DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Science can’t explain how life began. It must be by intelligent design – but not the religious kind.

Illustration: DesignEternity

December 2024 | Contents

It’s suggested life somehow developed by means of a series of random chemical interactions – but that’s implausible. Super-complex DNA must have been designed.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Top 🔼

Contents


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

Introduction

During a recent UK BBC Radio 4 discussion, a top scientist working on the origin of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the source of all life, suggested it ‘somehow’ resulted from random chemical interactions of increasing complexity. The scientist’s ‘somehow’ said it all – the suggestion is implausible.

As biochemistry’s understanding of the mind-boggling complexity of DNA has proceeded, so understanding of its origins has receeded.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

The fudge

It’s normal for scientists to fudge this issue. For instance, Prof Brian Cox, the well-known UK physicist and TV science promoter, says:

    On our planet we have seen active geology encourage carbon atoms to form into long chain molecules that encode information.

Cox is wrong to imply the formation of DNA is understood. Despite many years of experimental research, all we’ve actually seen is biochemists offering implausible and unproved theories.

Wikipedia’s entry on abiogenesis (the study of how life originated) duly relates the various theories, but says:

    …the transition of non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, nor has there been a satisfactory chemical explanation.

Quite so. Without the post-DNA driving force of natural selection, there’s no way random chemical interactions could have gradually increased in complexity to the point of – somehow – ending up as the massively complex, self-replicating, information-coding molecule we call DNA.

Elsewhere in this blog, I’ve suggested DNA is the result of a universal designerless design process analogous to evolution but – like Cox – I was fudging the issue. I was avoiding the difficult but inevitable explanation: the appearance of DNA implies a designer.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

The only explanation

The only possible explanation is that DNA was designed and made by a conscious and resourceful entity, which might as well be called ‘God’ – God not as presented by religion but as implied by the sudden and inexplicable appearance of the miracle molecule.

The bonkers idea of Creationism can safely be ignored, but it’s impossible to avoid the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). The covertly religious, evolution-denying ID movement offers mostly slippery pseudoscience. However, DNA’s origin is a special case.

Such special pleading is normally considered a reasoning error, but in this case, as it’s impossible for science to provide a plausible account of the origin of DNA, intelligent design, however improbable, is the only explanation.

ID movement missionaries invoke DNA’s information coding, saying it’s a message from God. That’s nonsense, of course. The code’s not a message – it’s a blueprint for life. DNA’s staggering complexity and purpose is all the proof needed for intelligent design.

Unlike the ID movement’s supernatural God, DNA’s actual intelligent designer must be a natural entity, but one which is currently – perhaps permanently – beyond scientific understanding (as are the probably related – and interrelated – subjects of consciousness and the ultimate nature of matter).


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

Why?

The question inevitably arises: if the life molecule was designed, why? To produce some sort of consciousness
singularity event? Humanists can only speculate.

Given that we’ve evolved the amazing ability to control our environment, but seem about to destroy it, it’s a poignant question for us. Are we a failed experiment?

Anyway, I’ll try to enjoy life as far as I can whilst facing the prospect of apocalypse – and the selfish gene’s built-in death sentence – but I’ll respectfully regard life’s mysterious maker with the utmost caution.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

The ‘RNA world’

Some say RNA (ribonucleic acid), a similar but single-strand molecule currently synthesised from DNA, appeared first, and DNA evolved from RNA. RNA is thought to be capable of self-replication.

However, the appearance of RNA in a hypothesised pre-DNA RNA world presents the same problem: the unexplained appearance of a massively complex molecule.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

Panspermia

The fringe theory of panspermia suggests DNA was brought to Earth from elsewhere either by microbes on trans-galactic debris or – as proposed by Francis Crick, the Nobel prize-winning co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helix structure – by aliens.

In either case, the problem of DNA’s origin remains – albeit in a different place.


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

An AI suggests names

I asked Meta AI:

    If, as seems probable, someone or something made DNA to seed life, what might you call them if you’re not religious?

The AI promptly suggested 12 terms:

    There are several non-religious terms that scientists and philosophers have proposed to describe the hypothetical entity or entities that might have created or seeded life on Earth:

    Scientific perspectives
    1. Panspermia initiators: This term suggests a natural, cosmic origin for life.
    2. Primordial engineers: Implies a deliberate, intelligent design.
    3. Cosmic architects: Suggests a grand, universe-scale design.

    Philosophical and theoretical frameworks
    1. The simulator: Inspired by the simulation hypothesis, proposing an advanced civilization.
    2. The seeders: Simple, straightforward term for hypothetical life-seeding entities.
    3. The originators: Emphasizes their role in initiating life.

    Scientifically inspired speculation
    1. Advanced extraterrestrial civilization: Assuming intelligent life elsewhere.
    2. Quantum fluctuation entity: Considering the role of quantum mechanics.
    3. Multiverse inhabitants: Suggests inter-universal travel or influence.

    Neutral, descriptive terms
    1. Life-initiating entity (LIE)
    2. Biogenesis catalyst
    3. Genesis agent

    These terms avoid attributing motivations, intentions or supernatural qualities, focusing instead on the hypothetical entity’s role in sparking life.

    [Edited by me: essential link added and excessive use of capital letters corrected]

That’s not bad for a souped-up chatbot. ‘The seeders’ has a nice ring to it, but I think I’d go for ‘Cosmic architects’. (‘LIE’ is the only acronym. Is the AI trying to say something? 😉)


DNA – made by ‘God’. Probably

Contents 🔼

The wonderful complexity of DNA

Photo of DNA
This atomic force microscopy image of DNA shows kinetoplast DNA fibril nodes. Scale bar: 150 nanometres. (A human hair is 90,000 nm wide.)

Image: Dr Alice Pyne, University of Sheffield | Published in PCCP paper, November 2024

Dancing DNA
Six feet of DNA is crammed into each cell. The consequent stress makes the molecule twist and writhe in dance-like movements. (Adult humans have about 35 trillion cells – that’s 40 billion miles of DNA per person.)

Video: Scientists at the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York combined high-resolution images with simulation | Published in Nature Communications paper by Alice Pyne and others, February 2021

(There’s a non-embeddable but less cluttered version of the Dancing DNA video here.)

Then there’s this…

The End

Top

A house called Christmas

A short fairy tale. With swearing and drugs.

In which Baby Jesus, Santa Claus and a pagan shaman debate the true meaning of Christmas.

Image by Alsopinion

Once upon a time, dear Reader – last year, actually – in the nearby dimension where mythical beings live, the house called Christmas had an unexpected visitor.

In the house called Christmas, Baby Jesus lived in the attic with his mother. Santa Claus lived in the main part with Mrs Claus and some elves. A pagan shaman lived in the cellar.

(The absentee landlord, God, lived in a mansion on a nearby mountain. Mother Nature lived next door.)

Many of the beings in that dimension had chosen human form – for the craic. That included the residents of the house called Christmas.

It was a big house, with grounds, paddocks, stables, and out-houses. The residents had their own appartments but there was a shared ground-floor kitchen-diner.

One day, shortly before Christmas, a human called Helen tripped through a gap in the continuum and found herself outside the house.

It was snowing. A sign on the door said “Christmas”. Helen rang the bell – a sleigh bell.

An elf opened the door. “Come in”, he said. “They’re all in the kitchen.” The elf gestured down the hallway, went into a side room and shut the door behind him.

Helen stared after the elf. She heard shouting coming from down the hall and walked towards the sound. A gruff voice shouted, “Fuck you, you fuckin’ little bastard!” She opened the door.

AI illustration by me/Canva

Baby Jesus, with his halo, and Santa Claus, with his red suit, were sitting at a large kitchen island. Baby Jesus was in a high chair. They each had a glass of red wine. There were two empty wine bottles in front of them. A speaker was playing Jingle Bells on the Multiversal Matrix station.

