Go Back to Synthesis Zine
Home Page
13-Point
Programme
I have a stable address! I hope I do for the next three
years anyway. Since starting University (cripes, six years ago!) I have moved
FIVE times. Up to now I have put out three issues of Synthesis from three different
addresses. Consequently, I have found that while I was living in Canterbury
and distroing issue 3 reviews were being newly published for issue 2 with my
old London address. It makes me so anxious to have post going to all these different
addresses for me that I've been tempted to revert to my Christian name for the
sake of making mail forwarding easier. I get post for Laura, Albatross, Synthesis
and perhaps even in the name of my distro Goodies. I deliberately postponed
the production of issue 4 so that I could have it published exclusively with
my newest address. I am still at University, and what I am doing here is an
MPhil, which is a research degree and the first stage of a doctorate in the
UK. By the end of it all, not only will I have more letters after my name, but
I should be recognisable as an expert in my particular field. My discipline
is Sociology and the field I have chosen is the children's rights movement.
This is all pretty exciting to me since I like self-directed research very much
and this is the first chance I have to really specialise and to concentrate
solely on my subject. My University department is supportive and I think I will
be working in a good environment. My initial work will take two years, so I
will need to be comfortable.
Children's Rights - what's all that then?
Lots of things raised my interest in the concept of childhood and children as
political actors. When I was a child I was the only one I knew with a class
consciousness. The other kids didn't seem to mind that we were oppressed, repressed,
misunderstood and often abused. Later on, Nation of Ulysses with their Situationist
child revolution stirred my imagination somewhat. Lots of questions about the
nature of childhood were raised when I read Blake Morrison's book As If which
was reviewed in Synthesis 3. Finally I found out about Article 12, the UK's
child-membership campaigning group with it's name referring to a section of
the 1989 UN Declaration On The Rights of the Child. Bored with the old sociological
stratifications, I started researching into age and generational conflict. There
was a clear gap in the literature, although I also found that the sociology
of childhood and the study of childhood in other disciplines was a growing academic
area. More research and I found that the UN Declaration had spurred initiatives
in research, charity work, political institutions and campaigns. It may not
be a child revolution, but it was something new and it had potential. This was
what I wanted to find out about. There are aspects of academic research with
which I am only gradually becoming familiar. From the sociological perspective,
I will be taking account of the reactions I get when I tell people about my
work. It is bound to come up in conversation with most people I meet over the
next few years. 'I'm researching the children's rights movement in Europe',
I will say. People's replies should tell me a bit about their perceptions of
children and children's place in society. Will they take 'children's rights'
to mean liberties; that is positive rights to do and to be from their own volition?
On the other hand will they understand rights to refer to negative freedoms;
freedom from exploitation etc? And what specific liberties and freedoms will
people have in mind? Liberty to choose which divorced parent to live with or
freedom from abuse by parents or guardians are examples which place children
in relation to the family, their traditional and primary realm. Will people
more readily think of children in this context than as individuals in their
own right? The concept of children's rights may conjure up issues surrounding
abortion, paedophiles, children's sexual freedom, early childhood education,
violence on television, the voting age?The responses should be interesting.
And that is even before I start interviewing activists within the movement.
So that is what I will be doing at least until autumn 2001. Hopefully Uni won't
keep me too busy so I can still get a zine out once or twice a year.
Hardcore
Predictions for 1999:
Nothing esoteric this time, kids. These are my sociological projections based
on well scientific observation and research.
By the Vort N Vis festival in the summer of 1999, the collapse of the whole
decadent structure of commercial hardcore ?will become evident as imminent.
Trendy kids will be abandoning the scene en masse and becoming Gabbers or insurance
salesmen.
Instead of crossing over from metal to hardcore, Heshers drift towards Motown
and Hammond. Several metal magazine editors develop ulcers keeping up with the
changing tastes. Belgian soya milk manufacturers Provamel come to the brink
of bankruptcy as they react to the sudden shortfall in sales.
Good Life Records is sold to Warner.
Victory Chat is sold to Microsoft.
Krishnas have to change recruiting tactics because there arefewer naive straightedgers
about so they begin to hand out free curry at raves.
Zines hit an all-time peak and begin to drop off in numbers due to a phenomenon
called 'zine exhaustion'.
