Thursday, 12 January 2017

Norfolk's Visionary

The Age of Paine  

by Jon Katz of Wired:

Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon against the entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet. Jon Katz explains why.

If any father has been forsaken by his children, it is Thomas Paine. Statues of the man should greet incoming journalism students; his words should be chiseled above newsroom doors and taped to laptops, guiding the communications media through their many travails, controversies, and challenges. Yet Paine, a fuzzy historical figure of the 1700s, is remembered mostly for one or two sparkling patriotic quotes – "These are the times that try men's souls" – and little else. Thomas Paine, professional revolutionary, was one of the first to use media as a powerful weapon against an entrenched array of monarchies, feudal lords, dictators, and repressive social structures. He invented contemporary political journalism, creating almost by himself a mass reading-public aware for the first time of its right to encounter controversial opinions and to participate in politics.

Between his birth in 1737 and his death in 1809, enormous political upheavals turned the Western world upside down – and Paine was in the middle of the biggest ones. His writings put his life at risk in every country he lived in – in America for rebellion, in England for sedition, in France for his insistence on a merciful and democratic revolution. At the end of his life, he was shunned by the country he helped create, reviled as an infidel, forced to beg friends for money, denied the right to vote, refused burial in a Quaker cemetery. His grave was desecrated, his remains were stolen.

A popular old nursery rhyme about Paine could just as easily be sung today:
Poor Tom Paine! there he lies:
Nobody laughs and nobody cries.
Where he has gone or how he fares
Nobody knows and nobody cares.
Certainly that's true of the media. The modern-day press has forgotten this brilliant, lonely, socially awkward progenitor, who pioneered the concept of the uncensored flow of ideas, and developed a new kind of communications in the service of the then-radical proposition that people should control their own lives.

In this country, his memory has been tended by a few determined academics and historians and a stubborn little historical society in New Rochelle, New York, where he spent a good deal of his final, impoverished days.

So what?


We've all been numbed by drowsy history-book pedagogy about founders, patriots, and dusty historical heroes. If journalism and the rest of the country have forgotten Paine, why should we remember another of history's lost souls?

Because we owe Paine. He is our dead and silenced ancestor. He made us possible. We need to resurrect and hear him again, not for his sake but for ours. We need to know who he was, to understand his life and work, in order to comprehend our own revolutionary culture. Paine's odyssey made him the greatest media figure of his time, one of the unseen but profound influencers of ours. He made more noise in the information world than any messenger or pilgrim before or since. His mark is now nearly invisible in the old culture, but his spirit is woven through and through this new one, his fingerprints on every Web site, his voice in every online thread.

If the old media (newspapers, magazines, radio, and television) have abandoned their father, the new media (computers, cable, and the Internet) can and should adopt him. If the press has lost contact with its spiritual and ideological roots, the new media culture can claim them as its own.

For Paine does have a legacy, a place where his values prosper and are validated millions of times a day: the Internet. There, his ideas about communications, media ethics, the universal connections between people, and the free flow of honest opinion are all relevant again, visible every time one modem shakes hands with another.

Tom Paine's ideas, the example he set of free expression, the sacrifices he made to preserve the integrity of his work, are being resuscitated by means that hadn't existed or been imagined in his day – via the blinking cursors, clacking keyboards, hissing modems, bits and bytes of another revolution, the digital one. If Paine's vision was aborted by the new technologies of the last century, newer technology has brought his vision full circle. If his values no longer have much relevance for conventional journalism, they fit the Net like a glove.

The Net offers what Paine and his revolutionary colleagues hoped for – a vast, diverse, passionate, global means of transmitting ideas and opening minds. That was part of the political transformation he envisioned when he wrote, 
We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
Through media, he believed, 
we see with other eyes; we hear with other ears; and think with other thoughts, than those we formerly used.
His writing is infused with the sense – especially relevant now as the digital culture spreads across the world – that a new age was about to burst open all around him. This would be an unmistakable, great awakening, even if it came in stages. Instead of seeing a single bud on a winter tree, he wrote, "I should instantly conclude that the same appearance was beginning, or about to begin, everywhere; and though the vegetable sleep will continue longer on some trees and plants than on others, and though some of them may not blossom for two or three years, all will be in leaf in the summer, except those which are rotten." It is not difficult to perceive, he wrote, "that the spring is begun."

Paine's life and the birth of the American press prove that information media, taken together, were never meant, collectively, to be just another industry. Information wants to be free. That was the familiar and inspiring moral imperative behind the medium imagined by Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Media existed to spread ideas, to allow fearless argument, to challenge and question authority, to set a common social agenda.

Asked about the reasons for new media, Paine would have answered in a flash: to advance human rights, spread democracy, ease suffering, pester government. Modern journalists would have a much rougher time with the question. There is no longer widespread consensus, among practitioners or consumers, about journalism's practices and its goals.

Of course, the ferociously spirited press of the late 1700s that Paine helped invent differed from the institution we know today. It was dominated by individuals expressing their opinions. The idea that ordinary citizens with no special resources, expertise, or political power – like Paine himself – could sound off, reach wide audiences, even spark revolutions, was brand-new to the world. In Paine's wake, writes Gordon Wood in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 
every conceivable form of printed matter – books, pamphlets, handbills, posters, broadsides, and especially newspapers – multiplied and were now written and read by many more ordinary people than ever before in history.
Never skilled in business, Paine failed to foresee how fragile and easily overwhelmed these values and forms of expression would be when they collided with free-market economics. The rotary press and other printing technologies that later made it possible to mass-market newspapers also led publishers to make newspapers tamer and more moderate so their many new customers wouldn't be offended. Big, expensive printing presses churning out thousands of copies meant opinionated private citizens like Paine could no longer afford to own or have direct access to media, and journalism couldn't afford to give voice to opinionated private citizens.

Paine once warned a Philadelphia newspaper editor about the distinction between editorial power and the freedom of the press. It was a caution neither the editor nor his increasingly wealthy and powerful successors took to heart: 
If the freedom of the press is to be determined by the judgment of the printer of a Newspaper in preference to that of the people, who when they read will judge for themselves, then freedom is on a very sandy foundation.
So it is. Paine's worst fear was echoed more than 150 years later by critic A.J. Liebling, who wryly observed: "In America, freedom of the press is largely reserved for those who own one." Almost everyone else has been shut out. But media history is being reversed. With computers and modems, individuals are pouring back in. The people who own the presses still have enormous power, but every day, very much against their will, they're facing a dread reality: they're going to have to learn to share.