Baby Jesus looked like a baby, but he thought, spoke and drank like an adult. He was drunk, as was Santa.

“Fuck you, yer fucking fat twat!” Jesus slurred angrily at Santa. “You don’ even know where yer from. Is it Greece? Or fuckin’ whatsit, Anatolia? Or the fuckin’ North fuckin’ Pole?!

Helen, standing in the doorway, cleared her throat. They both looked at her. “Hello,” she said. “Sorry to barge in. I was lost, so I rang the bell. An elf let me in. I’m Helen.”

“Hi,” said Jesus. “Hello,” said Santa.

Helen looked around. Mary, Baby Jesus’s teenage mother, was slumped in an armchair with a cigarette and a glass of wine.

AI illustration by me/Microsoft Generator

“‘Twat’ isn’t a nice word, darling,” Mary said to Jesus. She waved at Helen.

A Central-Asian-looking man, the shaman, sat at one end of the island, chopping mushrooms. He said, “What about ‘fucking’? Is that a nice word?” Jesus grunted. The shaman winked at Helen.

Mrs Claus sat at a large dining table, rolling a joint.

As supernatural beings, they didn’t need food or drink – or intoxicants. But in their human form, they’d got into the habit. The elves supplied their groceries and dope.

“Hello, dear. Don’t mind them,” said Mrs Claus to Helen. “They’re always like this at Christmas. Come in, have a seat. We get the odd human visitor every now and then.”

AI illustration by me/Craiyon – sorry about the hands

Helen stared at Baby Jesus. He hiccuped. “So,” said Helen to Mrs Claus, “you’re not … human?”

“No dear,” said Mrs Claus. “You’ve strayed into a different world. We’re mythical beings. But don’t you worry,” she added, “Our visitors usually get back – somehow or other.”

“The elves do it,” said the shaman to Helen. “Get you back.”

Helen sat down next to Mrs Claus. “Have a glass of wine, dear,” said Mrs Claus to Helen. She poured one. Helen took a gulp. “Thanks,” she said.

“I’m sorry,” said Helen to Jesus. “I interrupted you. Do please continue.”

“Yeah, well,” said Jesus. He drank some wine. “Thing is,” he added, “Christmas is mine!”

He pointed at Santa and shouted, “He fuckin’ stole it!“.

“Actually, it’s mine,” said the shaman to Jesus. “Your church stole it. Yule.”

“Well, yer’ve still got yer fuckin’ yule log,” sneered Jesus. “Anyway,” he muttered, “I never wanted the fuckin’ church in the first place.”

“But the point,” he went on, “the fucking point is, it’s s’posed to be about my fuckin’ birthday!”

“The clue’s in the fuckin’ name!” he shouted.

“Ah, but,” said Santa. “They don’t say ‘Christ-mas’, with the ‘t’, do they. They say ‘Chris-mas’. Tha’s me – Chris. Chris Kringle.”

Jesus snorted. “Bollocks!” he said. “Tha’s from the German, whatsit, Christkindl. Means Christ child. Me!”

“Yeah, well, it’s me they go on about,” Santa said to Jesus. “Me. It’s Santa this an’ Santa that, innit. Not you. An’ cert’nly not you, Mr fuckin’ Yule.”

“I have my followers,” said the shaman.

“Yeah, a few new-age, sandal-wearin’, tofu-eatin’ hippies. Bless ’em.” said Santa. “Hardly mainstream like me, is it.”

“Mind you,” Santa said to Jesus, “they like your carols, I’ll give you that.”

They used to be mine too,” said the shaman, sadly. “Kind of. The Holly and the Ivy still is.”

And,” said the shaman to Santa, “you got your red and white and the flying reindeer from me.”

“Matrix,” said the shaman. “Show it.” An image of a Siberian shaman feeding a reindeer appeared on a large wall screen.

Image: unknown

“We flew, tripping on magic mushrooms,” said the shaman.

“Wharever,” said Santa. “Christmas is mine now. So you can both fuck off.”

“You, yer’ve got too big fer yer… stupid fuckin’ boots!” shouted Jesus at Santa. He slumped back in his high chair. He sighed.

“I know,” said Jesus. “I know it’s yours. An’ I’m not gettin’ it back. But I’m better than you. People know that.”

Santa busied himself opening another bottle. The speaker played All I want For Christmas Is You by Mariah Carey. “I like this one,” said Mary.

Mrs Claus lit her joint, took a big hit and passed it to Helen. “Go on, dear,” she said. “It’ll take the edge off.”

Helen took a hit, coughed and passed the spliff back to Mrs Claus. She cleared her throat. “So, Jesus,” she said. He glared at her. “I mean, if you don’t mind me asking. Are you really the Baby Jesus?”

“Hah!” said Jesus to Santa, pointing at him. “She’s not asking you if you’re really Santa, is she?” Santa shrugged.

“‘S complicated,” Jesus said to Helen, “the mythical thing. But basically, yes. I’m a, er, a manifestation. Of the Son of God.”

“So what about Joseph?” asked Helen.

“Not here,” said Jesus. “Not mythical enough.”

“Like me,” said Mrs Claus. “I shouldn’t be here, really. But he can’t manage on his own.”

“Hah!” said Santa. “Probably true.”

“The elves got her in.” said the shaman. “Obviously, I’m not personally mythical,” he added. “More representative. And I help with the reindeer.”

“So you see,” Jesus said. “Helen,” he added. He cleared his throat. “As the Baby Jesus,” he said, with the careful enunciation of the drunk, “I’m here in this house – we’re all here – because of bloody Christmas!

“What about Easter?” asked Helen. The shaman snorted. “Another one stolen,” he said.

“Ostara,” he said to Helen. “Or Ēostre.”

“Moan, moan, moan,” said Jesus to the shaman. “Yer still got yer soddin’ eggs. An’ yer stupid bloody rabbit.” The shaman sniffed.

“Easter. ‘S a different house,” said Jesus to Helen. Mary sighed.

The room fell silent, apart from the speaker playing Merry Christmas Everyone by Shakin’ Stevens. An elf came in and finished preparing their meal.

AI illustration by me/Adobe Firefly

Helen accepted Mrs Claus’s invitation to join them for dinner. Baby Jesus picked at his food. He’d become maudlin. Helen wished she hadn’t mentioned Easter. The conversation was mainly small talk about yule logs, reindeer and Helen’s family.

Helen wanted to ask Mary about the virgin birth, but didn’t like to. The speaker played Last Christmas by Wham! “Ooh, I like this one,” said Mrs Claus. “Me too,” said Helen. They giggled.

“Still,” said the shaman to Jesus, “Cheer up. You rose from the dead, didn’t you?”

AI illustration by me/Microsoft Generator

“Tha’s right,” said Santa to Jesus. “‘S why my, er, ancestor was doin’ all those miracles. In Anatolia. In your name.”

“S’pose so,” said Jesus.

“Cheer up, dear,” said Mary to Jesus. “It’s Christmas.” Jesus sniffed.

“Always look on the bright side of life,” sang the shaman.

Jesus laughed. “Hah! Very funny,” he said. The elf gave them each a glass of arak. “Anyway,” said Jesus. “Cheers.”

The mood and the conversation lightened. The elf served coffee and then tapped Helen on the shoulder. “You can go back now if you like,” he said. “OK, thanks,” said Helen.

“Follow me,” said the elf. Helen stood up. The others looked at her. “Well, thanks,” she said. “For the lovely meal. And everything. It was really nice to meet you all.”

“You too, darling,” said Mrs Claus. “All the best.”

Helen started to follow the elf, and then she turned back. “Can I just say,” she said. They looked at her again.

