Desperate Times calls for Exploitation

Desperate Times calls for Exploitation

The European Union as of 2010 has been going through a major debt crisis. The origins of which emerged prior to 2010 and had also slowly been growing in inertia. Too many countries in the confederation have acquired volatile amount of public debt. Many of these countries have required colossal bailouts in haste from the more economical healthy countries. This was a means of survival from keeping their economies from slipping and falling into a depression. Currently a proposition that is gaining speed is that the European Union as a whole form a fiscal union in order to balance the government resources, where one main coalition government tax all their various citizen together. This is an extremely poor decision to make in order to get these economies back into shape. There will be a major loss of power of each country. Some will see this as a loss of cultural and political identity. Also there are other options that will be more effective and easier to compromise on.

First lets look at the types of problems some countries are having. Amongst the economically anorexic countries, Greece can be argued to be the worse off. Their problem started well before the Global economic downturn. Almost bulimic in nature, Greece had been pouring more money into the public sector beyond its means. This was occurring well before they joined the European Union. Since that it is in the Eurozone, it is affecting its fellow confederate states with its poor economic impulses.  In order to fix this problem in 2010 Greece was force-fed 110 Billion euros of bailout money. Then later in July 2011 the country received another 109 billion. But it didn’t stop there. The Eurozone banks gave an additional 130 billion euros.

Now, these bailouts are not exactly helping. This is not the Eurozone’s fault completely. The Union wouldn’t just hand out 349 billion euros with out thinking it would work. These bailouts were supposed to be able to fix the problems but the Greek government did not properly allocate the funds. “The Greek economy is so bad that these writes offs may still not be enough to reduce Greece’s debts…” mentioned an article on the BBC business news website.

If the European Union were to try and lessen their poor economy via a fiscal union, problems would arise prior to the creation. The ability to jointly tax all of the Union under one organization seriously hinders the sovereignty amongst the already weaker countries. Sure, France and Germany would be willing to give up that power because they will still be fine afterwards, economically. Spreading government resources amongst all the different countries seems a little like charity almost. The smaller countries don’t want to lose part of the individual identity as a country nor do they want to give up their power amongst their people.

Granted this would not be a complete and full political union.  The European Union isn’t becoming the Untied States, exactly. The confederation will remain intact but at a lost of sovereignty amongst all of the member states. Countries do not want to hand over power to other countries. The only reason like something like this has even been in the works is because the Eurozone is so vulnerable and its banks are now fragile that they are able to get away with this. Drastic structure changes in power amongst this many member states of the European Union may prove disastrous. Desperate times will be exploited in order to get radical and desperate measures to get across. History has showed us that when a country’s economy is this far down the fiscal drain, this quick of power shift spawns poor results. Germany has been a great example of this.

This proposal of a joint tax amongst the entire Eurozone is not a sufficient means to an end. This “solution” doesn’t not resolve Europe’s economic dejection. There will be continued opposition to this idea of joint taxation. The leaders of Europe see what is at stake here and are weary how crucial a point in time this is. Which is why this kind of overarching and radical change is not being taken lightly. No country wants ot give up this amount of sovereignty over their own citizens this easily but because of the starving economy, they are being swayed to think otherwise. 

~ Musa Ghaznavi  (April 2012)

Thoughts on Nietzsche, Dissent, and the Corrupt State


from Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

1. 11: The New Idol (excerpt)


"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.’ It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there are still peoples, the state is not understood, and is hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs. This sign I give to you: every people speaks its own language of good and evil, which its neighbor does not understand. It has created its own language of laws and customs.   But the state lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies; and whatever it has it has stolen."


It is all too easy to be dystopian in a corrupt present tense, one needs only look around to receive necessary impetus to cast off the acquiescent contentment they’re so unsettled about, watching all the political bickering as the ticker tick-tocks, tickering along the bottom of the screen. It’s all too easy. To quote Nietzsche and call for revolution, to buy a Guy Fawkes mask and log into the IRC chat where Anonymous plans whatever hacktivism comes next. It’s exciting, seductive to a late-teen twenty-something, craving something that feels genuine and important, something that could actually make a difference. Apparently.