Oversized shirts go out of style early in the year leaving a huge backlog for
many distributors and smaller sizes are much in demand.
Avail and J. Church form a supergroup and spend the next 10 years on a nonstop
world tour.
A campaign against emo, spearheaded by Jan Selfworth, begins at a Bob Tilton
show when tacks are scattered on the stage and floor so that Simon cannot thrash
about emo-style. A new trend of emo singers cutting themselves before shows
begins and bloody arms replaces too-small sports tops as emo de rigeur.
Old school punk bands discover a fourth chord.
Maximum RockNRoll comes out with it's first TRIPLE issue and changes editors
again.
One issue of HeartattaCk comes out and the order backlog sends distros into
hysterics.
A second incarnation of Riot Grrrl emerges.
The newly de-commercialised and feminised hardcore scene goes back underground
and all the true DIY hardcorepunks live happily ever after - yay!
Virtual
Punks
How is information technology transforming hardcore? Is it transforming hardcore?
In the mainstream world, several commentators have identified the end of the
social order which has characterised the Western world this century. Industrial
society, with its nuclear families, gender roles, classes, occupations and means
of production, is said to be coming to an end. The new society surpassing the
industrial is the information society. New jobs being created in Western countries
tend to deal in information, and as more people work in the production and exchange
of information, the other component areas of socialisation mentioned above are
also being transformed.
OK, the scene has always been full of useless idiots, and occasionally these
people would write letters to kids or zines or even write their own ego-wank
zines. Today however, they do not have to put so much effort to the practice
of cross-scene communication. Thousands of kids have easy access to information
and discussion from the internet. Punk, hardcore, and especially straightedge
usenets are rife with middle class teenage fools who think there is nothing
more punk than sending an e-mail and that their poorly constructed, irrelevant
opinions are apotheotized by submission to an internationally accessible medium.
I think there are three main aspects of information technology in the scene
to consider: e-mail, the world wide web and the concept of mediated communication.
The most obvious advantages of e-mail are that it is quick, convenient and often
free. E-mail is particularly useful for emergencies or last-minute arrangements
as long as one knows the recipient regularly checks their mail. So if you are
visiting someone or organising a gig, e-mail is the way to go. It is obvious
however that the flexibility of e-mail can only go so far. Flyers, zines, music
etc. depend on the post. The web generally has it up on the post when it comes
to the dissemination of information.
I have not seen it myself, but I expect it is possible to get the entire works
of Bakunin on the internet. I have yet to find a philosophy or school of thought
too obscure to have at least a handful of devoted websites. The net is one of
the few reliable and easily accessible sources of gig listings and contacts.
Most scene sites are pretty self-indulgent and naff, but there are some excellent
and genuinely useful ones as well. There is no doubt that the scene is made
more accessible in every sense by the net. If you know no punks in your city,
you can find out about all aspects of the scene via webpages on local scenes,
bands , individuals, alternative politics etc by having a quick websearch. Fortunately,
there are many genuinely worthwhile web pages out there to provide a counterbalance
to the purely commercial, band-obsessed, generic sites. Such a search can lead
the isolated punk to a worthwhile punk phase or maybe even a rare lifetime commitment!
You don't have to be a Luddite to mistrust the quality of communication available
by electronic means. I would defend the use of the net as a supplement to traditional
face to face and postal means of involvement in the scene, but I wonder what
sort of scene will be created by kids whose initial and/or primary experience
of hardcore is via the net.
First of all, it is not reasonable to judge what an 'information scene' may
look like by the current crop of teenage techheads. The 15-year old American
teenage boys spouting homophobia and Earth Crisis lyrics may be the most typical
inmates of the net scene, but arguably these are the dominant characters in
the scene anyway. What we should be concerned about is the people who actually
do constructive things in the scene. Will more energies be put into designing
web pages than into the more widely accessible zines or the putting on of shows?
Will e-mail correspondence undermine postal correspondence and make the running
of distros difficult for people without e-mail addresses? Several people have
noted already that the web has brought a tremendous increase in the amount of
shit-talking in the scene.