“We – humans – aren’t very religious these days,” she said. “But Christmas is what it is because of all of you.” The others nodded thoughtfully. “So,” said Helen, “Happy Christmas.”

“Yeah, Happy Christmas,” they said, raggedly but agreeably. The speaker was playing Fairytale of New York by the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl.

Clip from video for Fairy Tale of New York | Image: YouTube

Helen got back safely and, dear Reader, they all lived happily thereafter.

Helen didn’t tell anyone about her visit to the house called Christmas. She thought they wouldn’t believe her. She died aged 95 in a post-apocalypse commune. (That’s another story.)

The mythical beings had to move further away when their dimension was demolished by the Xogon empire to make way for a new interdimensional highway. (Fortunately, our nearby dimension was just off the route.)

The house called Christmas re-manifested. Baby Jesus, Santa Claus and the shaman continued to debate the real meaning of Christmas. They still got the occasional human visitor. Most of them got back safely.

Christmas continued to the end of time, which was sooner than everyone expected.

The End

Top

Image source: unknown

Annoying Gaza butterfly broken

Begun August 2024 | 3,500 words | Contents

In 2024 annoying Leicester activist Majid Freeman was charged with terror offences. It’s a tale of muddled ideology, self-promotion, possible abuse of power, and a new MP with links to extremism.

Majid Freeman goes to court in August 2024 | Aaron Chown/PA Media

The place
Leicester, UK

The people
Majid Freeman | Muslim campaigner
Jon Ashworth | Former MP for Leicester South
Shockat Adam | Current MP for Leicester South

The quote
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? | Alexander Pope


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Top 🔼

Contents


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Context

A story that needs a post of its own

This started as an update to another story – but it’s a story in its own right.

This post about the 2024 prosecution of Muslim campaigner Majid Freeman for terror offences started as an update to my 2023 post The riots: Hindutva in Leicester.

Freeman featured in that post because during the 2022 riots he muddied the waters by posting inflammatory claims.

Two years later in July 2024, immediately after campaigning against prominent Labour MP Jon Ashworth on the Gaza issue, Freeman was charged with terror offences, including supporting Hamas.

Although Freeman seems sincere in his beliefs, he’s an annoying stirrer and self-publiciser. He’s not a sympathetic character. But his prosecution seems unfair.

Separately, in September 2024 Freeman was jailed – also unfairly – for a public order offence dating back to the 2022 riots.

This tale, previously buried in a remote update to a post about events two years ago, deserves a post of its own


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Introduction

Coincidence? Possibly not

During the 2024 UK general election campaign Muslim campaigner Majid Freeman confronted Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth on video about Gaza. Two weeks later Ashworth lost his seat. Five days after that Freeman was charged with terror offences. Coincidence?

On 21 June, during the election campaign, Majid Freeman posted a video of his public confrontation with MP Jon Ashworth about the MP’s voting record on Gaza. The video went viral.

On 22 June independent candidate Shockat Adam, standing mainly on the issue of Gaza, reposted Freeman’s video with added anti-Ashworth comments.

Then…

  • On 4 July, Ashworth’s seat was unexpectedly lost to Adam.
  • On 9 July, Freeman was charged with terror offences including supporting proscribed Gaza group Hamas.
  • On 10 July, Ashworth challenged Adam about his apparent association with Freeman.

So… two weeks after Freeman’s video went viral Ashworth lost his supposedly safe seat to Adam. Five days after that Freeman was charged. The next day Ashworth angrily challenged Adam.

Q: Did an angry Ashworth abuse his power to get Freeman charged?

A: It looks like a strong possibility.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

The charges against Freeman

Downfall of a dedicated self-publicist

In July 2024 Majid Freeman was arrested and charged with terror offences. His trial was due to be held in Birmingham in September 2025.

(See Freeman’s September 2024 imprisonment for a separate public order offence below.)

On 9 July 2024 Majid Freeman, aka Majid Novsarka, was arrested by Leicestershire Police and charged with two terrorism offences: encouragement of terrorism (re Hebdo) and supporting a proscribed organisation (Hamas).

At his first pre-trial hearing Freeman was given bail. His trial, due in 2025, was going to be in Leicester but has been moved to Birmingham.

Prosecutor Lee Ingham said the move was needed because of ‘strong feelings’ in Leicester and because Freeman was ‘fairly well-known’ in the area as a ‘political activist’. However, the trial could safely be held in LeicesterIngham’s concerns are largely misplaced.

There are certainly ‘strong feelings’ in Leicester – about Gaza. Hence Labour’s shock loss in Leicester South. Freeman clearly shares those feelings – and seeks to exploit them to enhance his public image. But his status as a ‘political activist’ with local support is exaggerated – by him.

Is Freeman, the self-styled political activist, ‘fairly well known’? As a self-appointed spokesperson for local Muslims, Freeman does get some local recognition. And Freeman’s posts and activities attract some media attention – which he apparently craves.

The mainstream media, too lazy for due diligence, sometimes gullibly report Freeman’s comments. The more partisan media feature Freeman occasionally and portray him according to their bias. Pro-Modi and Zionist media portray Freeman as an Islamist devil; and Muslim media portray him as an altruistic angel. (Take your pick – or split the difference.)

So prosecutor Ingham’s assessment of Freeman as ‘fairly well known’ is accurate. But if his trial was in Leicester, there’d probably be no crowds of protesters with ‘strong feelings’.

However, Hindu-Muslim tension has simmered in Leicester since the 2022 unrest. During the unrest one of Freeman’s posts was notoriously inaccurate and inflammatory. So perhaps Ingham was right to err on the safe side.

As for the charges, Freeman’s alleged crimes are perhaps the product of muddled thinking rather than cohesive ideology. Freeman’s passion for Muslim causes, local or international, seems confused with his obsessive self-promotion.

Freeman’s alleged support for Hamas perhaps shows the problem with acting mainly alone. Unchecked, righteous support for the Palestinian cause can too easily shade into indefensible support for Hamas.

Supporters of Hamas say it’s a legitimate response to Israeli occupation. But such support became illegal in the UK when the political and military wings of Hamas were proscribed as a single terrorist organisation in 2021; and indefensible when Hamas’s military wing committed the October 2023 atrocities.

(A September 2024 poll showed 39 percent of Gazans still supported Hamas. See my post, Amazingly, Gazans still support Hamas.)

The Hamas atrocities inevitably sparked a savage Israeli response, resulting, by August 2024, in an estimated 40-50,000 deaths and over 20,000 life-changing injuries. Many casualties were women and children.

That ‘collateral damage’ is the result of Israel’s de facto genocidal strategy (and the international community’s craven complicity). But it’s also the direct consequence of the brutal October 2023 attack by Hamas – the organisation Freeman allegedly supported.

The court was told Freeman‘s allegedly offending posts were mainly on Instagram and X. Freeman was given conditional bail: he was ordered not to use or access social media to post or transmit anything (with the exception of WhatsApp).

That must be frustrating for the dedicated self-publicist,


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Freeman vs Ashworth vs Freeman

The final straw?

During the 2024 UK general election, Majid Freeman posted a video of his Gaza-related confrontation with MP Jon Ashworth. Five days after Ashworth lost his seat, Freeman was charged with two terror offences, one Gaza-related. Was Ashworth responsible?

In June 2024 during the general election, Majid Freeman campaigned against Leicester South sitting MP Jon Ashworth because of his voting record on Gaza.

On 21 June Freeman posted a video (his favourite means of self-promotion) of him haranguing Ashworth in the street about his Gaza voting record. The video went viral with over 1m views.

Freeman’s 100-second video shows Ashworth videoing Freeman videoing him whilst aggressively questioning him. Ashworth, clearly upset, doesn’t repond to Freeman’s questions but complains about Freeman’s ‘bullying’ and ‘intimidation’.