The people running the traditional media are in a state of near panic at this competition, at the fragmentation of an audience they once monopolized. In their search for answers, they seem to be looking at everything save what's most important: values. Although journalism presumes great and lofty purpose, it has grown preoccupied with ratings, market penetration, stockholders, cultural demographics, and bottom lines. Almost overwhelmingly owned and run by corporations and business sharks with turnips for hearts and market research for ideology, the press is disconnected and resented. One opinion survey after another confirms pervasive public mistrust.

Like the specters introduced by the Ghost of Christmas Future, today's media are what the Net should never become – but will surely evolve into if it fails to develop, articulate, fight fiercely for, and maintain a value system other than expanded memory, whiz-bang toys, and money. The digital age is young, ascending, diverse, already nearly as arrogant, and, in parts, as greedy as the mass media it is supplanting. The new generation faces enormous danger from government, from corporations that control the traditional media, from commercialization, and from its own chaotic growth.

Thomas Paine is a guide, the conscience that can prompt new media to remember the past chiefly in order not to repeat it.

He often introduced his most controversial ideas formally and courteously, writing, for example, The following notion is put under your protection. You will do us the justice to remember that he who denies the right of every man or woman to his own opinion makes a slave of them, because he precludes their right of changing their own minds.

This notion is put under your protection, too: The Internet is Thomas Paine's bastard child. Thomas Paine should be our hero.

The sad part of Paine's story is that it's necessary to pause here and tell it to those who may never have heard it.

He lived a life that would make the cheesiest Hollywood screenwriter blush in frustration. He was born in England. He ran away from home to sail as a pirate, then worked as a staymaker and matched wits with smugglers as a customs collector. He lobbied Parliament for better pay for himself and fellow customs collectors. He lost his job but met Benjamin Franklin, who urged him to move to America, and who became a lifelong pen pal.

One of the regulars at Independence Hall, Paine was a philosophical soul mate of Thomas Jefferson. He fought and froze with his buddy George Washington at Valley Forge. King George III badly wanted to hang Paine because he helped touch off the American Revolution with his writings, but got the chance to try him for sedition after Paine had the gall to return to England and lobby for an end to the monarchy.

Paine fled to France, where the bloodthirstier leaders of the French Revolution ordered him killed because he urged leniency for the members of the overthrown regime and because they feared he would alert Americans to the increasingly undemocratic Gallic uprising. Clergymen all over the world cursed him for his heretical religious views. Businessmen despised him even more for his radical views about labor.

In between was high drama, great daring, narrow scrapes – wandering revolutionary war battlefields dodging British bullets, fleeing England 20 minutes ahead of warrants ordering his arrest, coming within hours of being guillotined in Paris. Paine seemed to live most happily in boiling water.

The Big Concept man of his time, his deep ideas still resonate: An end to monarchies and dictatorships. American independence from England, of course. International federations to promote development and maintain peace. Rights and protections for laborers. An end to slavery. Equal rights for women. Redistribution of land. Organized religion was a cruel and corrupt hoax. Public education, public employment, assistance for the poor, pensions for the elderly. And above all, a fearless press that tells the truth, gives voice to individual citizens, tolerates opposing points of view, transcends provincialism, is accessible to the poor as well as the rich.

He was as astonishingly productive as he must have been obnoxious, mouthing off about everything from yellow fever to iron bridge construction. Although he wrote countless articles and pamphlets during his life, his core works are four powerful, sometimes beautifully written, flaming-with-indignation essays. Common Sense, an argument for independence, helped spark the American Revolution. Rights of Man, an essay written in support of the French Revolution, attacks hereditary monarchies and called for universal democracy and human rights. The Age of Reason challenges the logic behind organized religion's grip on much of the Western world, and Agrarian Justice calls for radical reforms in the world economy, especially in land ownership. The first three constitute the three bestselling works of the 18th century.

It is almost impossible, today, to imagine the overwhelming impact of Common Sense.

Paine arrived in Philadelphia in 1774 at the age of 37 with little more than a letter of reference from Franklin. He rented a room and landed a job as executive editor of a new publication called Pennsylvania Magazine. In January of 1776, Common Sense went on sale for two shillings.

Historian Gregory Claeys, in Thomas Paine, Social and Political Thought, quotes one colonial observer who described Common Sense as bursting forth "like a mighty conqueror bearing down all opposition." It became America's first bestseller, with more than 120,000 copies sold in its first three months, and possibly as many as half a million in its first year – this in a country whose population was 3 million. Newspapers, then crammed with controversial viewpoints, scrambled to reprint it. Common people quoted it to one another.

It had, wrote a contemporary historian, "produced most astonishing effects; and been received with vast applause, read by almost every American; and recommended as a work replete with truth." It was nicely written, too, one of the first and most dramatic of the anthems and call-to-arms that run through Paine's writing. The cause of America, wrote Paine, was the cause of all mankind. 
O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
How Paine, poorly educated and inexperienced as a writer, came to produce such a work remains a historical puzzle. American historians have traditionally advanced the idea that Paine, who already hated the British ruling classes and had been disillusioned in his battle to improve working conditions for his fellow customs collectors in England, needed only to step onshore and catch the revolutionary fever raging all around for his literary gifts to ignite.

But Paine's democratic republicanism had deep British roots. He might have been influenced by some of the world's earliest, least-known and best political journalists, such as the late 17th-century pamphleteers Sir William Molesworth and Walter Moyle. But such high-brow English republicans had no notions of democracy or universal suffrage – not to mention representative government, which they considered anarchic and dangerous. Those were Paine's additions. He broadened his definitions of "the people" to include laborers, slaves, women, fishermen, and artisans. Paine's journalistic writings about these new notions of democracy in Common Sense, wrote Jefferson, "rendered useless almost everything written before on the structures of government."

Were Paine to enjoy in 1995 the kind of literary success he had in his day, he would earn millions in royalties, rights, and speaking fees. But Paine didn't earn a shilling from the book. He paid the cost of publication for one edition – 30 pounds – himself, then donated the copyright and all royalties to the colonists' struggle for independence. Royalties would make his work more expensive, he feared, and thus less accessible. It's tough to imagine Paine's words coming out of some Washington journalist's mouth today: 
As my wish was to serve an oppressed people, and assist in a just and good cause, I conceived that the honor of it would be promoted by my declining to make even the usual profits of an author, by the publication (of Common Sense) … and there I gave up the profits of the first edition – to be disposed of, he stipulated - in any public service or private charity. 
This idea cost him, in the most literal sense: Paine was impoverished for much of his life.

Paintings of Washington ferrying his troops across the Delaware have bored schoolchildren for 200 years. Kids might have more interest if they could see Paine's ghost hovering in the background. In 1776, the Colonial Army was virtually defeated, its dispirited troops freezing and starving outside Philadelphia. Even the most die-hard revolutionaries were giving up. Then Paine started cranking out a series of pamphlets called "The American Crisis."

