Blood in the streets


I really enjoyed Harold Pinter’s Nobel Lecture. Enjoying might not be good phrasing, as it includes so many disturbing facts about acts of horror against the human-kind.

The speech is brilliant and touching. A man fighting cancer with nothing to loose, writes his spiritual testament:

“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

He even goes on to volunteer as a speech writer for Bush:

God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam’s God was bad, except he didn’t have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don’t chop people’s heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don’t you forget it.

The link includes the lecture which was pre-recorded, and shown on video December 7, 2005, at the Swedish Academy in Stockholm.

Share and Enjoy:
  • services sprite Blood in the streets
  • services sprite Blood in the streets
  • services sprite Blood in the streets
  • services sprite Blood in the streets
  • services sprite Blood in the streets

Tags:

  • http://luppe.blogging.fi Luppe

    I’m a little less impressed. Artists are not always very nuanced thinkers. Writing good dialogues for max impact in front of a paying audience encourages effect seeking, not moderation.

    I enjoy Harold Pinters plays (the few I’ve seem), but hailing Castro and Milosevic as desirable leaders while bashing Bush scraps my respect for Harolds political thinking and ethics. I simply cannot accept that their atrocities on Cuba and the Balkan could be excusable, just because they are enemies of the US.

  • http://blogit.helsinki.fi/aivomassaa/ jussir

    Castro and Milosevic might not be fair and just rules themselves, but i think the main point Pinter is making is that the winners (Bush, Blair) are never taken to the court of justice no matter how awful their atrocities may be.

  • http://www2.uiah.fi/~tleinone/ Teemu L

    Luppe: Did we read / watch the same lecture? :-) I do not find a single word about Castro or Milosevic.

    I know that Pinter has been supporting Cuba and Milosevic. I do not agree with all he has said or wrote. Still I think this lecture summarises reasons behind modern terrorism a way that has not done before.

    PS. Cuba or Milosevic enemies of US? hmm… I see this pretty much other way around.