Screenshot of Freeman’s video

The next day, 22 June, independent Leicester South candidate Shockat Adam, who was standing mainly on the Gaza issue, reposted Freeman’s video with added anti-Ashworth comments.

Two weeks later on 4 July Ashworth unexpectedly lost his seat to Adam. Five days after that on 9 July Freeman was charged with terror offences. Was Ashworth responsible for that?

Ashworth had faced other street confrontations about his Gaza voting record. Was Freeman’s viral video and its reposting by Adam the last straw?

As a Leicester South constituent, I met and briefly spoke with Ashworth towards the end of his campaign. He seemed badly rattled.

Did the pugnacious and well-connected Labour insider – upset, angry and massively piqued after losing his seat and his expected cabinet postpull strings to get Freeman charged?

What strings might an angry Ashworth have pulled? He was a close ally of Kier Starmer, newly prime minister and former head of the UK prosecution service. That would have been a useful string.

Anger is said to be the second stage of grief, after denial. Perhaps Ashworth skipped denial and went straight to anger. The Wikipedia entry on the five stages of grief says of the anger stage:

    The responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: ‘Why me? It’s not fair! How can this happen to me? Who is to blame?

    [My bolding]

(The ‘five stages’ model was developed by psychiatrist Elizabeth Kübler-Ross to help understand and improve the mental health of patients with terminal illness. It was later extended to grieving friends and family; and then to anyone suffering serious loss. Like Ashworth.)


Freeman has history. He’s got form for foolish flirtation with extremism. But if he deserved prosecuting for it, it should have happened ten years ago.

In 2014 the Torygraph published a thorough and detailed exposé of Freeman as an online supporter of proscribed Islamist terror groups including Isis and al-Qaeda.

The article, by award-winning investigative journalist and – at that time – obsessive Islamist hunter Andrew Gilligan (of dodgy dossier fame), uncovered damning evidence and made serious accusations. Freeman was questioned by the police but not charged.

If Freeman wasn’t worth charging then, why make these flimsier charges now? Is it because angry Ashworth pulled strings? The timing makes that look likely:

  • 21 JuneFreeman posted his video of his aggressive confrontation with Ashworth about Gaza.
  • 22 June – Freeman’s viral video was reposted by Gaza-focussed candidate Shockat Adam.
  • 4 JulyAdam unexpectedly won Leicester South, narrowly overturning Ashworth’s large majority.
  • 9 JulyFreeman was charged with terror offences, one Gaza-related.
  • 10 JulyAshworth challenged Adam about his association with Freeman.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Ashworth vs Adam

‘Sour grapes’

Shockat Adam | Instagram

A week after losing his seat, Jon Ashworth publicly challenged new MP Shockat Adam to explain his apparent association with terror suspect Majid Freeman. Adam’s team dismissed the challenge as sour grapes.

On 10 July, the day after Majid Freeman was charged, Jon Ashworth (newly head of powerful centre-right Labour thinktank Labour Together) publicly challenged new Leicester South MP Shockat Adam to explain his apparent association with Freeman.

An angry Ashworth was implying Adam shared Freeman’s alleged support for Hamas. Ashworth’s challenge failed to get a direct answer from Adam – but it posed a fair question: was Adam associated with Freeman?

Freeman campaigned against Ashworth on the Gaza issue central to Adam’s campaign – but that didn’t necessarily show a connection between Adam and Freeman.

Adam has denied any association. Asked about Freeman in an interview in September. Adam said:

    He wasn’t even a supporter. He did not canvas for me. He did not campaign for me.

In reply to my request for comments, an assistant to Adam said:

    From what we can tell from [Freeman’s] social media feeds he did not advocate for any one candidate (rather anyone but Mr Ashworth) and stated he was unsure who he would vote for and even stated Shockat should stand down in favour of The Green Party candidate.

But a reposted tweet suggests an association. On 22 June Adam reposted Freeman’s 21 June viral video of his Gaza-based confrontation with Ashworth.

According to a (paywalled) Financial Times report the reposted video – since removed from Adam’s X account – had anti-Ashworth comments added by Adam which supported Freeman’s line of questioning:

    Adam wrote above the video, in a reference to the ceasefire vote, that Ashworth was “ashamed” of Labour’s “pro-genocide position”. “If you don’t want to be asked questions by the public when you are canvassing on our streets,” he wrote, “then maybe you should just stay at home.”

That immediate reposting of Freeman’s video complete with Adam’s approving message suggests a possible connection between Adam and Freeman.

Adam’s team dismissed Ashworth’s challenge about Freeman as mere ‘sour grapes’, but Ashworth’s implied criticism of Adam had some substance.

Adamlike Freeman – has history. He has personal, fraternal and campaign links to extremism.


The Trial: Ashworth vs Freeman (and Adam) 🔺

Adam’s links to extremism

As implied by Jon Ashworth, Shockat Adam has links to extremism. The links are weak but now he’s an MP he should cut them.

Introduction | MEND | FOA | The Muslim Vote | Government review | Adam/Patel surname | Advice for Adam


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Introduction

In challenging Shockat Adam about his apparent association with Majid Freeman immmediately after Freeman was charged with terror offences, Jon Ashworth implied Adam had links to extremism.

Adam may not be associated with Freeman but he does have links to extremism. He was Leicester chair of Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) and his brother founded and runs Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA). Both groups have been listed by the government as ‘extremist’.

Also, his campaign was backed by The Muslim Vote, a group with extremist links.


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Adam helped run ‘extremist’ group MEND

Until March 2024, Adam, then known as Shockat Adam Patel – regarding his change of name, see below – was the Leicester chair of Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), an organisation labelled by the previous UK government as extremist.

MEND’s stated aim is:

    To empower and encourage British Muslims within local communities to be more actively involved in British media and politics.

However, MEND has been accused of promoting Islamist, anti-Jewish and anti-gay views.


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Adam’s brother runs ‘extremist’ group FOA

Adam’s brother Ismail Patel – regarding their different surnames, see below – founded and runs Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA), established in 1979 in Leicester. Like MEND, FOA was labelled extremist by the previous government.

FOA, prominent at Palestine demonstrations, says it demands political change for Palestine. But it’s connected (as is Hamas) to the political-Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

Patel’s speeches at demonstrations show his support for political Islamism – that is, sharia government and law based on an extreme interpretation of Islam, as seen in Iran, Afghanistan and, under Hamas, Gaza. Patel has praised Hamas for standing up to Israel.

May 2024: Ismail Patel speaks at a Whitehall rally to mark the 1948 appropriation of Palestine | Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images

Mend and FOA both contribute to separatism by misrepresenting all UK Muslims as victims of Islamophobia. (This oddly matches the Modi/RSS strategy of promoting Hindu nationalism by misrepresenting Hindus as victims of Hinduphobia.)


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Adam backed by leaflets from The Muslim Vote

During Adam’s campaign, leaflets from The Muslim Vote were circulated in Leicester South.

The Muslim Vote has the declared aim of supporting candidates opposed to Conservative and Labour stances on the Israel–Hamas war. But the group is linked to extremists.

The Muslim Vote is linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, a proscribed terrorist organisation; and to the Cordoba Foundation, which has links to the political Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. and whose leader has publicly supported Hamas.

Leicestershire Police were investigating a possible breach of electoral law: the leaflets from The Muslim Vote didn’t say who funded them or which candidate was supported.

But that was a technicality – the main issue was that Adam’s campaign was boosted by leaflets from a group with extremist links.


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Update: November 2024

‘Extremist’ listings under review

Mend and FOA were listed as extremist organisations by the previous Tory government. I asked the new Labour government about the current status of such listings. In reply, they said:

    This government takes the threat of extremism very seriously and will continue to work with partners to tackle extremism in all its forms. The rapid review ordered by the Home Secretary earlier this year is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism. Following its conclusion, the government will be setting out its strategic approach.