At dusk on Christmas Day, a desperate George Washington ordered what remained of his hungry, ill-equipped army – the snow was spotted red from their bleeding bare feet – to gather into small squads and listen as their officers read them excerpts from Paine's latest rant. In countless letters and diaries, the soldiers were later to recount how many of them wept when they heard what Paine wrote. They found in his now-famous words the strength to continue: 
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
That night, crossing the river through a storm of hail and sleet, Washington's army surprised and defeated the mercenaries occupying Trenton. The victory is considered one of the major turning points in the war.

If it sounds like a fairy tale from another world, it was. But it pales next to the fairy tale that our world would seem to him. We can conceive and transmit ideas and send them all over the world in seconds. We can leave them and store them for others to see and answer. But for Paine, moving an idea from one place to another at all was a spiritual notion, a miraculous vision. He imagined a global means of communication, one in which the boundaries between the sender and receiver were cleared away.

Such freedom was, to Paine, one of the fundamental rights of mankind. And it was the essence of media. He shared this notion most intensely with his cohort Thomas Jefferson. The two corresponded constantly about how ideas were conceived and distributed.

Their foresight and their relevance to the promise of the Net was captured by Jefferson when he wrote: 
That ideas should spread freely from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Herewith, to be put under your protection, some of the more striking connections between the Net and its rightful intellectual father.

Paine called for a "universal society," one whose citizens transcend their narrow interests and consider humankind as one entity. "My country is the world," he wrote. The Internet has, in fact, redefined citizenship as well as communications. It is the first worldwide medium in which people can communicate so directly, so quickly, so personally, and so reliably. In which they can form distant but diverse and cohesive communities, send, receive, and store vast amounts of textual and graphic information, skip without paperwork or permission across borders. Where computers are plentiful, digital communications are nearly uncensorable. This reality gives our moral and media guardians fits; they still tend to portray the computer culture as an out-of-control menace harboring perverts, hackers, pornographers, and thieves. But Paine would have known better. The political, economic, and social implications of an interconnected global medium are enormous, making plausible Paine's belief in the "universal citizen."

He would recognize its style and language, too. Paine believed that journalists should write in a short, spare, unadorned language that everyone could understand. He was the first modern political writer to experiment with the art of writing democratically and for democratic ends, writes John Keane in Tom Paine: A Political Life (the newest and perhaps best of the Paine biographies). Paine hammered out his own colloquial style that eschewed "purple passages, sentences without meaning, and general humbug" because he considered it the highest duty of political writers to irritate their country's government.

Reading Paine is eerie after spending time online and in political conferences on The Well, say, or after poring through the most provocative BBS postings. From reasoned arguments to raging flames to the staccato shorthand (LOL, IMHO) of countless e-mailers, digital communications are spare, blunt, economical, and efficient. Paine's style is the style of the Internet; his succinct voice and language could slip comfortably into its debates and discussions.

Paine would understand, too, the loner at the heart of computer lore. Many of the teenagers, academics, and visionaries who pioneered the computer culture see themselves, and have been seen by others, as nerds or misfits – outcasts alone in their labs, bedrooms, or garages.

Paine met with, corresponded with, and plotted with and against some of the most powerful people of his time, from George Washington to Napoleon. But he never partied at Mount Vernon or Fontainebleau and he has never joined the gallery of heroes whose statues adorn Washington's marble halls. He saw the world with agonizing clarity, but never figured out how to live comfortably in it.

His rare social appearances were uncomfortable. He never danced or joked much, and he dressed frumpily and simply in an era of frilly pomp. He never spoke or wrote about the worst personal tragedy in his life, the death in childbirth of his first wife, Mary Lambert, and their child. Friends claimed Paine seemed to hold himself responsible for the deaths in some way. His second marriage was brief and unhappy. For the rest of his life, he was an unyielding ascetic, one of the earliest supporters of women's rights but an asexual man who spent most of his time around men. He seemed lost without a repressive regime to undermine, disconnected if the conversation didn't revolve around politics. He hated small talk. A friend described him at one party as a "solitary character walking among the artificial bowers in the gardens." Paine, said the friend, "retired frequently from company to analyze his thoughts and to enjoy the repast of his own original ideas." He seemed at ease only when writing and railing against various forms of tyranny.

Where would Tom Paine go today for some serious rabble-rousing?

To get any real attention on TV or in the papers, he'd have to march, blockade, or burn something. Maybe he would try to get through to a radio talk show or Larry King Live. But if he had a computer and a modem, he could instantly spread his message. Anyone online can recognize the idea – suddenly in circulation again – of countless ordinary people participating in public opinion, their ideas "expansible all over space."

Net culture, as it happens, is an even greater medium for individual expression than the pamphlets cranked by hand presses in colonial America. It swarms with the young and the outspoken. Its bulletin boards, conferencing systems, mailing structures, and Web sites are crammed with political organizations, academics, and ordinary citizens posting messages, raising questions, sharing information, offering arguments, changing minds. From thousands of newsgroups to the vast public-opinion forums growing on giant bulletin boards, the Internet would give the old hell raiser's unhappy spirit a place to rest.

Cyberspace, not mainstream media, would be Paine's home now. Commentary has virtually vanished from TV, and the liveliest newspaper Op-Ed pages are tepid compared to Paine's tirades. But online, millions of messages centering on the country's civic discourse are posted daily, in forums teeming with the kind of vigorous democratic debate and discussion that Paine and his fellow pamphleteers had in mind. Gun owners talk to gun haters, people in favor of abortion message people who think abortion is murder, journalists have to explain their stories to readers, and prosecution and defense strategies in the O.J. Simpson trial are thrashed out.

If Paine would feel at home there, he would also fight to protect this nascent medium. Learning what had happened to the media he founded as corporations moved in, he would spot commercialization as Danger Number One. He believed in a press that was not monopolistic but filled, as it was in his time, with individual voices; one that was cheap, accessible, fiercely outspoken. He believed that media like the Net – many citizens talking to many other citizens – were essential to free government.

He was right: journalism's exclusion of outside voices and fear of publishing any but moderate opinions has made it difficult for the country to come to grips with some of its most sensitive issues – race, gender, and violence. Media overwhelmed and monopolized by large corporations, inaccessible to individual people and motivated primarily by profit, is the antithesis of Paine's life, his work, and his vision for the press.

We could use his clear direction at a time when mainstream journalists are losing their ethical grounding. Some of the most visible reporters accept fat speaking fees from lobbyists and associations whose issues they often cover. They accept money to appear on quasi-entertainment panels where they pretend to be passionate and argue the issues of the day.

Paine would never appear on talk shows or garner fat speaking fees. At one point during the Revolutionary War – when he was completely broke, as usual – he was offered a thousand pounds a year by the French government to write and publish articles in support of the Franco-American alliance against Britain. He said no. He told friends that the principle at stake – a political writer's ability to express opinions free of any party's or government's taint – was sacred, even if it meant being a pauper. And for him, it did.