That’s all well and good. And I’m all for it. In fact, I readily encourage activism. If you believe in something, get out and fight for it, bring your self to account and do something that kicks up the dirt. Get your hands dirty, make yourself heard. However, taking on a corrupt regime or an immoral plutocracy is no feat for rebellious hands and black t-shirts alone. There’s something much deeper, more fundamental, buried in the foundation there. And that’s frustrating. That’s hard. But that’s what we’re up against. To challenge the State is no simple task. To dissent is not an account preference; it’s not a profile setting.


As such, while worth keeping in mind, espousing Nietzsche’s sensibility in the here and now is simply not conducive to progressive reform or collective cultural shifts for the better. The opposing sentiment, the rebellious contrarian, suggests that it is more beneficial to recapitulate those fundamentals before moving forward. To go back to basics, as it were. In a limited way, this is good.


Sometimes, it’s not. It is never better to move backward if it means dismantling social safety nets and abrogating environmental regulations that keep the water clean and the air less sulfurous. Why would any proponent of liberty with a sense of history suggest that it’s better to more forward than to fall backward. Moreover, Nietzsche here forewarns us of the authoritarian, totalitarian, and corrupt states that came fruition in latter half of the nineteenth, into the twentieth century. The nation-states that grew to worship the state as the eponymous “New Idol.” In studying Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it is no surprise that a frustrated citizen would read into Nietzsche’s prophesy as referring to any and every State. As an American, it’s certainly not news that the vast majority of the country has qualms about our present, sitting government. However, it’s obvious that people are beleaguered by that aforementioned, forewarned corruption, not the State itself. Nevertheless, that is not yet cause for disowning our elected representatives and their chambers.


Ask yourself: is it a lie that the roads will take me where I need to go? Was my money stolen from me to make that road? Am I now bereft of my monetary possession, despite the fact that I can now get to a market, a hospital, a school, places of work, and places farther away than I could have ever imagined before? Meanwhile, some people think that government is inherently broken and ineffective. Well that’s a shame, because I imagine they’d have had a different opinion if they didn’t have that road to get anywhere, that social safety net to help them get by, and their Medicare & Social Security programs to keep us out of poverty as we age. If you live in a society, you have to give back to society. That’s what the social contract is all about. The system isn’t perfect but we’re better off with it than without it. And even more poignantly, the system itself is set up so we can change it. If you don’t like the government, get involved in the government and do something about it. That’s how it was meant to work from the very beginning.


Now, I’m no statist, much less a statist apologetic. But I do think a lot more can be done if we complain less and try to accomplish more. If someone is corrupt, don’t bemoan corruption. Instead work to circumvent that corruption. There is an innate good in all people and those who have fallen prey to their bureaucratic trappings are no exception. Try to change what it means to be active and involved in a society, for the better in the face of the worse. Worshiping words will ultimately end with words. Pursuing action will produce a tangible effect. Engaging endeavors will always supersede the clever debates and pithy, provocative quotes. Even here, in my musings, I will never remain content to simply write my thoughts and leave them to fester. I aim to take these thoughts and turn them into movement, education, organization, and action.


Never lose sight of the fact that the Government is our Government. We are fortunate as Americans to have that. We can make change. We can move forward. We can build something better, as we need it, as you like it, as the subsidized desire it. Don’t fall prey to apathy; be not of those who doubt. Be the change you’re agonized you’re not seeing. Make the difference you’re angry that no ones making. Start something and people will stand with you. But it has to start with you. Going. Doing.


— Alexander Kruszewski, (February 2012)

A Benign Decree

By 1947, the United Kingdom’s tank had run empty on aid for the Greece and Turkey. They urged the United States to pick up the tab. (Major Problems, Truman Doctrine pg. 202) The reason the UK requested this us because those countries were very economically unstable and susceptible to communism, a new up and coming ideology in the East. The United States had an agenda to prevent this, and saw the opportunity arise and jumped on it with diabolical plan. First was to declare a war on communism, which Truman does via addressing congress in 1947. Second was the economic plan that was merely suggested by George C. Marshall. And finally the military’s plan and the true agenda of the U.S. revealed. (At different times) These are steps that attempt to halt communism, prevent another world war and to keep the USSR at bay from world domination.

