That Hypno Show - Gerard V - Stage Hypnotist New Zealand & Australia

This blog comes about because several seemingly unrelated things happened last week that set me thinking.

Lets start with the first thing.  I came across this blog from Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics Fame).  It poses the question of its readers “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?”  The responses are varied and interesting.  Most interesting to me are those who post to the effect that Steven Levitt should not ask the question at all, because the answers may give terrorists ideas and may be used to launch actual attacks.  Here’s an example of such a reply “Thanks for the tip! I’ll pass your idea along to the rest in my cell. Twit.”

This seemingly obvious point actually shows that many people just don’t get the information age.  They are showing 18th century thinking, which has survived the 19th century and leaked into the present age.  Information, and especially ideas, will not go away simply because we do not mention or discuss them.  Any ideas that are put forward on the blog are already available to potential terrorists with a few moments thought, or discussion amongst themselves.  If we stay silent the information doesn’t go away, and it is us who will be caught by surprise (as we were on 9/11) simply by our failure to focus on what was obvious to most people if they had given it any thought at all.  Silence on our part will not reduce terrorist attacks, will not thwart their plans, and will not make us safer.

Perhaps in the 18th century, before faxes, telephones and the internet, information could be withheld, potentially indefinitely.  But that does not apply anymore.  Staying silent doesn’t stop others talking and thinking, it just preserves ignorance and hands the advantage to those who do participate in the information era.  Do those who suggest that Steven should withdraw his blog write vehemently to publishers of novels suggesting that all books that suggest an attack or a crime should also be withdrawn.  Movies too?

My mother often asks me why I publish details of some of our hypno show gags on the internet.  She says that we are “giving away our secrets”.  But the moment I perform a new gag it is “out there” and it will be picked up in time no matter how hard I try to hold it back.  People take videos of my show.  Cripes, I even give out DVDs.  So why should I expect the information to stay hidden; better, I think, to be part of the process of understanding, than to be the victim of its lack.

And victimhood leads me to item three.  Last week four near simultaneous car or truck bombs were detonated in a small religious community in Iraq.  An attempt, we are told, to wipe out the followers of that non-islamic religious group.  Over 400 people were killed.  This was described in some media as an attempt at genocide.  Others used the phrase ethnic cleansing, and referred to the ongoing sectarian violence.  The victims were not, in my opinion, all that nice themselves, having stoned to death a young woman who wanted to convert to another faith.  But that aside, they did not deserve to be destroyed, certainly not the children.

Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” according to dictionary.com.  It was none of those things.  Ethnic cleansing.  Well, yes, ethnicity includes religious groupings, so it was technically correct, though we usually think of the term ethnic as relating to racial and national groups.  Sect: “a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination”.  This is closer to it.  Despite almost never actually using the word in the press, this was clearly a religious attack.  Followers of one religion expressing their extreme dislike for followers of another religion.

Despite strenuous denials from the west, and heroic attempts by western powers and media to avoid using the word religion when describing the conflicts that occur daily and which are often triggered by or promoted by those western powers, these are religious conflicts and most ordinary people have worked that out already.

So it seems odd to me that we don’t call these things what they are.  If we cannot accurately describe the problems of the world, what chance have we at solving them?

That week saw in New Zealand the death of a toddler who had been horribly abused by her teenage parents.  This is the latest in a series of shocking cases that have rocked this nation’s smug sense of well-being.  We have a problem to solve.  But what I notice most is that in attempting to address the issue, politicians and community leaders are stuck asking only the politically acceptable questions and giving the pat liberal PC answers that their particular ideology finds acceptable.  I expect any moment to be told that global warming is the cause.

But surely we will have useful answers, and be better prepared, only if we are open to discussing every aspect and possibility, and not just trotting out the same banalities and slogans.

The world has a problem with religion.  Religious wars are the majority.  We need to face that.

New Zealand has a problem with child abuse.  We need to ask uncomfortable questions to find the cause of the problem and to solve it.  Is the problem of violence racial, is it genetic, is it taught?  Should we intervene more closely in the lives of young children?  I don’t have the answers – but I think the problem starts with asking all of the questions, not just the safe ones.

Silence will not make our lives better, and nor will ignorance.