During his life, his value system remained intact. Shortly before he died, bedridden, penniless, and mostly alone, he fired off a note to an editor in New York City who had messed with the outspoken prose in one of Paine's final essays for the American Citizen.  Paine wrote:
I, sir, never permit any- one to alter anything that I write; you have spoiled the whole sense that it was meant to convey on the subject.
His deathbed scene was perhaps the greatest example of Paine's refusal to compromise.

Lapsing into unconsciousness, in agony from gangrenous bedsores, Paine woke occasionally to cry "Oh, Lord help me! Oh, Lord help me!" Convinced that Paine's time on earth was nearly up, a physician and pastor named Manley took advantage of one of Paine's last lucid moments to try to save his soul. "Allow me to ask again," Manley inquired, "Do you believe – or let me qualify the question, Do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?"

Incapable of acquiescence, even when it might have provided him some comfort, Paine uttered his quiet last words: "I have no wish to believe on that subject." Small wonder one colonial wrote of him: 
The name is enough. Every person has ideas of him. Some respect his genius and dread the man. Some reverence his political, while they hate his religious, opinions. Some love the man, but not his private manners. Indeed he has done nothing which has not extremes in it. He never appears but we love and hate him. He is as great a paradox as ever appeared in human nature.
It's easy to imagine Paine as a citizen of the new culture, issuing his fervent harangues from http://www.commonsense.com. He would be a cyber hell raiser, a net.fiend.

Picture him logging on from the small brown wooden cottage still standing on his New Rochelle farm – the one given him by New York State in appreciation of his services during the Revolutionary War. He would get up late, as always, breakfast on his customary tea, milk, and fruit. The six chairs downstairs would be piled high with pamphlets, magazines, printouts, discs, letters, papers, tracts, and research. Technologically challenged, Paine would have an older Macintosh he'd be loathe to replace. A friend would have given him the screen saver with the flying toasters, which he would scoff at as frivolous but love dearly. Friends, surely, would also have given him a PowerBook to write on when he had to retreat to his sick bed.

He might belong to contentious conferencing systems like The Well or Echo, but he would especially love cruising the more populist big boards – Prodigy, CompuServe, America Online. He would check into Time Online's message boards and tear into Republicans and Democrats daily. He would e-mail the New England Journal of Medicine his tracts on the spread of disease, and pepper Scientific American's home page with his ideas about bridges.

He would bombard Congress and the White House Internet site with proposals, reforms, and legislative initiatives, tackling the most explosive subjects head-on, enraging – at one time or another – everybody.

The Net would help enormously in his various campaigns, allowing him to call up research papers, download his latest tract, fire off hundreds of angry posts, and receive hundreds of replies.

They would hear from him soon enough in China and Iran, Croatia and Rwanda. He would not be happy to find a Royal Family still reigning in England, but he would be relieved to see George III's heirs reduced to tabloid fodder. And he'd delight in seeing France a republic after all. He would emit nuclear flames from time to time, their recipients emerging singed and sooty. He would not use smileys. He would be flamed incessantly in turn.

He would be spared the excruciating loneliness he faced in later life on that modest farm, where neighbors shunned him, where visitors rarely came, and where he pored over newspapers for any news of his former friends' lives. No longer an outcast, thanks to the Net, he would find at least as many kindred spirits as adversaries; his cyber mailbox would be eternally full.

It is here, perhaps, that the gap between Paine's tradition and modern journalism seems the most poignant and stark. Journalism no longer seems to function as a community. Since it no longer shares a definable value system – a sense of outsiderness, a commitment to truth-telling, an inspiring ethical structure – journalists seem increasingly disconnected from one another as well as from the public.

Online, feuds rage and people storm at one another, but the vast digital news and information world contains many distinct communities. On bulletin boards and conferencing systems, there is already a moving and richly documented tradition of rushing to one another's assistance, of viewing oneself as part of a collective culture. In America's media capitals – New York, Washington, and LA – there seems to be no such sense of common ground.

Paine in particular might not find much friendship from other journalists. He would hate Manhattan media movers and shun them like the plague.

Paine would greatly prefer the chat room to the cocktail party. His notions of spare, direct writing would work beautifully on the Net, permitting him productivity and an audience even after his gout made traveling difficult. He would find himself, in fact, embarking on his greatest dream, to become a member of a "universal society, whose mind rises above the atmosphere of local thoughts and considers mankind, of whatever nation or profession they may be, as the work of one Creator."

Life might be easier for him, but it would not be easy. Intense personal relationships would still elude him, but he seems a good candidate for one of those online romances that flourish all across cyberspace. Like some of his Net successors, his social skills were not substantial. He would still be reclusive and moody, too offensive to have dinner with Bill and Hillary, too combative to be lionized by academia, and too ornery to get hired by major media outlets. He would probably find most of today's newspapers unbearably bland and write angry letters to editors canceling his subscriptions.

He and the massing corporate entities drooling over the Net would be instantly and ferociously at war as he recognized Time Warner, TCI, the Baby Bells, and Viacom as different incarnations of the same elements that scarfed up the press and homogenized it. He'd have lots to say about the so-called information highway and the government's alleged role in shaping it. One of his pamphlets – this may be the only thing he'd have in common with Newt Gingrich – would surely propose means of getting more computers and modems into the hands of people who can't afford them.

Instead of dying alone and in agony, Paine would spend his last days sending poignant e-mail all over the world from his deathbed via his PowerBook, arranging for his digital wake. He'd call for more humane treatment for the dying. He'd journal online about the shortcomings of medicine and the mystical experience of aging, while digging into his inexhaustible supply of prescriptions for the incalculable injustices that still afflict the world.

John Adams wrote to a friend after Paine's death in 1809:
I know not whether any Man in the World has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine, for such a mongrel between Pigg and Puppy, begotten by a wild Boar on a Bitch Wolf, never before in any Age of the World was suffered by the Poltroonery of mankind, to run through such a career of mischief. Call it then the Age of Paine.
It's odd that so spectacular a force of media and political nature should be so vaguely remembered. Unfortunately for Paine, the historian Crane Brinton reminds us, revolutionaries need to die young or turn conservative in order not to lose favor with society. Paine did neither and fell from grace. Many of his reform programs will remain unacceptable to political conservatives and his religious views will always offend believing Christians. Though his memory is invoked from time to time, his resurrection will never be complete.

At the moment, though, he is showing signs of minor resurgence. In 1994, officials in Washington, DC, were considering funding a monument to him somewhere. And Sir Richard Attenborough, the famed British actor and director, has been struggling for several years to get studio backing for a film about Paine.