            President Truman saw the opportunity that the United Kingdom presented, a chance to avoid totalitarian regimes from taking over both Greece and Turkey. Both which were very real possibilities. But he must make very clear and concise demands to congress, and convince them to follow through with this plan. Instead of going partisan or right and left, he appealed with anti-communism statements. It was the bipartisan way to go, and turned out to be very efficient. He notified the House that the UK had informed them that they could no longer give economic and financial backing to the Greek and Turkish governments. He informed them that the Soviet Union was encroaching upon weak Third World countries, and was turning them Red one at a time. President Truman argued that the loss of Greece would greatly damage the attempt to repair the rubble it was still attempting to recover from. And if Turkey were to be lost to the USSR, the Middle East would erupt into hysteria and all turn communist as well. Using twenty-twenty hindsight, these were clear and early signs of “Domino Theory”, an idea that if one week Third World countries turns communist, the surrounding countries would turn Red as well. Though not directly states, nor has the term been coined, it is apparent that this is a mentality grown long before the discovery of said theory. He proceed to ask the U.S. House of Congress for $400,000,000 “…for the prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war…” (Major Problems, Truman Doctrine pg. 203) He gives his a best most sound argument when he points out that the money that will be spent is more of an investment, to insure that that hundreds of billions they spend during World War II doesn’t go to waste by having another occur.

A comparison can be made to college students’ tuition and the books they must purchase. The student pays some figure around $10,000 for his or her tuition. When purchasing books for such a classes, they notice the totally adds to around $500. This may seem unreasonable, but if those $500 are not spent, then there is a large chance that the student my fail some of the classes, loosing the initial worth of the $10,000. But that’s a five percent cost in insure the tuition. Where as the $400,000,000 is requesting a mere morsel of one-tenth of a percent of what was spent during the war. Naturally, congress agreed and aid was given to Greece and Turkey. This marked the beginning of the ideological base of the rest of the Cold War. For example; Greece had an insurgence that we painted red, soon they surrendered in 1949, but did not become democratic, just anti-communist. That was all that mattered and so this was a technical “victory” of the Cold War

Europe was in a wave of economic bad times. This was seen as step towards political instability, which calls for radical solution and then eventually war itself. These symptoms occurred especially in Italy and France. France had a communist party that took up to nearly 25% of the voting. Things in Italy were worse, to the United States, because they had up to 50% communist voting. These depressions occurring throughout different countries in Europe and would cause political change naturally favoring the USSR. That is, if the West stood there and watched.

George C. Marshall was the Secretary of State in 1948 and saw the communist bug spreading throughout Europe, posing a major threat to the free world. He suggested that we give economic aid to several western European countries to help prevent them from succumbing to communistic ways. This was major global political move. The experiment called “democracy” across the pond was not the strongest nation in the world. They are the only nation in 1948 with the sufficiency to provide such aid. They also offered the aid to Russia as well. This was brilliant double-edged diplomatic sword employed by the United States. When Russia denies this, they will look like the proverbial “bad guy” or “jerk”. And on the very unlikely, nearly impossible chance that Russia accepts the money, which would greatly diffuse tension, confrontation and possibly entire Cold War as a whole. Obviously, the Soviet Union declined the handout.

This was another theoretical victory for the West. Both Italy and France, with the help of substantial U.S. aid, prevented communist parties from succeeding in taking over. There were a few problems though with the Marshall Plan. The dosage of aid given to the western-European countries had some side effects. For one, inflation occurred because not all the money would or could be distributed in a government to help something effectively. This may not bee seen as a problem to some, but people argued that this aid caused dependence on the United States, and that they would have to fall in line in order to receive more product. Other argued that money mostly went to military use, but not directly. The aid did not exactly go to mobilization of bombs, tanks and guns but it did help free up funds to do so. All in all, the West had won again in the prevention of communism.

In 1947, they United States created their own military establishment. The National Security Act of 1947 was passed, and created the modern unified bureaucratic structure we know today as the Department of Defense. This was created, by no coincidence, to “fight” the cold war. This is where the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) comes into play. At the time it was primarily what its title implied, an intelligence-gathering group. (The fancy tactical espionage action occurs later in post 1950s)  The day this act was signed, 1.7 billion dollars of U.S. aid was sent to Western Europe.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created after the signing of the suggested treaty in April 4th, 1949. This was a collective defense organization built up of, the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium (where the headquarters are located), Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal and the Netherlands. (Truman doctrine aid predestined Greece and Turkey to join later) The fear of the USSR was rampant in the U.S., along with the momentum of the success from both the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan; it was only natural that NATO would be spawned.