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Adam/Patel surname

Shortly before the 2024 general election, Adam, then known as Shockat Adam Patel dropped the Patel surname he shares with his brother, Ismail, the founder of FOA. Adam’s full name is Shockat Hussain Adam Patel.

Patel’s usually a Hindu name, but it’s also the name of some Gujarati Memon Muslims whose ancestors converted from Hinduism. Adam’s a Memon Muslim.

Adam, campaigning mainly against the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Gaza, may have dropped his Patel surname to prevent Muslim voters thinking he was Hindu.

But he may also have dropped it to mask his association with his brother’s extreme views – and with MEND.


Adam’s links to extremism 🔼

Unsolicited advice for Adam: cut these links

Adam’s Palestinian cause is just, but his links to extremism might damage that cause. If, as it seems, he himself is not extremist, he should renounce these links.

He might lose some support, but with his history he can’t make the omelette of democratic integrity without breaking those eggs.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Conclusion

If Ashworth pulled strings he should come clean

Jon Ashworth was wrong if he pulled strings to get Majid Freeman charged. Freeman might be guilty as charged, but he’s no terrorist.

No doubt the charges against Majid Freeman are tick-box accurate. But the prosecution – however brought about – is excessive.

Even if Freeman did provocatively urge terrorism and support a proscribed group, he’s clearly not a terrorist.

Nor is Freeman likely to influence anyone. He has some followers, but basically he’s a delusional loner. However, he’s not a dangerous lone wolf, more a sick puppy.

If Freeman’s convicted, a custodial sentence would be inappropriate. He should be (metaphorically) de-wormed, and sent home with a tag and a banning order. Deprived of social media, he might get a life.

To paraphrase Pope: Who breaks this butterfly upon a wheel? If it was angry Jon Ashworth, he should come clean to the court.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

A bigger threat: Hindutva

Shame on MI5

The authorities are right to pursue Islamism but Freeman’s alleged offence is small potatoes compared with the bigger and much more dangerous threat of imported Hindutva extremism.

Despite my criticism of Majid Freeman, we share concern about a major issue: the anti-Muslim Hindutva extremism being spread amongst UK Hindus by the Indian fascist RSS organisation.

It’s a shame the UK security services which have crushed annoying butterfly Freeman aren’t equally diligent in response to that much bigger threat.

Hindutva extremism is being actively propagated to the UK Hindu diaspora by these well-organised RSS agencies:

No charges have been brought against those responsible – perhaps because successive UK governments have cravenly sought a trade deal with the Indian government of RSS Hindutva fascist Narendra Modi.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Comments requested

It’s only fair

I approached Jon Ashworth and Shockat Adam for comment. (There’s no way to contact Majid Freeman as far as I know.)

An assistant to Adam replied to say:

  • Although Freeman opposed Ashworth he never specifically supported Adam. He even said Adam should stand down in favour of the Green candidate.

    That’s apparently true. This post’s been changed accordingly.

  • Adam ‘strongly refutes’ this post’s assertion of his links to extremism.

    Presumably that should be ‘strongly denies’. Refutation would need proof this post’s wrong – the reply offers none.

  • During the riots Adam worked tirelessly to build community cohesion.

Ashworth hasn’t replied.


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Update: September 2024

Freeman jailed for 2022 offence

Just to complicate things, on 9 September 2024 the bothersome Majid Freeman was jailed – harshly – for a separate minor offence dating from the 2022 riots.

On 17 September 2022 – on the day of the Leicester anti-Muslim Hindutva march – Muslim activist Freeman was arrested under the Public Order Act 1986 and charged with:

    Using abusive words with the intention that violence would be provoked

Almost two years later at Northampton magistrates court on 19 June 2024 (two days before his video confrontation with Jon Ashworth) Freeman was convicted of the offence under section 4 of the act.

On 9 September, Freeman was sentenced in Northampton to 22 weeks in prison – close to the maximum of six months for a section 4 offence.

None of the mainstream media reported Freeman being jailed – not even local rag the Leicester Mercury or the borderline-racist Daily Mail.

It was only reported in partisan media: anti-Freeman Hindu and Jewish media, and pro-Freeman Muslim media. (The pro-Freeman 5pillars at least had some useful factual content.)

How Freeman’s prison sentence will affect the progress of his separate prosecution for terror offences remains to be seen.

There’s also, apparently, the question of whether reporting this case breaches the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by prejudicing Freeman’s terror trial. Having checked out the act, I don’t think it does – but watch this space.

(Is that Plod I hear approaching? Shall I be joining Freeman in deluded messianic martyrdom? As almost no one is reading this, probably not.)

Regardless of that, Freeman’s near-maximum prison sentence is ridiculous. Any prison sentence for ‘abusive words’ would be harshly excessive. Free Freeman!


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Addendum

Labour Together

UK thinktank Labour Together, newly headed in July 2024 by defeated former Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth, began as a ‘unity’ project but has morphed into a powerful centre-right lobby group.

Originally named Common Good Labour, the group was set up in 2015 as a ‘unity’ project after the resignation of Labour Leader Ed Miliband following the party’s general election defeat.

After leftist Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership election, the renamed centrist Labour Together plotted against him (as did Ashworth).

2019 general election run-up | Photo: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

Labour Together’s fundamentally pompous deceitfulness was perfectly illustrated by its self-important but deeply flawed June 2020 review of Labour’s 2019 general election disaster.

The Labour Together review ignored the elephant in the room: free movement from Eastern Europe.

Many Labour voters voted to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum. According to polls, the main reason was the high level of unrestricted immigration from poor east European countries under the EU’s free movement of people rule.

Having been loftily dismissed by metrocentric Labour as ignorant provincial racists, many of those ‘red wall’ Labour voters voted Tory in 2019. But the 153-page Labour Together review made no mention whatsoever of ‘free movement’ or ‘Eastern Europe’.

The Labour Together review discussed lost voters and immigration as an issue, but the free movement issue was ignored. EU free movement of people was still supported by Labour metrocentrics, including, as recently as January 2020, by then leadership front-runner Kier Starmer.

The Labour Together review nerdily resorted to statistics, claiming voters associated with the leave side had deserted in 2015 and again in 2017, so the 2019 result only needed a small shift. But the reason for them voting to leave was duplicitously ignored.

Since then, Labour Together has gone on to bigger and worse things.

Now funded by super-rich donors, parasitically implanted in the Labour government, and promoting neoliberal private-funding policies, Labour Together makes the Tories’ hated Tufton Street ‘shady’ lobbyists look like amateurs.


The End


Annoying Gaza butterfly broken
Contents 🔼

Comments

Dear Reader (or skimmer), feel free to comment. I’ll answer all comments.

Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell

The sad story of their brief relationship, its long aftermath and…  Not to Blame 

Posted 2024 | 13,000 words | 40 mins | Contents

Joni and Jackson – a match made in Hell? | Unknown

Digest

Q: How did the brief 1972 relationship between Jackson Browne and Joni Mitchell lead to Mitchell’s life-long grudge?

A: Heaven has no rage like love turned to hatred, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned | William Congreve

They say

Quotes about Mitchell vs Browne

  • A violent and personal attack
    David Yaffe, Mitchell’s biographer, on her song Not to Blame
  • Jackson is not violent in any way and the end of relationships are always messy
    David Geffen, Browne and Mitchell’s friend and former manager
  • She would do things that would lead to the end of the relationship and then feel unjustly abandoned
    Larry Klein, Mitchell’s husband from 1982 to 1994


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Top
🔼

Contents

Additional stuff


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Introduction

Get the popcorn out, dear Reader
Preface | Preamble


Introduction – Joni  🔼

Preface

This post

  • Describes the brief 1972 relationship between Jackson Browne and Joni Mitchell in the context of Mitchell’s 1994 song, Not to Blame

  • Addresses the accusations made in Not to Blame about Browne and Daryl Hannah, and about Browne’s first wife, Phyllis Major

  • Concludes Mitchell’s accusations were baseless – and appeals to her to withdraw them.