A Paine bio – featuring two bloody revolutions, standoffs with Napoleon, tangles with the British royals, and cameo roles for Washington, Jefferson, Robespierre, and his nemesis George III – would make a socko TV miniseries, too. Nigel Hawthorne could play Paine's father, who intercepted his runaway teenage son in 1756 as he was about to board the Terrible, a privateer captained by a man named William Death. Heeding his father's desperate plea, Paine didn't sail. Shortly afterward, the Terrible was engaged by a French privateer, the Vengeance, and was horribly mauled. More than 150 members of its crew were killed, including Captain Death and all but one of his officers.

Anthony Hopkins could star in Rights of Man, playing the role of the Honourable Spencer Perceval, who stood up at the Guildhall in London to read out the sedition charges against the absent Paine in 1792 and accuse him of being "wicked, malicious, and ill-disposed."

And imagine the scene of his near-execution. Paine went to France after the Revolutionary War as a hero and supporter of democratization there. But the French Revolution was far bloodier and more violent than the American. Paine tried to save King Louis XVI's life and pleaded with the country's new rulers to be merciful and democratic. Eventually, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. In June 1794, six months into his harrowing imprisonment, watching as hundreds of fellow prisoners were led off to be killed, Paine fell into a feverish semiconsciousness. His fellow cellmates barely kept him alive, mopping his brow, feeding him soup, and changing his clothes.

The prison governors were ordered to send him to the guillotine the next morning. At 6 a.m., a turnkey carrying Paine's death warrant walked quietly down the prison corridors, chalking the cell doors of the condemned, marking the number 4 on the inside of Paine's door. Usually the turnkey marked the outside of the door, but Paine was seriously ill, and his cellmates had been granted permission to leave the door open so that a breeze could help cool Paine's profusely sweating body. That evening, the weather cooled, and Paine's cellmates asked a different turnkey for permission to close the door. Knowing that the number on the door was now inward, the occupants of the cell waited, Paine murmuring on his cot. Near midnight, the death squad slowly made its way down the corridor, keys jangling, pistols drawn. One of his friends cupped his hand over Paine's mouth. The squad paused, then moved on to the next cell.

A few days later, the Jacobin government was overthrown. A fellow prisoner said Paine had struggled to keep his democratic values alive in prison. "He was the confidant of the unhappy, the counselor of the perplexed; and to his sympathizing friendship many a devoted victim in the hour of death confided the last cares of humanity; and the last wishes of tenderness."

Despite his close call, Paine stayed in France until 1802 when he managed, inevitably, to alienate Napoleon. At the invitation of Jefferson, he returned to the United States to a hostile welcome.

Although he had left the United States a revolutionary hero, Paine soon outraged the American clergy by publishing The Age of Reason. He infuriated the business community with his pro-labor writings in England and by publishing Agrarian Justice. He also wandered into the middle of increasingly vicious domestic politics. Federalists, looking for ground to attack Jefferson, seized upon his invitation to Paine to come home. Paine was savaged as a heretic, and as an unwashed, drunken infidel. He was attacked in columns and stories, insulted on the streets and in public places. Not only had the children forgotten the father, they had turned on him.

Paine didn't see, writes Keane, "that he was among the first modern public figures to suffer firsthand an increasingly concentrated press equipped with the power to peddle one-sided interpretations of the world."

Perhaps, if a movie is made and Paine becomes a focus of attention once more, somebody could locate his bones. That they are missing may be the most fitting postscript to his life. British journalist and Paine contemporary William Cobbett smarted at the way Paine had been neglected in his final years. Cobbett wrote, in his Cobbett's Weekly Political Register, under the pseudonym of Peter Porcupine: 
Paine lies in a little hole under the grass and weeds of an obscure farm in America. There, however, he shall not lie, unnoticed, much longer. He belongs to England.
Just before dawn one autumn night in 1819, Cobbett, his son, and a friend went to Paine's New Rochelle farm – the hole under the grass is still there, marked by a plaque from the Thomas Paine National Historical Association – and dug up his grave, determined that Paine should have a proper burial in his native country. From there, the story becomes hazy. By most accounts, Cobbett fled with Paine's bones but never publicly buried the remains. Some historians think he lost them overboard on the return voyage. But certain British newspapers report their being displayed in November 1819, in Liverpool.

After Cobbett's death in 1835, his son auctioned off all his worldly goods, but the auctioneer refused to include the box that supposedly contained Paine's bones. Years later, a Unitarian minister in England claimed to own Paine's skull and right hand (though he wouldn't show them to anybody). Parts of Paine, truly by now the "universal citizen" he wanted to be, have been reported turning up intermittently ever since. In the 1930s, a woman in Brighton claimed to own what clearly would be the best part of Paine to have – his jawbone. As historian Moncure Daniel Conway wrote a hundred years ago: "As to his bones, no man knows the place of their rest to this day. His principles rest not."



How white supremacists hijacked social media

Spreading hate
by Joe Vesey-Byrne from indynews 

Picture: GRACE BEAHM-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

On Thursday morning Donald Trump supporter Ann Coulter sent out a cryptic tweet that was interpreted as a white nationalist motto.

It simply read: 14.


14!


Innocuous, and possibly another example of @edballs, but for many white supremacists it was interpreted as a sign she was conversant in their vocabulary.

Coulter later clarified, claiming she was referring to the fact there were 14 days until as the end of the Obama presidency, when Donald Trump will take the oath of office at noon on 20 January.

The Huffington Post cast doubt on this, when they calculated that the inauguration was "15 days away" on Thursday, not 14.

Nevertheless, why did white white supremacists and white nationalists jump on this?

While Trump was endorsed by the newspaper of the Klu Klux Klan, many of his backers such as Coulter, have protested at being lumped in with the far right movement.

The number "14" among white supremacist circles, is a reference to "Fourteen words", a slogan or mantra of the white supremacist world:
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
The motto was first attributed to David Lane, a member of terrorist group The Order, but has antecedents in "88 words" from Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf.

"14" is used as shorthand, or as a dog whistle, for "white genocide", which was the most popular hashtag used by followers of white supremacist and Neo-Nazi Twitter accounts in 2016.

Dylann Roof and White Supremacists Online

The white nationalist community online, manifested in popular consciousness as "the alt right," came to greater public prominence in 2016.

For redpill Trump fans, message boards such as 4chan and 8chan have beeb the environments where the far right has organised.

However, social media and the internet has also changed how violent extremists, who do more than troll, organise and receive instruction.

While Islamic extremists and their use of social media had been documented in the last five years, particularly its use by Isis, white nationalist communities are only just becoming the subject of research.

In December 2016, Dylann Roof was found guilty of all charges in the racially motivated killing of nine African-Americans worshipers in a Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Prosecutors have been making their closing argument this week in their case seeking the death penalty against him.