In 1949, the only way drop a nuclear bomb anywhere near Moscow, more specifically to annihilate the Kremlin, was via air bomber. This was the purpose of the NATO plan. This lead to the several U.S. Air Force bases to be stationed throughout Europe. At this same time, the sovereign deterrence to keep USSR from invading the rest of Europe was the fact that the U.S. had a nuclear weapon, and they (USSR) did not. The people “in-the-know” understood that there was a very remote chance of this occurring, but President Truman had stirred up such a scare, that it went through anyway. What this really did was ally Western Europe with the United States and military level. Same purpose as the Marshall plan just militarily instead of economically making ties to the U.S. Government. The treaty ended up never being invoked throughout the duration of the Cold War.

The events closely following the end of World War II until 1950 changed America’s agenda substantially as shown in the secret document known as “NSC-68”, a paper written by the National Security Council. America mobilized at an astounding rate. They saw world as vulnerable, and took advantage of this: “It (the world) has seen the collapse of five empires—the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian, and Japanese—and the drastic decline of two major imperial systems, the British and the French.” (Major Problems, NSC-68 pg. 205) This all occurred within a single life span of the average human. In one generation a power vacuum occurred, and the U.S. was fully aware of the opportunity at hand. They saw the mistakes of the past imperial powers and the past empires and took careful steps to contain the void of power. The U.S. needed to evolve into something more. Though it wasn’t completely isolationist previously, they abandoned it completely. America knew it had to make roots in as many parts of the world as possible in order to propagate and subsist for as long as possible.

The second half of the U.S. agenda is one of “containment” which is also mentioned in this document. They were willing to do just about everything and anything just below the brink of war to stop the USSR from expanding in anyway. Whether it was territorially, politically or even economically, they U.S. sought out the put their foot in the doorway of any Kremlin objectives. All the steps up until this point—President Truman’s speech that became doctrine, Secretary of State George Marshall and now this document—was built to create this military industrial complex. This machine, this system, was fueled by: propaganda coated on to the American people like stopping communism because it prevents peace, justice and prosperity, the potential for economical and political power to grow exponentially, and the shear momentum of the past five years the successes they wrought. Not to mention the obvious, but the simple fear of the idea of a third world war doesn’t hurt either to push for this kind of agenda.

When do they stop? With such vague and arbitrary objectives like creating a “free” world, this leaves too much room to do as the U.S. pleases. If they are going to give aid to some, and they are going to interfere with others, who is to say not all? There is too much being done at once. My general judgment of these first five years following the end of World War II is that we made an insane amount of progress in such a short time. I concur that the USSR was growing too vast across Europe, and would become a lone superpower if left alone. I can see why the United States and several other countries of the West sought to stop it. What they did was necessary, but who is watching the West? Who is keeping the United State in check? Such great power naturally comes with a large amount of responsibility and accountability. I don’t think the U.S. should be this big. It is as if they gave themselves the promotion to become “Global Police”. But there badged is that of a crooked cop, because they only help in places where they seek out resources beneficial to themselves. This is where fault is to be found in the United State’s foreign policy during this period of time.

~ Musa Ghaznavi (February 2012)

Sewing the Seeds of Paranoia

After the end of World War II, the world was split into two – East and West. This marked the beginning of an era called the Cold War. This era of global glacial tensions stemmed from the end of the war, when the United States dropped two atomic bombs in 1945. The Soviet Union grew paranoid of the United States power. The United States were very wary of the Soviet Union’s power vacuum that had erupted. Each country both had their agenda and those objectives ended up conflicting on many levels, head on.

As mentioned earlier, this confrontation has deep roots in World War II. This is an ongoing theme through this period in history and is addressed in many ways. An example of this being the atomic weapons used on Japan at the very end of the war.  The United States and Allied forces had an air raid campaign crumbled a number of cities in Japan like Yokohama and Tokyo. As for Europe at this point in time, Nazi Germany had already surrendered, whereas the war in the Pacific was unremitting. With the aid of the Republic of China and the United Kingdom, the United States called for a surrender of Japan, intimidating Japan with “prompt and utter destruction”. This ultimatum flouted, and the Manhattan Project came to full fruition and two atomic bombs were deployed; Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by the Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August, both being mainland cities. “…the atomic bomb, obliterated Hiroshima… Eighty thousand died in an instant…” 

