

Many of those mentioned in his later exposé deny ever knowing Epstein, but video evidence is plentiful. The mastermind behind Epstein's recruitment was Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Britain's disgraced media baron Robert Maxwell. She is reported to have a network for procuring underage girls to get the ring started.

It is said that Epstein was audacious in his actions. He flaunted his private jets, including a Boeing 727 whimsically named 'Lolita Express', about the 1962 film 'Lolita', to win over VIPS, and even acquired his own island for his alleged illicit activities. His net worth remains questionable. Some even doubt whether he is truly worth what he claims to possess. Conversely, much like he does for his clients, he may have concealed his wealth in offshore accounts, beyond the scrutiny of prying eyes. Epstein was known to be a philanthropist, donating to numerous institutions of higher learning and funding research. His most prominent client was Leslie Wexner, the owner of 'Victoria's Secret', who availed himself of more than just his financial management services.

In 2005, one of the girls recruited as an escort reported to the police. This soon opened a can of worms that would not disappear. Epstein's house of cards collapsed. Ghislaine was also implicated. One by one, Epstein's acquaintances claimed not to know him. After receiving a jail sentence for soliciting a prostitute and an underage one, he was released in 2009. In 2019, he was rearrested on federal sex trafficking charges. A month after his arrest, having rewritten his will and preparing for his trials with his team of lawyers, he was found dead in his cell. The cause of death was determined to be suicide by hanging. Even though Epstein was on suicide watch, the CCTV was not functioning. No staff had observed his activities for an extended period. The post-mortem findings were contradictory, such as the ability of a tall man to hang himself without sufficient leg space. The pattern of neck injury was also questioned by detractors.

For a man carrying so many dirty secrets which could tarnish the image of many, there is every reason for him to be dead and not wash their dirty linen in public.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein

By 

By 

All in bad taste!

The Apprentice (2024)
Director: Ali Abbasi

youtube clip

There used to be something called decorum, a set of behaviours that everyone agreed upon, accepted as social mores and considered good manners. For example, one does not speak loudly in a library or crack a joke at a funeral. 

Now, it seems that all of this is a relic of a distant past. Nothing is taboo anymore.  

That was what went through my mind as I sat down to watch this film about the early rise of the current two-time President of the USA, Donald Trump. Narrating anyone's biopic inevitably includes some unsavoury details. With so much information available, much of it questionable in authenticity, how are we truly going to tell someone's story, warts and all, without hurting the sentiments of the person occupying the august seat, or at the very least, without tainting the highest office in the land?  

Here we have a film released about the early life of the very person who eventually won the elections to become President. In fact, he had previously served as President, a term before the current one. In America, there is a tradition. The past President is still addressed as ‘Mr President', not 'Mr Ex-President', implying the honour attached to the position. Similarly, a retired Ambassador is still referred to as Mr/Madam Ambassador. Somehow, all that goes out of the window when it comes to Trump. Rules do not apply.  

It recounts the early years of Donald Trump as a novice property dealer grappling with legal challenges stemming from accusations of racial discrimination against his black tenants. Trump endures a difficult existence, overshadowed by a domineering father, a mother who consistently hovers over him, and an alcoholic brother. He seeks assistance from a ruthless, high-powered lawyer, Roy Cohn. The name Roy Cohn emerged during the McCarthy era, when he served as the prosecutor who played a key role in sending the Rosenberg couple to the electric chair for espionage.

With Cohn's ruthless methods and Trump's foresight, the Trump brand fills the skyline of 1980s New York. The film proceeds to illustrate how Trump woos his first wife, Ivana, his infidelities, his use of amphetamines, hair transplants, liposuction, spousal abuse, betrayal of his old friend Cohn, and everything else to depict what type of self-serving man he is. I find it all in poor taste.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The watershed moment!

Beatles '64 (Documentary, 2024)
Director: David Tedeschi.

I suppose the world will never have enough of the Fab Four. In 1995, when Apple Corps released the Beatles Anthology 1, the world went wild. It was marketed as a collection of long-lost recordings yet to be released. The band had not put out an album since their breakup in 1970 and had not performed together since the 'Let It Be' rooftop concert, so the audience was eager for some classic tunes.

The first anthology was undeniably nostalgic. It featured the Beatles' unfinished track, 'Free as a Bird.' By then, two of the four members had passed away, and their voices were electronically blended. The result was a spark in the eyes of every Beatles fan. The music video showcased numerous old black-and-white photographs from their time in Liverpool as young lads. The other songs were reworks of their earlier hits, showcasing their playful moments in the studio and experiments with alternative tempos and arrangements for their music.

In this way, two more anthologies followed shortly after. By then, the frenzy had subsided. Occasionally, there would be one or two feature films centred around Beatlemania. That was all until Martin Scorsese embarked on a project to release some footage from their archives of the recordings made during the Beatles' remarkable first trip to the USA. People realised that they could never get enough of the Beatles.