Contrary to some depictions of Roof as a completely isolated loner - he was, like most of us, computer literature.

Speaking to indy100 in the days following Roof's conviction, Mark Potok a fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) explained how white nationalists and white supremacists such as Roof use the internet to inform their beliefs and decisions.
In the 1990s it was not possible to recruit people through a computer screen.

At that time there was little evidence of internet based terrorism.
Potok explained that Roof was of a cohort of white nationalists, who got all of their news through the internet.

Previously Klansmen (members of the Klu Klux Klan) had been the most isolated people in American society. According to Potok the web had changed this.

Roof did not watch network news, and his "loner" status kept him physically away from others.

Nor did Roof have contact with anyone in the white supremacist world.

According to Potok, this fact makes Roof an instructive case with regards to how white supremacists and white nationalists use the Internet.
Roof posted under aliases on neo Nazi sites. He made a couple of posts but they weren’t the kind posts that would get a response.
No dialogue

Despite the lack of dialogue, the internet did play a part in Roof's radicalisation.

It didn't happen through conversations with other nationalists and he wasn't specifically targeted or encouraged by white supremacists - much like how some Isis Twitter accounts lure Americans to join them, through repeated interactions online.

Intentionally non-specific edicts are a tool of white supremacist leaders, and one which played a part in the radicalisation of Roof.

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), whom Potok described as "a direct descendent" of the white citizens' councils of the 1950s, are what has been called "The uptown Klan" - a class distinction that allowed the Mayor and Police Chief of a town to be members of a white nationalist group without being tarred with the label of Klansmen.

In his "manifesto" written in relation to the Charleston shooting, Roof cited the CCC website.

In the days before Dylann Roof's massacre, a statement was posted on the CCCs website, which the SPLC attributes to CCC president Earl Holt III.
ofccprez2015: Old guys like me should dress in a disheveled manner, pretend to be intoxicated, hang-out in ‘the hood,’ and bring along a large-caliber handgun (with backup!) and help mitigate violent black crime at its source.
According to Vocativ, Holt's spokesperson Jared Taylor would neither confirm nor deny Holt had been the person to post that statement.

Potok summarised Holt's words as "Get a gun, and go to the ghetto".

Roof did.

Picture: (David Pakman Show/YouTube)

2016 - the year of the social Neo Nazi?

In September 2016, J.M Berger of the Center for Homeland and Cyber Security, a group at George Washington University, produced a comparative study of white nationalists and Isis, specifically how both used Twitter to recruit followers and propagate their messages.

It found that while Isis had originally been heralded as the 'modern' force, utilising social media, their reliance on Twitter as a tool was declining.

This was in stark contrast the number of followers of white nationalist organisations and individuals, which had dramatically increased between 2014 and 2016.

Berger determined a Twitter profile was 'white nationalist' through several manual criteria: The Twitter profiles which were openly so (did not use pseudonyms or anonymity), ones which displayed Nazi or Neo-Nazi imagery (such as the swastika), ones which contained URLs to white nationalist websites in the profile, and ones which were taken from hate group lists compiled by organisations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Berger also found that white supremacist accounts outperformed Isis accounts in almost all current and historic metrics.
More followers.
More tweets per day.
More interactions.

The only metric in which Isis accounts outperformed white nationalist accounts, was in their message discipline.

Isis accounts consistently used the same hashtags and key phrases.

White nationalist accounts survive far longer than Isis accounts.

Even with Twitter's policy, only 288 of the 4000 far right accounts were suspended between their initial collection in April and the policy change in August 2016.

By comparison 1,100 Isis accounts were suspended during and immediately after their collection in Berger's dataset.

Social media savvy

Berger's data also revealed some of the most used profiles tweeted links from white nationalist accounts.

The top link was surprising.

Rather than any particular content (such as the six hour documentary about Adolf Hitler that was also widely shared), the most frequently shared link was for the app Crowdfire.

Crowdfire, along with the second most shared link - Statusbrew, are social media engagement apps.

One of their main features is the mass following of other accounts based on the use of certain keywords.

With this in mind, the far right's dominance of certain parts of the internet, is revealed to be less a reflection of their popularity, than a concerted social media strategy.

The far right is growing their brand, just like an social media marketing executive would.

Loners and Lone Wolfers

As the Roof case demonstrated, the internet is used by white nationalists to encourage 'lone wolfers'.

Those acting alone, without direct instruction, is the culture that white supremacists and white nationalist seek to cultivate.

Decisions by the KKK were made in groups up until 1968, and they changed tack.

Groups lead to talk, conspiracies get out. Better to inculcate a culture of endorsement of actions, and have one way communication.

Paul Jackson a senior lecturer at the University of Nottingham, currently researching Neo-Nazism, told indy100:
I think it is important to distinguish between ‘loners’, who have no two way contact with extreme right groups; ‘lone actors’, who do have an ongoing contact with such groups and whose ideology and activism sustain an individual’s justification for violence, and those who develop into small cells, such as [Timothy] McVeigh.
This presents the question: Were Roof, and actors such as Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh "loners"?

Or did his interaction with an online community, unchecked by counter argument, prompt his horrific crimes?

Prevent

While there are strategies in place to combat Islamic extremists, far fewer exist to counter white supremacists.

Paul Jackson, continued:
[The] Prevent Agenda and government policy in general does not do enough to take the far right seriously enough. Basically, more training, resources, monitoring and funded research is needed - though there are also some good examples of good practice under Prevent too.
Moreover, Alex Krasodomski-Jones of think tank DEMOS told indy100 that Isis' threat as a remote command centre is exaggerated:
Regarding the comparison between Islamic Groups and their leadership, I would point out that it is far from certain that some (even high-profile) terrorist incidents have been centrally coordinated in any way... The pattern is often that an attack takes place and then the perpetrator is announced as a 'soldier of the caliphate', but whether they have been instructed to do it isn't clear.

In the battle for the online space there isn't a great deal of structure. In 2014 the IS media channels were the primary sources of IS propaganda but as they have been degraded over the last couple of years, more and more IS content is being produced by users who sympathise but are not being centrally coordinated either.
The far right online appears to be more of an undetectable threat than Isis recruitment, which when it was more potent could be tracked through interactions.

A virtual community with real consequence

Krasodomski-Jones commented on the danger of virtual communities hiding in plain sight.
Regarding membership of extremist groups, I believe the internet has utterly transformed what it means to be part of a group. Party membership is declining all over the place, and it's been replaced by new, digital, informal signifiers of membership. Joining a forum, 'liking' a Facebook page and sharing content from it, buying clothing or fridge magnets, are examples of a new form of political membership made possible by the net.
Policing these "groups" is therefore incredibly difficult, without infringing on the free speech of everybody, just as policing pre-internet groups with no direct interaction was difficult in the past.