This began as an annex to my post Jackson Browne & Daryl Hannah about the persisitent rumour that Browne asaulted Hannah. (I conclude he probably didn’t.)

It’s the annex that outgrew its source. It’s still there, but here it’s repurposed and enhanced as a separate post.

This sorry tale of Mitchell’s lasting hatred for Browne stands by itself, but it’s also an inseparable part of the rumour about Browne and Hannah.

Many people condemn Browne as an abuser solely because they believe Mitchell’s accusatory song Not to Blame. In forums and comments they say, in effect, ‘Browne’s an abuser who drove his wife to suicide. Joni Mitchell says so’.

Not to Blame’s believability depends on Mitchell’s relationship with Browne. Mitchell, known for her lyrical integrity, had an affair with Browne and knew him well – so it must be true, right?

But what if it’s not true?


Introduction – Joni  🔼

Preamble

70s Joni | Photo: Henry Diltz/Rhino

I love Joni Mitchell’s music. Blue blew my mind, and still does. It’s deeply sad, of course, but can also be deliciously sharp and funny:

  • Richard got married to a figure skater
  • And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolator
  • The Last Time I Saw Richard, Blue, 1971

I also love a lot of her other work, earlier and later. She’s complex and unique – a genius.

She’s a superstar and I’m a mere fan. I’m not worthy to lace her size-nine dancing shoes, let alone accuse her of misusing her art and platform out of anger to make a damaging and baseless accusation – but needs must…

Mitchell’s 1972 relationship with Jackson Browne in their Laurel Canyon paradise sounds like a match made in heaven. What could possibly go wrong? Well, quite a lot.

Their relationship and its unhappy ending led eventually to Mitchell releasing her accusatory song Not to Blame (on her award-winning 1994 album Turbulent Indigo).

Mitchell has denied her songs are autobiographical but Not to Blame, released in the wake of the rumour that Browne assaulted Daryl Hannah, is widely understood to be Mitchell’s condemnation of Browne as a wife-beater who drove his first wife, Phyllis Major, to suicide.

In 1976, after bizarrely gatecrashing Major’s funeral, Mitchell made a similar but coded accusation about Major’s suicide in Song For Sharon (on the 1976 album Hejira).

18 years later, in Not to Blame, Mitchell not only repeated the current rumour about Browne and Hannah, but – much more damagingly – she again implied Browne was responsible for Major’s suicide.

There was no basis for Mitchell’s accusation. Major had long-term mental health problems and before committing suicide she suffered severe postnatal depression.

Some of Browne’s songs show he and Major had serious relationship problems (see below), but no one apart from Mitchell has made the terrible accusation that Browne drove Major to suicide.

In Not to Blame, Mitchell, clearly directly addressing Browne, said he despised frail women and loved to drive them to suicide:

  • [She] had the frailty you despise
  • And the looks you love to drive to suicide

This post shows Mitchell’s accusation is baseless. It’s probably libellous. Why would she do that? What went so wrong with her relationship with Browne?

Relationships are normally private but Mitchell’s shocking public accusation against her ex-lover made their relationship public. The scant published information available portrays a love affair that started well but ended badly.

Then came the aftermath: Mitchell’s lasting and overwrought hatred of Browne – a hatred vented some 20 years later in 1994’s Not to Blame.

Mitchell’s abiding hatred for Browne was also publicly aired some 40 years later with bitter comments made in a 2017 biography.

But it all began, dear Reader (or Skimmer), in 1972…


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

The relationship

Such as it was

Joni Mitchell and Jackson Browne began their 1972 relationship whilst touring the US and Europe together.

The tour began in February 1972. Mitchell, 28, was promoting her upcoming fifth album, For the Roses (released in November 1972). Browne, 22, was opening for her and promoting his debut album, Jackson Browne (January 1972).

Manchester! I could have gone…

David Yaffe in Reckless Daughter says after Mitchell’s relationship with James Taylor (see below) had ended, she was…

    …thrown on the road with Jackson Browne, another brooding singer-songwriter who was even more harmful to Joni’s already fragile emotional state.

    P 167 – my bolding

Mitchell famously said about her thin-skinned Blue period that she felt ‘like a cellophane wrapper on a pack of cigarettes’. But Yaffe’s suggestion that Browne was more harmful to the fragile Mitchell than Taylor – whilst it matches Mitchell’s vicious character assassination of Browne in Yaffe’s book (see below) – isn’t borne out by other accounts of their relationship.

Far from being harmful to Mitchell’s emotional state on the road, Browne apparently lifted it. According to Sheila Weller’s Girls Like Us:

    When Jackson and Joni dueted on “The Circle Game”, fans saw a chemistry between them. By the end of the tour … “Joni and Jackson were together,” Danny Kortchmar [friend and session guitarist] recalls … “Jackson and I are in love” is how Joni put it to her old flame Roy Blumenfeld [drummer in The Blues Project] when he visited L.A. … “She just fell for him,” says a confidante.

    P 406

Chemistry | Photo: Gijsbert Hanekroot/Redferns

After the tour, back home in LA, they didn’t live together. After a while, their ‘dating’ relationship apparently became turbulent. It ended later the same year.

One possible reason for the turbulence in their relationship was that in their neighbourhood of Laurel Canyon, home since the 60s to many LA rock musicians, cocaine had replaced cannabis as the drug of choice.

Moreish cocaine can be addictive, and can cause violence. Did the – possibly cocaine-related – turbulence in their relationship manifest as violence?

There was apparently some violence in both directions (see below), but serious incompatibility seems to have been the main problem. Perhaps they were too different – or too alike.

Weller’s Girls Like Us:

    By the end of 1972…things were not going well between her and Jackson. “It was a high-strung relationship,” says a confidante. Everyone in their crowd was “doing so much cocaine at the time,” and “Joni thrives on conflict, and not many guys can take that”. (“I’m a confronter by nature,” she’s admitted.)…Nonetheless, Joni remained in love with Jackson.

    P 407 – my bolding

Mitchell’s song Car on a Hill (from her 1974 album Court and Spark), said to be about her relationship with Browne, described her growing anxiety and prescient feeling of loss:

  • I’ve been sitting up waiting for my sugar to show…
  • He said he’d be over three hours ago…
  • He makes friends easy, he’s not like me
  • I watch for judgement anxiously
  • Now where in the city can that boy be?
  • He’s a real good talker, I think he’s a friend…
  • It always seems so righteous at the start
  • When there’s so much laughter, when there’s so much spark
  • When there’s so much sweetness in the dark

Around that time, Browne met Phyllis Major, who would become his wife. (See below.) Weller says:

    Jackson’s attention to Phyllis Major felt, to Joni, like “a great loss and a great mind-fuck,” says her confidante.

    P 408

It was Browne who ended his relationship with Mitchell. (See below.) This apparently caused Mitchell to have a nervous breakdown. She spent some time in residential therapy. However, a scorned Mitchell was also furious. Love turned to hate and rage – and how! Weller:

    Joni remained deeply angry at Jackson for years. Said percussionist Don Alias, who became her serious boyfriend for several years in the late 1970s, “She really had this hatred of Jackson Browne; the whole Jackson Browne thing was really heavy for her.”

    P 410 – my bolding

Sad, but evidently true. Hence, 22 years later, Not to Blame.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Was it violent?