The second aspect is the social side. Is the social makeup of a technology-led
scene likely to be different? Hardcore could scarcely be more middle class than
it is now. It may be that the age at which people find out about the scene could
decrease or increase based upon access to computers. Kids who have computers
at home may find punk at 9 rather than 14 when they get a bit of independence
from home. Other kids may not use the internet until taking IT classes at school
or may not have access until University. Perhaps such an accessible scene will
be just as easily abandoned and the number of years an individual spends in
the scene will decrease. On the other hand, when a punk grows up and goes to
work, if they have access to a computer they may be more likely to carry on
their involvement beyond the usual watershed. Just look at Mykel Board?
One thing is undeniable; that the net is bringing an enormous increase of gossip
within the scene. Most of it is talking bollocks and it's the sort of thing
that disenchants a lot of people and makes them want to break off involvement
in hc. Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done about shit-talking over
the internet unless the more responsible among us actually devoted ourselves
to putting the chatrooms right about the stories being told about people in
the scene.
It is probably too early to tell whether paper zines are in decline as more
web sites appear, but if the number of zines decreases this is likely to seriously
affect people's experience of the scene; especially if they do not have access
to a computer. Having said that, most punks still focus on the local rather
than the nearby, national or international scenes.
Finally, it seems unlikely that hardcore will ever become dominated by computer
mediation. In the mainstream culture, ideas of the information society tend
to be generalised overestimations of small-scale trends. In the underground,
the internet has not even begun to revolutionise any aspect of the scene. The
Zapatistas and European direct activists have effectively used the internet
as a tool for informing and garnering support and activism. So far, the scene
has not progressed through the use of technology and the present ills we are
experiencing has more to do with mainstream capitalism and the mass media and
is probably unrelated to new media of communication.
Hollywood
can bite me
A few years ago Maximum RockNRoll took a timely editorial decision
regarding the film reviews. It was seen that the rejection of mainstream and
commercial music in the magazine had to be complemented by a film review policy.
It makes little sense to slag off EMI bands but give coverage to Thorn EMI films.
And so the latest Hollywood movie no longer had a place in the punks' hallowed
organ. Quite right too.
Hollywood movies are shit. Anyone who doesn't realise that has let themselves
be duped by the media machine telling us that Hollywood is the pinnacle of entertainment
and achievement. Hollywood produces about two films a year that are worth regarding,
and the rest is formulaic dross. The US film industry works like any other industry
in capitalism. Hollywood wants a monopoly. It undermines native film industries
in other countries by appealing to the lowest common denominator and by coaxing
talent into it's machine.
The film industry exactly parallels the music industry but on a far more money-oriented
scale. This is not just because of the expense of making even the most DIY of
films, but also because of the tremendous extent to which the spectre of Hollywood
overshadows and penetrates visual entertainment/art. It has to be appreciated
also the fact that the film industry is only the centre of a mass of industries
and that Hollywood films are only the basis of a marketing strategy for selling
tickets, videos, t-shirts, video games, Happy Meals, Coca-cola, television series
etc.
The Hollywood film industry is far more cynical and soulless than the music
industry could ever hope to be. The people involved in the making of a movie
are far more removed from the control of the product than those involved in
making music. It seems ridiculous to me to see an actor being interviewed to
promote a movie. Not only did their performance get wrapped up one or two years
previously, but they are only one small factor in the finished product. Writers
are almost completely ignored in Hollywood, minor actors are fodder and the
directors have to prioritise stars' egos and balanced budgets above any vision
they might have.
Money controls Hollywood and that is the only reason those dreary Hollywood
stars are ever perceived as powerful. They can be thoroughly talentless and
boring, but if they look pretty they will be given dozens of vehicles and fees
in the millions. Just look at cardboard performers like Julia Roberts and Kevin
Costner. Shit; but shit sells. Steven Spielberg is considered one of the most
powerful people in Hollywood, but he was only a director and had to start his
own company to get relative artistic freedom. Spielberg is a good example of
the compromises that anyone has to make if they want to make something remotely
uncommercial or worthwhile in the Hollywood system. Steven Spielberg wanted
to make a film about the holocaust, but how much money was that going to make?
So in order to get the go ahead on that project he would have to first make
a blockbuster like Jurassic Park. In fact, after a day's shooting of Jurassic
Park the director used his free time to put together Schindler's List. Before
he could make Amistad, there had to be another Jurassic Park.