Mass hysteria?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-elderly-perceive-
The-Beatles-in-the-60s

America was in mourning after JFK's assassination in November 1963. The music industry was already poised to encourage the public to move on. In a calculated move, it planned a transcontinental cultural exchange to bring the British music sensation, the Beatles, to perform in the USA. To this end, the album 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' was released, with hopes that their visit to the US would introduce and boost sales there. Previously, British performers had not fared well in America. 

Unexpectedly, 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' hit the Top 10 in December 1963. So, when the Beatles arrived in New York in February 1964, the US witnessed an unprecedented phenomenon of adolescent girls screaming their lungs out for no apparent reason. The girls featured in the 1964 footage were interviewed in this documentary, yet none could explain why they were screaming at the time. Such is the power of the human mind. Monkey see, monkey do.

Ali is the greatest!
Bettmann Archive

The older section of society could not grasp what all the fuss was about. Still reeling from the loss of their beloved President, they only saw four young chaps with peculiar haircuts and fashionable suits. They thought they were merely a fleeting trend accompanied by loud music. Nevertheless, they were indifferent. In America, they had Elvis Presley with his sensuous gyrating moves and lyrics rich with sexual innuendos, female singers lamenting their romantic tribulations, and the Beach Boys serenading with their ever-popular surfing songs. The Beatles seemed harmless enough.

The Beatles soon graced three Ed Sullivan shows, including concerts in Washington, D.C., and Florida. They even paid a visit to Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) as he prepared to face Sonny Liston.

The Beatles' appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show marked a pivotal moment. It signalled the beginning of the British Invasion in music.

(P.S. Ringo is named Ringo because he wore various rings and frequently changed them. His given name is Richard Starkey.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

google.com, pub-8936739298367050, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

A question of loyalty versus compassion.

During Trump's second inauguration as US President, a bishop made a direct appeal to the President to have mercy on the LGBTQ+ community and undocumented migrant workers. Trump, in his campaign speeches, promised to go hard on illegal immigration once he took office. Previously, the Biden administration had a lax stance on immigration. Trump also declared that there are only two genders in the USA: male and female, unlike the spectrum of over 68 gender expressions advocated by liberal thinkers. 

The decree would automatically make millions of immigrants to the US illegal, and the woke generation is fearful that there would be a witch hunt against the LGBTQ+ community.

This issue regarding immigrants coming to America is not new, as far as the world's biggest economy is concerned. It has been ongoing since the Cold War. America has itself to blame for its predicament. America, being the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, took it upon itself to curb the spread of communism, especially in its backyard. Central and South American countries have been in turmoil for a long time. To ensure that left-leaning leaders do not take over, the US placed despotic, US-friendly puppet governments. These leaders were opposed by their own people, and over time, a resistance guerrilla army emerged. The people were caught in the crossfire between the military forces of the government and the rebel militia. As economic activities came to a grinding halt, the citizens, especially the rural population, began to flee.

Suddenly, the US had a problem at its borders in the 70s and 80s. Thousands of refugees from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala started flocking to its borders and sneaking into the US. News of illegal immigrants from El Salvador succumbing to the elements as they traversed deserts hit the headlines. They were escaping US-supported death squads in their country. Many churches in the US, led by a Presbyterian minister, Rev John Fife of Tucson, Arizona, took it upon themselves to aid and harbour these illegal aliens as they made their way into America.

The way they looked at it was like this. During WW2 Hitler's Germany, millions of Jews are brutally killed because of the apathy of many Germans, including their religious leaders. Christianity, being the saviour of the underdogs, as evidenced by events during Jesus' lifetime, had a moral right to defend the oppressed and the persecuted. The dilemma was whether to flaunt the law to attain a higher purpose or to conform as good citizens. It was not just a question of nationalism versus belief but of being human.

In the 1980s, these stories were of national interest. All parties, political leaders, the general public, and the legal system took an interest. Rev. John Fife and members of the Sanctuary Movement, which by then included over 2,000 churches and had spread to Canada, were charged with abetting the entry of illegal immigrants into the country. A public debate ensued. On one side, there was the faction supporting the Government's desire to maintain law and order, as they had been doing for ages. Then there was the other side, who blamed the US, which had started the whole fiasco in the first place. There was a compulsion to provide a safe haven for the victims.

Probably bowing to the pressures of public sentiment at the time, the accused were let off with a slap on the wrist. They were not imprisoned but received suspended sentences and probation. It was considered light for a crime against the State.

(P.S. In the rush to build and control a waterway that bypassed Cape Horn, America supported a Panamanian resistance group fighting for independence from Colombia. Not to mention the Banana Wars in South America after the US acquired the country following the 1898 US-Spanish War. America instigated various resistance groups to protect its business interests. With such a long history of meddling, it is no surprise that trouble comes back to bite its southern end. To complicate things, in the name of preserving American business interests, Greenland may be 'invaded' via gunboat diplomacy!)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Learn to agree to disagree!