What Twitter and social media can do

A spokesperson for Twitter directed indy100 to their formal policies for prohibiting hateful conduct, how they've made reporting hateful speech and aggression more easily.

Twitter's enforcement options when it comes to prohibiting hateful conduct are varied.

Their policy reads:
The consequences for violating our rules vary depending on the severity of the violation and the person’s previous record of violations. For example, we may ask someone to remove the offending tweet before they can tweet again. For other cases, we may suspend an account.
This included policies on automation and spamming, prohibiting hateful conduct, and retraining their staff to respond to this.

Twitter did not answer questions regarding the frequency with which they shut down white nationalist or white supremacist accounts.





Britain’s changing belief landscape requires a rethink of religion’s public role

The time has come to separate church and state in order to ensure equality and fairness for believers and non-believers alike, says a major new report launched by the National Secular Society.

The report says that Britain's "drift away from Christianity" coupled with the rise in minority religions and increasing non-religiosity demands a "long term, sustainable settlement on the relationship between religion and the state".


Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change has been sent to all MPs as part of a major drive by the Society to encourage policymakers and citizens of all faiths and none to find common cause in promoting principles of secularism.

It calls for Britain to "evolve" into a secular democracy with a clear separation between religion and state. It criticises the prevailing multi-faithist approach as being "at odds with the increasing religious indifference" in Britain.

Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society president, said: 
Vast swathes of the population are simply not interested in religion, it doesn't play a part in their lives, but the state refuses to recognise this. 
Britain is now one of the most religiously diverse and, at the same time, non-religious nations in the world. Rather than burying its head in the sand, the state needs to respond to these fundamental cultural changes. Our report sets out constructive and specific proposals to fundamentally reform the role of religion in public life to ensure that every citizen can be treated fairly and valued equally, irrespective of their religious outlook.

The report highlights state education as the area where the "most overt imposition of religion on British citizens" takes place – and calls for a "moratorium on the opening of any new publicly-funded faith schools. It also recommends the abolition of the legal requirement on all schools to provide Christian worship and an end to discriminatory admissions arrangements.

The report describes the Church of England's privileged position as "no longer tenable". It recommends that the bishops' bench be removed from the House of Lords, with religious leaders only appointed on merit along the same criteria as all other appointees, rather than the current system where bishops are given seats 'as of right'.

The report also warns that the rise of so called 'sharia courts' risks undermining the legal system. Allowing groups to opt-out of the state legal system in favour of a religious alternative "strikes at the heart of citizenship and a cohesive society", says the report.

The report also urges politicians to refrain from describing Britain as a "Christian country".  It states:

Any approach which seeks to label the values widely shared by UK citizens as exclusively "Christian" is doomed to be out of touch with the views and lifestyles of the population.

According to the report:

Increasing secularity and the fragmentation of religious belief means the need to treat people as individual citizens rather than as members of a religion has become even more apparent. No faith-based approach from the state will ever encompass every strand of belief that exists in the UK today, and a human rights, individual-centred approach – rather than the failed multicultural or multi-faithist model – is vital for every citizen to be treated and valued equally.

The 'manifesto for change', covering every area of the Society's work, makes detailed recommendations on a broad selection of important policy areas relating to protecting human rights law and ensuring equality for all.

Wednesday, 4 January 2017

Bart Stanek's Journey to Atheism

Poles apart: religion and the real world

When I was growing up in a religious Polish family I found myself really close to the church.

I spend years helping with all all the ceremonies, and watching people who were attending them. I could not speak against the religion as this would have been unacceptable, but what I could do was simply observe and learn how mass manipulation works.

Once a week we also had a 45-minute lesson about a god and all aspects of the religion, but answers to our questions were never given. To be honest, there was no time for questions as part of the “learning” was to prepare us for yet another initiation into the religious hierarchy. Bad examination results would prevent one from moving up to the next step of the religion ladder, a failure that would have proved unacceptable both to my parents and whole community.

The process was like being on a train speeding towards a bizarre destination you really don’t want to reach. But all the other passengers on the train would try to stop you from jumping from it. The message was clear: you will die if you do so.

Many years ago when I was just a few years old, my parents made me believe in many unreal things and stories. My favourite one, as probably for any other kid at that age, was the story of Santa Claus. There was no reason not to tell a child this beautiful story about the old man from the North Pole who once a year visits all kids to leave presents for them.

I still believe that concept behind it is pretty good. There is surely no harm in the magical tales we tell our children because all fantasies will soon be recognised for what they are when adults stop pretending and kids happily accept the truth. This moment changes not only way kids perceive reality but it shows them too that the communities in which they live in can accept reality mixed with fiction without any problems.

Except when it comes to fantasies based on religion.

As a kid who knew that Santa was not real it came a big surprise to me that adults could still believe in all those magical stories offered by religion without asking any questions. On the one hand my teachers were encouraging me to look for the answers every day, but on the other I was told by priests and family that I should not look for answers when it came to religion.

Please understand how difficult it is for teenager to deal with this confusion of reality and fiction. What struck me most was that people were totally blind to the things they were doing. Ceremonies and the glorification of religious relics, pictures and sculptures were so immature that I became to wonder whether the people whom I once thought were the ones I should learn from were the ones I wanted to learn from.

No one wished to speak with me about the doubts I had, and there are millions of children today who still face the same predicament. Adults still believe that it is their duty to instil religion in their children, thinking that once they grow up they can choose to accept or reject their early indoctrination. This is a mistake. Most of children will not reject religion in later life. Only small percent of whole new generation will be strong enough to look for the answers themselves. The rest will choose simply to go with the religious flow, if only to avoid being targeted by by their peers.

The reality of being forced to believe in fiction has many dire consequences. Here are just a few:
Religion provides people with ready answers for any disaster in their lives, and teaches young people not to overcome problems but accept them instead.
It tells you that in order to live you have to die; that true life will start only after this one. We will all meet in heaven where our families are already there waiting for us. Our ancestors are watching us constantly. So whatever you do someone is watching you.
It treats current life as something not really important. Why should people take responsibility for what they do? Why look for better places to live, better jobs, and relationships when a finer life awaits us after we die.
It stops one from reaching for one’s dreams. You should not have a targets in your life. Religion has already set you a perfect target which is heaven, so there is no reason for you to set yourself any other goals.
It impedes many aspects of your true human nature. Belief that one is is constantly being spied on by spirits, gods, angels and devils does not help a person make their own decisions and creates unnecessary feelings of guilt. How confusing is this for teenagers who starting discovering sexuality?
It creates conflicts between people. Today the news is dominated by reports of religiously-based incidents of terrorism and wars.
It is an insidious form of mass mind control. As young boy I was astonished how easy it was to make grownups to sing, cry, pray, tell someone else their secrets in order to be forgiven by a god, and how aggressive they can be towards these who don’t want play their games. Today it scares me even more when greater numbers are given guns in order to kill others and risk their life to gain the access to an afterlife.