It's the same with actors. In Hollywood as anywhere there are a fair number
of politically progressive actors. But there are not many films or roles with
a politically progressive hue to them. Tim Robbins wanted to show up the corruption
of Washington and the evils of the New Right. He therefore wrote, directed,
wrote and performed the soundtrack and starred in Bob Roberts (an excellent
film) while getting his progressive friends in and (mostly) outside of Hollywood
to play supporting roles. Whenever an actor manages something so right-on though,
she or he has to quickly balance it out playing typical cartoon characters in
typical formulaic Hollywood shit. The actor may have provided her/himself with
credibility in the long run, but they won't have made a dent in the heads of
the braindead millions who are hooked on action movies and romantic fluff.
If US movies are bad, US television is worse, but that's another rant. Most
people, even in the HC scene seem to swallow the received wisdom that entertainment
products are worthwhile simply because they are American. As I see it, the opposite
is true. American entertainment is rubbish until proven otherwise, and that
almost never happens. In the meantime, it is first and foremost commercial,
and as we all know, the commercial is not hardcore.
Happy
Birthday, Human Rights
Remember those? They are the things that were invented before animal rights
were invented. This is about one approach that has been taken in pursuit of
the realisation of human rights.
The United Nations was set up in 1945 in the hope that institutionalised cooperation
between states would prevent further world wars. Many failures are evident in
the UN's history, but its various policies and declarations have placed realisable
human ideals in the public eye for debate, adoption by governments and hopefully
even application. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was
produced for the UN by a committee headed by Eleanor Roosevelt.
Human rights are a social construct. The concept was invented by philosophers
like Rousseau at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. In the UDHR preamble,
human rights are spoken of as 'inherent'. The idea that certain human rights
are identifiable, categorical and derived at least in part from nature is a
silly idea, but probably necessary for the purposes of the UN. UDHR sets out
specific rights such as those related to religion and nationality in such a
way as to enable states to apply them in a practical way. Since states represent
a great deal of human rights infringement, it is appropriate that they should
be held responsible at the international as well as the intra-national level
for overseeing the practical application of human rights legislation. Even the
most brutally repressive political leaders sign up to progressive UN resolutions
because it makes them look good.
The convention has not yet been adopted by all member states. The first universally
ratified UN convention is likely to be the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights
of Children which was recently signed by the USA leaving Somalia now as the
only state that has not yet signed or ratified. As we all know, nobody cares
about 'humans'. However, adults do care about 'children', so a separate declaration
for children has proved relatively successful. The monitoring process is already
underway as representatives from UNICEF and other organisations investigate
how the countries who have signed up to the Children's Rights Declaration are
following up this commitment. Monitors will particularly be looking out for
exploitative child labour practices and national monitoring mechanisms such
as committees, ombudsmen and ministries for children.
It seems likely that the successes of the children's rights campaign may bring
progress in the direction of general human rights through the back door. Any
progress that is made will probably be through international pressure. The UN
has few powers of enforcement, but it does give a platform and support to non-governmental
organisations such as Amnesty International and refugee councils and this is
support that these organisations rarely get from state governments. This is
one of the reasons that campaigning groups increasingly take a global and a
local focus and bypass the nation state.
International resolutions are not intended to be a magic wand, but they provide
a direction and basis for the work of campaigners. The UNDHR is probably too
wide and general to be a banner for a movement, but it is a rational ideal and
a standard and the first attempt to apply progressive ideals to a global community.
It's not hard to understand why some states are afraid to adopt it, and those
that have adopted it hide behind the charter for state's internal self-determination
to avoid answering for breaches.
I was taught the Ten Commandments at school, but I wasn't taught my universal
human rights. Most of are entitled to these rights by virtue of our states'
having signed and ratifying the charter. Why not find out what your technical
rights are and tell other people about it. The more people who know, the harder
it will be for states to pretend that we don't have them. If you want to read
the UDHR it is not very long and it can be found on the UNHQ website and I also
have a few pocket copies available.
UK Politics Part 2 - Machiavelli one year on
After the General Election 1997 article in the last issue,
some people asked what a 'spin doctor' is. Spin doctors work a bit like a Ministry
of Propaganda. They mediate between the public and the Government, finding out
what will raise the popularity of the Prime Minister and packaging a means by
which this can be achieved. Spin doctors write speeches for the PM which say
what they think the public want to hear, and package policies and campaigns
which will fool the public and feed off people's worst instincts.