President Thomas Jefferson, left, and his predecessor,
President John Adams. (Feuding Fathers)
Getty Images

At this time of one's life (stepping into the seventh decade of existence), one often wonders about all the people who made their appearances all along my life. Some of theirs were short and sweet. Some left with a sour aftertaste. Some got lost in the annals of times. Occasionally, I had people who took everything wrongly and left anything but amicably. One did not like the sight of me and had nothing nice to say about me. Well, what can I say but that the feeling was mutual.

Recently, I read about the friendship between the two Founding Fathers of the United States of America. They were not really best friends. They had a big job to do for a greater cause. They looked at things from different perspectives; both felt compelled to defend their conviction until the end. Towards that end, they argued ferociously and wrote stinging letters to each other but all the time, acquiring brickbats and respect simultaneously.

After the British were sent packing from the 13 colonies of the New World, the new nation had to decide how to run its country. Would they want tight central control like the British had before Independence? They realised every colony had its own need, and to have one vision for the whole nation would be disastrous. It was like the British all over again. The other side was modelling a country with Republic principles after Rome.

The Independence Declaration was no divine decree. For a long time, the founding could not agree upon its execution. Adams believed in a strong central government, whereas Jefferson championed states' rights. They competed against each other for Presidentship after Washington refused to hold the post for a third term. Adams became the second President of the USA. He offered Jefferson the post of Vice President, but Jefferson declined. The subsequent election was won by Jefferson, leaving Adams bitter.

The duo refused to communicate with each other for 12 years till a fellow Declaration signer, Benjamin Rush, made them write to each other. They vehemently argued the merits of their convictions via more than the 185 letters that they wrote to each other. Each did not want the other to outdo them. Coincidentally, they died four hours apart on July 4th, Independence Day. A sweet end to two men who gave much of their lives to the foundation of America.

Closer to home, I recall another intense discussion panel that my friends and I used to attend. It was an adrenaline-rushing, temper-flaring, emotionally charging discussion on life and its meaning. We learned many things from each other that no teacher or school could teach. All that came to zilch because of some other unrelated miscommunication. Now, we are all left groping in the dark again, finding our own answers alone through our own follies.

Rashomon: The Truth Is Often Mutable And Ambivalent

We should learn that opinions vary. We should learn to agree to disagree. The truth is an elusive shadowplay. As Rashomon tells us, the truth has many forms. All can be right.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Is space travel really a hoax?

Capricorn One (1977)

Director: Peter Hyams

With the confidence of singlehandedly defending the motherland against the German soldiers in Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and essentially stalemating Hitler in the Führerbunker, Russians knew they were no pushovers. Stalin's forced post-war industrialisation efforts skyrocketed the Soviet Union into space exploration.

The Americans, coming out of World War 2 smelling of roses, after being able to turn the war around after their participation, felt they had to be numero uno. After all, after the Second World War, the US of A was the wealthiest nation around. On top of it, the war forced the migration of top scientists from Europe to America.

The 1960s saw rabid competition between leaders of the free world and the communist bloc to outdo the other in space exploration. The race intensified when the Soviets sent their first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, to orbit the Earth in 1961. That spurred JFK to declare that America, the leader of the free world, would send a man to the moon by the decade's end. He asserted, 'We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.' in 1962.

After the disastrous 1967 Apollo I fire, which killed all three crew members, their ability to send a man to the moon and back became suspect. So in 1969, when the USA suddenly announced to the world, with photos and TV transmissions, many sceptics insisted that the Moon Landing was staged in a studio here back on Earth. Flying a man in a tin can, forcing themselves out of the g-forces of Earth, and exposing themselves to deathly ionising radiation that encapsulated the planet was not humanly possible, in their minds. So, when this movie came out, I guess the Moon Landing deniers must be telling everyone, "I told you so!"

Even with the American space programme, funding was always the problem. The Indians later showed they could do all the Americans did for a fraction of their budget. That is another story. Safety was another issue. With the lack of fall-back backup, no rocket would be approved in the 21st century. What they did back then can be termed space charlatans today, promising more than they actually could. 

Due to faulty supplies (as in the Apollo I mission), the life support system in Capricorn One was faulty. To avoid embarrassment, the Agency decided to fake their mission to Mars. The film shows, in a relatively poor execution of storytelling, direction, acting and script writing, how the world is hoodwinked into believing the journey is complete. In fact, the astronauts did not even leave the launch pad.

We see a relatively young James Brolin, Sam Waterson and O.J. Simpson in this 1977 film.

We have come a long way since the 1960s. Now, we are offering space tourism to the rich and high-heeled, just for the kick of it. If you do not mind burning a large hole in your wallet or the long waiting line, those interested should contact Elon Mask or Richard Branson.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.