Fiction stories are good in order to expand child’s imagination – but only as long as we keep those stories within the realm of fantasy. Religion restricts kids’ freedom of thinking and makes them vulnerable to psychological and physical abuse by religious fanatics.

Why we do this to our children? If we want our kids to be free we should give them free minds to cope with life’s pressures.

I was lucky I did not to take the path that my childhood friends took. I was lucky to see the life as it is. I was lucky I had a chance to move away from home to stop being told how I should live. I was lucky I did not accept the false reality towards which I was being nudged. I was lucky I did not became blind to who I am and what I do.

In my life a four-generation pattern occurred:
My grandmother was obsessed with religion. All aspects of her life were directed towards the church.
My parents are people who would blindly follow all the rules of major celebration days.
I who took big step to by turning upside down all the rules that religion taught me how to live.
My kids who are totally free from religious pressure.

Some people would ask how my kids are doing without religion. They are really bright – doing well at school and are full of questions. When they ask questions about God and I tell them:

Itsup to you if you want to believe in god, I do not as it does not make sense to me.

The next questions always follows:

So how did people get here? How did the Big Bang happened?

I tell them:

There are many theories; you can also come out with your own one if you want.

There is no question I would not have a conversation about with my kids, and if I do not know the answer I simply encourage them to look for one. Maybe one day they may decide to join a religious group and I will be happy for them because they would approach religion with inquiring minds. Right now I teach them that every question can be answered and that life is too precious to waste on fictions parroted and followed blindly by others.

What are main benefits for me living without religion?

My time is limited – and I’m so happy that it is. Imagine an infinite life: whatever you should you do today you could do it tomorrow. Whatever you should do tomorrow you could put off until the day after. This spiral would goes endlessly.

This where religion really scares me. I was told that this life is not important because another infinite life would be given to me. Why should I then care for the life I have right now when true happiness can be only found in a life after my death. Even now, as I write this, it scares me how stupid this sounds. Why I would believe in such nonsense? I love my life and I can enjoy every day of it. I schedule things I like to do and learn about happiness and psychological aspects of it. It is amazing how some of the techniques can make you feel happy pretty much every day.

We are constantly changing our point of view in physics and I’m a glad about that. Even Einstein said that his theory could be true for thousand years, but one day someone might come up with a new one. This tells me something unique about our way to see ourselves. When I was a child everything I knew was a true for me. When I grew up everything that I knew as a kid became a lie.

How can I be sure that what I believe right now is a true? I cannot. I should be looking for better answers and explanations. Reality is really fascinating and there are thousands of unexplained questions. Quantum physics is more bizarre than any reality we know. Our reality is more magical than any story you ever heard. Why then limit one’s life to the controlling forces of religion when we should be exploring and enjoying the real world?

For my parents or my grandparents seeking for the answers outside of religion was almost impossible. Luckily, today we have almost instant access to information beyond that which religion chooses to dish out, and it is our duty to explore the real world, and encourage our children to do the same.

• Bart Stanek was born in Poland and moved to the UK in 2006. His interests include photography, travel, science and psychology.

Article originally published in the Freethinker





HOPE not hate reviews 2016 State of Hate, including Islamist extremism for first time

JANUARY
State of Hate report
Our now annual State of Hate report gave the most detailed and accurate assessment of organised hate in the UK and was widely covered in the media. For the first time our report also covered Islamist extremism.
Nazis ran riot in Dover
Our research led to many violent neo-nazis getting imprisoned after Nazis ran riot in Dover.
FEBRUARY
Fear & Hope report
Five years after the first Fear & HOPE report, we commissioned a new study exploring the views and anxieties of the English. Read more.
Community response in Birmingham
HOPE not hate brought together hundreds of people for a community event in Birmingham in response to the launch of the new anti-Muslim group Pegida.
Pegida demo
Our instant research on the Pegida demo helped destroy the movement before it began. Watch the video.
MARCH
Voter registration campaign
HOPE not hate joined forces with ice cream makers Ben & Jerry’s to run a voter registration campaign amongst young people in London.
APRIL
Welsh Assembly elections
Over 300,000 anti-UKIP leaflets and postcards were distributed in Wales ahead of the Welsh Assembly elections. While UKIP still won seats on the Assembly, it was not as many as polls predicted.
MAY
Brigadista beer
To mark the 80th anniversary of the International Brigades who fought in the Spanish Civil War, HOPE not hate collaborated on a celebratory beer. Read more.
JUNE
Voter registration campaign
Ahead of the EU referendum, HOPE not hate joined forces with Bite the Ballot to run a huge voter registration campaign which saw hundreds of thousands of people registering to vote. Find out more here.
JULY & AUGUST
#MoreInCommon
In response to the murder of Jo Cox, HOPE not hate organises 120 #MoreInCommon meetings across the UK. Thousands of people volunteer to get involved and dozens of new groups are set up. Read more.
SEPTEMBER
#MoreInCommon community events
Over 80 #MoreInCommon community events were held around the country to bring people together. See our videos here and here.
Unity Rocks gig at Brixton Academy
Five thousand people attended a Unity Rocks gig at Brixton Academy. Headlined by the Libertines, proceeds from the gig are going to a new anti-racist Educational Project we are launching in 2017.
2016 HOPE Camp
Over 100 people attended our four-day 2016 HOPE Camp to learn anti-racist and community organising skills.
Merthyr football event
Welsh football manager Chris Coleman joins hundreds of local people at a friendly football game between local Polish and Portuguese migrants and Merthyr league team Quar Park Rangers organised by the local HOPE not hate group in memory of Jo Cox. Watch the video here.
OCTOBER
Cable Street
To mark the 80th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street HOPE not hate produced a special website. See it here.
Cheerleading for ISIS
HOPE not hate produced the most indepth and detailed report into Anjem Choudary’s links to the Islamic State. Read more here.
Bound for Glory
HOPE not hate’s research led to the cancellation of what was due to be Scotland’s largest ever nazi gig.
NOVEMBER
HOPE not hate US special
To coincide with US elections, HOPE not hate produced a special 56-page magazine, which included an undercover operation inside the most extreme KKK group. See it here.
DECEMBER
Watford community event
HOPE not hate brought hundreds of people together at a community event in Watford as part of our on-going campaign to bring different communities together around what they have in common. read more here.
HOPE not hate takes a stand against Farage
HOPE not hate takes a stand against Farage’s lies and is backed by thousands of its supporters. read more here.