Not really

There was apparently some violence in the relationship between Jackson Browne and Joni Mitchell, but it clearly wasn’t the habitual kind characteristic of an abusive relationship.

According to David Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter:

    There was violence of some kind – allegedly in both directions – during Joni’s relationship with Browne.

    P 343

Sheila Weller’s Girls Like Us claims Browne hit Mitchell on one occasion.

According to Weller (as related in a 2008 news report), Mitchell confided to a friend that Browne disrespected her on stage at LA club The Roxy, and they later had an argument, during which he hit her. [P 407]

Weller assured me her source was good. However, Mitchell cast doubt on the credibility of scenes related in Weller’s book when she vetoed a planned movie based on it.

In a 2014 interview, Mitchell said she told the movie’s producer, ‘It’s just a lot of gossip – you don’t have the great scenes’. She also said:

    There’s a lot of nonsense about me in books – assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

    My bolding

So there’s questionable hearsay evidence that Browne hit Mitchell on one occasion. On the other hand, Browne claimed Mitchell attacked him during their relationship.

In a 1997 interview about his response to Mitchell’s Not to Blame, he described Mitchell as a violent woman who twice physically attacked him.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

A rebound relationship

Possibly – but who was on the rebound?
Introduction | Jackson on the rebound? | Joni on the rebound?


A rebound relationship?  🔼

Introduction

I’ll be your substitute

(Great chorus – sorry about the YouTube ad)

Did Jackson Browne’s relationship with Joni Mitchell turn sour because it was a rebound relationship?

In David Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter, Mitchell said Browne didn’t return her love. (P 167) (See below). Browne may have referred to that in Fountain of Sorrow (from his 1974 album Late for the Sky).

Browne has denied his songs are autobiographical – something, at least, he shares with Mitchell – but Fountain of Sorrow is widely believed to be about Mitchell. In a 2014 interview, Browne was asked about the meaning of these lines from the song:

  • When you see through love’s illusion there lies the danger
  • And your perfect lover just looks like a perfect fool

Declining to say who it was about, he nonetheless replied (typically gnomically):

    It’s about the fact that when you fall in love with someone, when you’re broken-hearted, you don’t see them as a person.


A rebound relationship?  🔼

Jackson on the rebound?

Something fine

Was Browne saying although he loved Mitchell he was still heartbroken from a previous relationship? Was it his continuing focus on a previous lover that so distressed Mitchell?

According to Sheila Weller’s Girls Like Us, Browne was a romantic who said he kept getting his heart crushed. Weller says in 1971 Browne had a brief love affair in London with actor and photographer Salli Sachse. (P 405).

Sachse had starred in the 1976 film The Trip with Peter Fonda and had more recently been the official photographer for supergroup CSNY.

Sachse and Peter Fonda in The Trip, 1967 | Photo: AIP

The Trip featured the Laurel Canyon house overlooking LA where Love’s Arthur Lee lived when he wrote The Red Telephone (on Forever Changes, 1967) with its opening line, ‘Sitting on a hillside, watching all the people die’.

Weller referred to Sachse as ‘Jackson’s pre-Joni girlfriend‘. (P 410)

In a 2019 interview, Sachse (now an artist living in California) said she left Browne to go to Holland, where she met and fell in love with an artist.

Was Browne’s heart crushed again when Sachse left him and fell for another man? Was he on the rebound?

Maybe not. That’s speculation – and it was a short affair, lasting only about 10 days. But it would perhaps explain that strange remark of Browne’s:

    When you fall in love with someone, when you’re broken-hearted, you don’t see them as a person.


A rebound relationship?  🔼

Joni on the rebound?

From James to Jackson

Or was that actually about Mitchell and James Taylor, Mitchell’s pre-Browne lover. Was it Mitchell who was broken-hearted and on the rebound?

Mitchell and Taylor were together from 1970-71. For a while, according to Yaffe, they were very close. (P 127) Then, with Taylor’s growing heroin/opioid addiction and Mitchell entering her thin-skinned Blue period (when, she’s said, she felt ‘like a cellophane wrapper on a pack of cigarettes’), the relationship declined.

James Taylor and Joni Mitchell, 1971 | Photo: Joel Bernstein

According to one account, the relationship was ended by Taylor after Mitchell complained about him flirting with female admirers, and after he’d started seeing Carly Simon.

However, according to Weller, when Taylor and Simon met, Taylor and Mitchell’s relationship had already ended. (P 359) Oddly, neither Yaffe nor Weller describe how it ended, but Weller, writing about Mitchell’s 1972 album For the Roses, said James’ ‘rejection’ got to her. (P 334)

Taylor (in choosing California as his favourite song from Blue) claims Mitchell ended things when she left him in an airport and flew back to California. (Is that what Blue’s This Flight Tonight is ‘about’?)

Who dumped who matters because it’s suggested Mitchell’s lasting anger at Browne stems from him dumping her. But if Taylor also dumped her, how come she’s not angry at him?

Anyhow…was Mitchell broken-hearted when her relationship with Taylor ended? Was Browne – a young, good-looking, cultured singer-songwriter, like Taylor – Mitchell’s rebound substitute? Was Browne referring to Mitchell not seeing him as a person?

Taylor married Carly Simon in November 1972. Did that make the breakup with Browne even worse for Mitchell?

Happy couple: Carly Simon and James Taylor at their wedding, 1972 | Photo: Peter Simon (Carly’s late brother)

However, if Mitchell’s relationship with Browne was a relatively insignificant rebound relationship, why would she remain so intensely bitter towards him 20, 40 years later?


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Browne’s ’emotional immaturity’

In his own words

There was a 20s age gap between Joni Mitchell and Jackson Browne – she was 28, he was 22. Browne’s relative immaturity probably contributed to the breakdown of their relationship.

Browne has said he was lacking in emotional maturity at that time. He was talking about his song, Ready or Not (on his 1973 album For Everyman).

Ready or Not is about Browne’s first wife, Phyllis Major, who he met around the time of his break-up with Mitchell. The song is funny, honest and slightly flippant.

Two verses refer to Major’s apparently unintended pregnancy and to Browne’s uncertainty about settling down:

  • Now baby’s feeling funny in the morning
  • She says she’s got a lot on her mind
  • Nature didn’t give her any warning
  • Now she’s going to have to leave her wild ways behind
  • She says she doesn’t care if she never spends
  • Another night running loose on the town
  • She’s gonna be a mother
  • Take a look in my eyes and tell me, brother
  • If I look like I’m ready
  •  
  • I told her I had always lived alone
  • And I probably always would
  • And all I wanted was my freedom
  • And she told me that she understood
  • But I let her do some of my laundry
  • And she slipped a few meals in between
  • And the next thing I remember, she was all moved in
  • And I was buying her a washing machine

The Songfacts page on Ready or Not (click on the ‘artistfacts’ tab) quotes a Mojo interview* with Browne:

    She [Major] hated that song. She said, “I wasn’t having a baby to get you. And the bullshit about the washing machine is just insulting. So fuck you.” And she was right. I should have said in that song, “Oh shit, I’m about to become a parent and I have no idea how to do this.” But I was not emotionally mature enough.

    My bolding

* The interview date isn’t given, and there’s no online archive for Mojo.

In a filmed interview*, a 1970s-looking Browne described Ready or Not as glib, and said – generously – he learned from Mitchell the need to write deeper songs. (And he did – with his next album, the timeless Late for the Sky.)

* The interview was possibly in a TV documentary about Laurel Canyon. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find it again.

Those comments show Browne considered himself relatively immature at that time. With Mitchell, perhaps this was inevitable given the awkward younger-man 20s age gap.

He was, as he sang in Fountain of Sorrow, ‘one or two years’ – six, actually – and (apparently) ‘a couple of changes’ behind her.