I will give an example of spin doctoring on the part of the New Labour Government.
In March 1998, I and presumably millions of others received personally addressed
surveys from the Labour party complete with a letter from the PM beginning 'Dear
Friend'. The party wanted to find out public opinion on the first 11 months
of the Government, beginning with 'New Labour's 10 Pledges'. I was expected
to give my opinion on the Government's priority policies, and this is how just
some of them were set out:
2. Tax
We have cut VAT on domestic fuel to 5% and have stuck to our promise not to
raise the basic or top rates of income tax. (tick one)Excellent Good Adequate
Not Enough
OK, so here we have two or three completely unrelated tax issues, and they have
been lumped together quite casually. Furthermore, the only options for answers
are high praise, quite high praise, basic acceptance for the Government's position
or this completely meaningless 'Not Enough' which could be taken in a manner
contradictory to the intention of the person filling in the form.
6. Crime
We have proposed changes in the law that will provide new powers to deliver
fast punishment for persistent young offenders.
(tick one)Excellent Good Adequate Not Enough
and the war on Britain's youth continues under New Labour. Well, this is a thoroughly
charming example of fascist Home Secretary Jack Straw's populist playing on
the fears of Middle England. What could 'Not Enough' mean here I wonder, that
you prefer that young offenders be shot on sight? This is not serious policy-making,
but a carefully orchestrated pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate.
Governments used to ignore us 90% of the time, now they actively manipulate
us.
The most horrifying aspect of this manipulative style is that New Labour believe
that we are all stupid enough to fall for this shit, or that at least they are
willing to treat us as if we are that stupid. This is the sort of new 'accountability'
and 'democratic initiatives' of which the PM speaks so self-righteously. It
is made possible by professional spin doctors whose only purpose is to keep
the party in power. I'll repeat that - their only purpose is to keep the party
in power. And in this case the party is embodied in Prime Minister Tony Blair,
who doesn't even have the respect for democracy to allow his party to impinge
on his policy-making.
The Situationists were right, this is the Society of the Spectacle.
'Innocence' can bite me
Alright, I've had it up to here with this cult of innocence. 'Innocent animals
slaughtered' 'Innocent babies murdered' etc. ad infinitem. The naivet?is typical
for the language of hardline, but other hc kids express the same sentiments.
Maybe it is laziness. It is easier to express the injustice of animals being
turned into hamburgers by saying the animals were 'innocent' than it is to give
a concise and cogent explanation of why the practice is wrong. The full explanation
would however better explain just why the speaker chose veganism. The supposed
'innocence' of animals or foetuses is unlikely to have been a primary motivator
of one's opinions on their termination.
What do these people mean by applying a legalistic human-signifying term to
non-human creatures?* A dairy cow is unlikely to have committed a murder, but
then neither have I. A dairy cow may have willfully swatted a fly with her tail,
does that bring her down in the hardline scale of innocence? Is an adult human
excluded from the realm of 'innocence' because we at some point have partaken
in the sins of Babylon? Is my innocence tainted because for the first 17 years
of my life I ate meat? Or perhaps those who follow the cult of innocence still
believe in original sin? Perhaps not the biblical version, but the fundamental
sinfulness of the world humans have built through greed. In that case, mightn't
all cows be tainted by the sin of the cow who supposedly started the Great Chicago
Fire? Maybe there was a great Cow Ancestor who stomped her calf to death thus
removing the innocence of all cows to follow. Furthermore I defy you to find
a vegan foetus.
I'm not vegan because those cute ickle animals are so darned 'innocent'. I know
that carnivorous animals such as cats will often give their prey a slow, terrifying
and agonising death; perhaps for no other reason than their own amusement. I
do not think that foetuses are worth saving because they have not yet done anything
despicable. If a foetus becomes a human and spends its childhood knowing it
was unwanted it may very well become a serial killer, and you don't get much
less innocent than that.
Innocence in reference to beings which may be less self-aware than adult humans
simply means they are too ignorant to be able to make moral choices. Fuck innocence.
I don't want to be 'innocent', I want to be informed and self-aware enough to
have my own principles. And even if someone is a serial killer it does not justify
'innocent' people putting them to death.
*(ok, ok, so hardliners and other fools think that foetuses are human beings.)