President Harry S. Truman, who was President of the United States at this time, deployed these nuclear weapons of the mass destruction with the intention of accomplishing a few objectives: The casualties that racked up in the Pacific were great, and this cost was growing too greatly for the land war to continue. The atomic bomb’s original purpose was to implement on Nazi Germany, but like stated previously, the body count had rapidly increased in the Pacific. “…Truman’s more difficult decision would have been not to use the bomb…” There was also very transparent diplomatic obstacle in the way. The Soviet Union was supposed to assault strongholds in Manchuria that were being held by Japanese forces. The United States had been seen this at good news at first but later in the summer of 1945, Stalin’s troops going to Manchuria became too close to Japan. Truman did not want this to occur. This promptly yielded the surrender of the Japanese to the Americans, and not the Russians. The primary objective to drop these nuclear weapons on Japan was to bring the war in Japan into an abrupt end. The Secondary objective was to send a message to Stalin and his Soviet Union. President Truman knew that the Russians understood strength through force and they unquestionably observed and cognized this. This became known as “Atomic Diplomacy”. The United States had the biggest stick on Earth, and was speaking very loud.

Adolf Hitler came into power by totally legal means. Germany was diseased and he saw this. After the original World War, Germany had weak political stability and economy that was diagnosed with leprosy.  The German government could hardly stand on its own two feet. The German people were devastated and desperate and saw Hitler as their only way out. The United Stats saw these symptoms starting to reoccur in Russia.  The scenarios were too similar: economic collapse, devastation and desperation. The United States assumed that Russia too was going be infected. Like Germany evolved to Nazi Germany, they saw Russian turn into Soviet Russia. Hitler was parallel with Stalin frequently. Fear of a third world war was rampant and spread plentiful by Truman.

United States’ actions were not completely reactionary; they did have their own agenda to carry out. They sought open world trade, but the Soviet Union posed a critical threat to their mission for economic freedom. Some Third World countries in Europe started closing their doors, economically, for they did not want to become dependent on and fall whim to the United States. Poor economies, Third World nationalism and closed-door trade were all being associated with communism. Communism meant no trade and therefore became the enemy. It also didn’t help anytime Stalin took over an Eastern-European country, he would shut down the open door policy thus cutting trade the United States. This was autarky and was a pattern that Stalin carried out. The United States saw this episode before because it was identical to what Hitler used to do, and they wanted to stop it.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union had previously made an agreement. The USSR was permitted to acquire Eastern-European countries but was barred from any Middle-Eastern. The Middle East was to be left for picking for the United Kingdom. Also, anytime Stalin overstepped his control of Eastern Europe, he would back down. This was contradictory of signs for sequel Hitler. Stalin would point out that since he backed down he should be left alone to his plans. This was growing evidence of the Soviet Union being a regional power, not a global one.

The United States saw communism in the Soviet Union and other countries like it as a sort of “Red Fascism”. They saw the Soviet Union as a threat. They saw Russia as paranoid of world affairs especially when it came the United States’ actions.  They would distort and demonize capitalism and the democratic system. All the information the Russian people received is tainted and painted in a way to view the west as hostile, volatile and over-powered. President Truman made sure that Russia, communism and the East are all viewed as enemies to our liberty, peace and western ways.  Where the United States saw communism, they saw the end to freedom, peace and prosperity. The U.S. was worried that the USSR would prey on weaker Third World countries and turn them Red.

The Soviet Union saw America and its states as imperialistic. They saw U.S.’s capitalism as their enemy for always wanting to trade and do business with other countries they saw imperialist acts. The USSR saw that Europe was suffering and was weak, as well as smaller countries and Asia. They worried that the United States would slowly take over these countries economically by trapping them into doing trade and then infecting them to become dependent upon the U.S. And with a former major power in the world like Great Britain now diminished, they were worried America wanted to step up to plate and take over the world. The USSR was concerned for the world and the domination of it by the capitalist dogs of the West.