Abortion
is not about babies
I feel compelled to
write about abortion in this issue because recently I have encountered so many
foolish attitudes to the subject in the hc scene. Although Catholic school tried
to indoctrinate me, I am pro-choice. I understand where anti-abortion people
are coming from, but they have a really poor way of expressing themselves which
makes their thinking seem particularly inadequate.
Anti-abortion articles in zines almost inevitably include phrases such as these:
killing babies, murdering children, taking little innocent lives, babies/children's
rights... What these sentiments suggest to me is that the author is thinking
of the unborn not as unborn humans but as unborn cute, cuddly, innocent wee
babes and therefore more worthy of consideration than older people. If abortion
is murder, which it isn't, it is murder of a human. So if you object to murder
of a human then say so, don't emotionalise it by pretending that pro-choice
means hating babies. A foetus, by the way, is not a human being or a baby. Until
birth has taken place, that foetus is a part of the womyn bearing it. Abortion
is a womyn's issue. If you are male, your opinion on abortion is irrelevant
to me. A woman's sexuality involves infinite difficult choices and responsibilities.
By pretending that the choices are 'abstain' or 'have babies' or even 'take
precautions' is simplistic as well as misogynistic. Even if someone has an unwanted
pregnancy due to her own irresponsibility, nobody else can be justified in forcing
her to go through with the pregnancy. Everybody is irresponsible at one time
or another, but not every mistake has such major repercussions. The fact of
an unwanted pregnancy is traumatic enough without a womyn having her options
in the matter limited by laws, money or family or social pressures.
Awhile back I was talking with a womyn who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
She was looking forward to having a family, but she was very much aware of some
disagreeable social attitudes toward pregnancy. She said that people had begun
to address her as 'mum'; 'how is mum today?' Even people she knew would speak
to her belly and not to her. They would touch and stroke and put their heads
to her bump without being invited. It was as if she had ceased to be a person,
but was merely the baggage carrying a baby who was more important. And because
she was pregnant, she was doing a public service and therefore was public property
which could be interfered with by anybody. It is as if for a pregnant woman
the pregnancy is more important than the woman?
Social attitudes don't come from nowhere. Anti-abortionism is misogynistic because
it derives from a basic belief in a woman's natural duty? Ancient superstitions
(still evident in modern religions) were infused with a tremendous fear of womyn's'
sexuality and esoteric power (as it was perceived). Men used physical and systemic
power to confine womyn's energies to a private sphere of the home and a responsibility
of raising children.
In this century, womyn in many countries have demanded and taken greater life
options than were historically possible. One of the fundamental rights a person
must have is control over their bodies. Reproductive and sexual freedom without
interference from other individuals or the state has to be an absolute.
Nestle are murderers
Following on, I wish
some of these pro-life people would take more account of the humans who already
exist on this overcrowded planet. In some parts of the world, people are born
only to have their lives sacrificed by capitalism. One evil multinational corporation
who seek their own profit at all cost is the Swiss food manufacturers Nestl?
I am constantly surprised at how many people have not heard about the Nestle
boycott. Being a shy, introverted, non-preachy type, I keep most things to myself.
Unless it is absolutely necessary, I prefer not to mention that I am vegan,
teetotal, drug-free whatever, because I consider it a personal thing. But with
Nestle I tell everybody about it.
When I sent out issues of Synthesis 3, I always included 2 flyers: one was telling
the truth about Good Life Recording$, and the other was from the Baby Milk Action
campaign. The BMA has for years brought Nestl?to the attention of the world
for unethically marketing its baby milk formula and breaking a World Health
Organisation code of marketing. Because of Nestl? 1.5 million people (infants)
die EVERY YEAR. The Nestle boycott has been running for several years and has
international support including from nurses?unions, students?unions, medical
colleges and the Church of England.
International pressure forced Nestle a few years ago to tone down its marketing,
but after laying low for a bit they started up again. A couple of years ago
they started moving into mainland China. The Chinese do not have a dairy-farming
culture, but Nestl?have been trying to engender a taste for dairy products by
giving away free samples of their milk chocolate to the Chinese. Baby formula
is on the agenda for the Chinese as well.
If you are a vegetarian, or even if you are not, you should extend your compassion
to the human race and start boycotting Nestle now. Nestle owns dozens of brands
internationally, and they should all be boycotted including their flagship product
Nescafe.