The world is now torn into two. The West understand that in order for them to continue their economic policies, they would need to stand firmly against communism and Soviet Russia from reigning over Europe and Asia. On the other hand, the East sees Great Britain and America as power hungry. They don’t want them to expand into Europe either with they capitalist monopolies taking control of world. An “Iron Curtain”  is drawn and East and West are now at odd on a global scale, with no violence as of yet, just tactical diplomacy and espionage. Berlin Germany becomes a metaphor foreign relation between all countries involved. Neither side wants a world war three to occur. This mutual sentiment is why this “war” stays at a below freezing temperature for many years. But all else are excuses for confrontation.

~ Musa Ghaznavi (February 2012)

Becoming Uninfamous

In 2009, Tiger Woods had an infidelity scandal where he was caught by his wife cheating on him. His wife assaulted him with a golf club and injured part of his face and his lip. Not a single picture was taken. Regardless of the morality of Mr. Woods, he is a very smart man. His publicist obviously knew the media temperature was very high for this situation, and to get a picture of his face would catastrophic to the already awful situation. That picture they would post would be ubiquitous. But he (or at least his publicist was) was smart avoid that.  He stayed in his house until his facial damage was unable to be seen. And since he waited it out, the hysteria died out. He was official divorced from his wife in late 2010.

Bill Clinton had his own scandal in 1998. The affair with Monica Lewinsky was blown up in the public eye. On TV, all there was were updates with that scandal. To put into perspective, I was very young at the time, and thats when I learned about oral sex versus sex by watching Fox news on the television. That is how much coverage was given at the time about this scandal. Bare with me, I am not comparing these two, just yet.

I understand that Bill Clinton was the President of the United States and should be held into a higher priority but the rate at which the news barraged the public about was colossal and lasted for a whole year almost. I still heard about the discrepancies in the affair until 2000. Where as all Tiger Woods had to do was just sit tight for a few months and he was green to play again and as if nothing happened.

Lets use a more comparable example: Newt Gingrich was charged with 84 ethics violations when he was speaker of the house in 1996. He was charged with only one of the counts of violation ethics. An overwhelming majority vote of congress, both Republican and Democrat, spoke in favor for those sanctions. It was the first time in United States history that a speaker of the house was punished for an ethics violation. All this aside, in 2011 and 2012, he is now in the running for the Republican nomination for President. How he has gotten this far was, at first disconcerting, but after analyzing the situation further, made sense.

Why would the people want to elect a man who violated ethics in their own congress? It would only be natural that people would see this as a fault in his character and diminish his ability to lead a nation. Obviously people did not, because they forgot or grew apathetic over time, and now he a seriously considered candidate for the Presidency. It is interesting how massive amounts of people develop this mob mentality.

A wave of attention deficiency arises over a group of people after a short period of time. It would take another negative event to occur with Newt Gingrich’s name on it, for this previous one to come back up as “relevant”. But there hasn’t so he just is observed for his accomplishments and promises. Herman Cain didn’t have this strategy work for him after his barrage of scandals during his campaign. Too many sex scandals were discovered in too short amount of time for any sort of forgetfulness to come into effect. Too many blows in succession and he stepped down from his campaign.

When a human is attempting to hold position of power and needs the approval of many other people, should those people look at that person’s background as a whole? But there is a pattern here I wanted to point out. People just stop caring and have tunnel vision. Not necessarily certain individuals, but enough to where this apathy takes place. 

Hopefully after reading this, at least one person who didn’t look at the entire portrait, will start to now.  For any given situation. Not just political office.

~ Musa Ghaznavi (January 2012)

Lack of Filter

Prior to the world wide web, things like making music, writing taking photos were tasks done by professional musicians, photographers and writers who had a resume to back up their history of accomplishments. They had to have this resume in order to get their works published. The list showed that: “Hey. I have done some impressive stuff previously and if you look back on it, you will see you totally want to publish this thing I created or wrote or took or… (etc)” This eliminated a lot of “bad” or “poor” works, and what you were left with was what the distributor’s idea of “good”.

Post dawn of the Internet, this has been diminished almost completely. With the Internet it is free and easy to post any sort of creation and show it off however which way you want. This bypasses the Darwinian approach of the filter. Basically if those who had the power to distribute, think your creation is bad, then it would not have been discovered as easily. Where as now, anyone can post and “publish” their works for the whole world to see because the technology costs less now and is readily available to them.

I am not saying this is a bad thing. Artists of all kinds can express themselves freely and take criticisms or not. They may even have the potential to profit off that. This is simply something I want people to keep in mind.

~ Musa Ghaznavi (January 2012)