Ready or Not portrayed Browne as torn between settling down and freedom. No doubt the immaturity and commitment-aversion shown in the song and acknowledged in his comments on it – along with the age gap – contributed to his apparent incompatibility with Mitchell.

Browne’s casually entitled sexism, as shown in Ready or Not‘s jokey reference to Major doing laundry and cooking meals can’t have helped.

(There was a lot of that around – despite the proclaimed hippy ideals of equality and liberation.)


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

How it ended

Badly

Jackson Browne’s relationship with Joni Mitchell was ended by Browne in 1972 shortly before or after he met his future wife Phyllis Major. Apparently Mitchell was incensed it was Browne who ended it.

She was also apparently distraught. According to Sheila Weller’s 2008 Girls Like Us, a confidante of Mitchell said she attempted suicide by taking pills and she threw herself at a mirror, badly cutting herself. (P 408)

Mitchell has denied this. According to David Yaffe’s 2017 Reckless Daughter, the breakup was ‘less eventful than has been reported elsewhere’ (P 167). Mitchell told Yaffe:

    I read a page in one of those books. It said when Jackson Browne dumped me I attempted suicide and I became a cutter. A cutter! A self-mutilator! I thought, Where do they get this garbage from? I’m not that crazy. I’m crazy, but not that crazy.

    P 237

Hmm.

After a period in residential therapy, Mitchell moved into the home of her – and Browne’s – friend and manager, David Geffen.

I asked Geffen about Mitchell’s alleged suicide attempt. He replied to say:

    Everything written about it is either wrong or completely made up … I am not going to talk about Joni’s private life other than to say Jackson is not violent in any way and the end of relationships are always messy.

(I told Geffen I was asking about Mitchell’s alleged suicide attempt in the context of my investigation into the rumour that Browne assaulted Daryl Hannah. In his reply, Geffen added, ‘Jackson never assaulted Hannah’.)

Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter quotes Larry Klein, Mitchell’s husband from 1982 to 1994, as saying:

    Joni had a great deal of anger towards Jackson … Maybe it stems from the fact that he was the one to end the relationship … I think that’s a pattern in her life. She would do things that would lead to the end of the relationship … and then feel unjustly abandoned.

    P 167 – my bolding

However, Mitchell’s previous – intense – relationship with James Taylor was also – according to one account – not ended by her – but she seems to have stayed friends with Taylor.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Phyllis Major

Very sad

Phyllis Major | Photo: source unknown

In late 1972, around the time he ended his relationship with Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne met the woman who was to become his first wife, the actor and model Phyllis Major.

They met in the LA Troubadour club. Apparently Major was being harassed, and Browne intervened. His song Ready or Not (from For Everyman, 1973) included his jaunty account of meeting Major:

  • I met her in a crowded barroom
  • One of those typical Hollywood scenes
  • I was doing my very best Bogart
  • But I was having trouble getting into her jeans
  • I punched an unemployed actor
  • Defending her dignity
  • He stood up and knocked me through that barroom door
  • And that girl came home with me

Soon after meeting, they began a serious relationship. Their son Ethan was born in 1973. They married in 1975.

Oddly – apparently for no reason – Browne ends Walking Slow (from Late for the Sky, 1974) with these doleful lines:

  • I’m feelin’ good today
  • But if I die a little farther along
  • I’m trusting everyone to carry on

Tragically, it was, of course, Major who died a little farther along and Browne who had to find a way to carry on.

Major had long-term mental health problems and suffered severe postnatal depression. She attempted suicide in 1975, and committed suicide in March 1976 by taking an overdose of barbiturates.

🌷 🌷 🌷

In Not to Blame, Mitchell said Browne drove Major to suicide. (See below.) That terrible accusation is unfounded and uncorroborated – but Browne and Major were apparently having problems.

As a free-spirited and dedicated musician, no doubt Browne was sometimes an absent husband and parent. And Major had a history of mental health issues.

But – as with the relationship between Browne and Mitchell – no one else really knows what went on. I haven’t found any published information about their relationship – apart from in songs.

Disregarding Not to Blame’s uncorroborated accusation, three of Browne’s songs refer to difficulties in his relationship with Major.

1974’s Walking Slow, despite its breezy tone and its opening lines about being happy and feeling good, refers to marital discord:

  • I got a pretty little girl of my own at home
  • Sometimes we forget we love each other
  • And we fight for no reason

Browne added, presciently:

  • I don’t know what I’ll do if she ever leaves me alone

Things were apparently worse than typical marriage tiffs. Sleep’s Dark and Silent Gate, written soon after Major’s suicide, has a verse about their relationship:

  • Never shoulda had to try so hard
  • To make a love work out, I guess
  • I don’t know what love has got to do with happiness
  • But the times when we were happy
  • Were the times we never tried

It took Browne many years to write a whole song about what went wrong. 1986’s In the Shape of a Heart is very moving – and painfully revealing:

  • I guess I never knew what she was talking about
  • I guess I never knew what she was living without …
  • There was a hole left in the wall from some ancient fight
  • About the size of a fist, or something thrown that had missed
  • And there were other holes as well, in the house where our nights fell
  • Far too many to repair in the time that we were there …
  • It was the ruby that she wore, on a stand beside the bed
  • In the hour before dawn, when I knew she was gone
  • And I held it in my hand for a little while
  • And dropped it into the wall, let it go, heard it fall …
  • Speak in terms of a life and the living
  • Try to find the word for forgiving

Browne’s reference to ‘a hole left in the wall from some ancient fight about the size of a fist, or something thrown that had missed‘ implies him hitting the wall in frustration or her throwing something at him.

The reference to ‘other holes as well in the house where our nights fell, far too many to repair in the time that we were there‘ is clearly metaphorical.

Browne’s not confessing to domestic violence. He’s expanding Walking Slow’s ‘we forget we love each other, and we fight for no reason’ and Sleep’s Dark and Silent Gate’s ‘had to try so hard to make a love work out’ to In the Shape of a Heart’s account of his struggle to cope:

  • You keep it up, you try so hard
  • To keep a life from coming apart
  • And never know
  • The shallows and the unseen reefs
  • That are there from the start
  • In the shape of a heart


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Mitchell on Major’s suicide

Very bad
Introduction | Song For Sharon | Not to Blame


Mitchell on Major’s suicide  🔼

Introduction

Jackson Browne met his first wife, Phyllis Major, around the time he ended his relationship with Joni Mitchell in 1972. Tragically, Major committed suicide in 1976. (See above.)

In two of her songs, Mitchell has accused Browne of driving Major to suicide.

  • The epic Song For Sharon (on the album Hejira) was released in 1976 soon after Major’s suicide. In one of the song’s ten verses, Mitchell implied Browne drove Major to it.
  • The accusatory Not to Blame (on the award-winning album Turbulent Indigo) was released in 1994 in the wake of the rumour that Browne beat Hannah. In addition to boosting that rumour, Mitchell repeated her smear about Major’s suicide more openly – and with spurious detail about Browne and Major’s three-year-old son.

    (Not to Blame is analysed in detail in the next section.)

Mitchell was apparently acquainted with Major before Browne met her. In David Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter, she described Major as ‘a sensitive, artistic, beautiful girl, who was passed from guy to guy to guy‘, and said when she learned Major was with Browne, she thought:

    Here comes another one – the worst one of all. The very worst one. And all that shit that she’s gone through to fall into his clutches.

    P 238 – my bolding

(In Yaffe’s book, Mitchell harshly criticised all her exes, but was especially – gratuitously – vicious about Browne. See below.)


Mitchell on Major’s suicide  🔼

Song For Sharon

According to Sheila Weller’s Girls Like Us, Mitchell angered Browne by attending Major’s funeral. Weller says Mitchell saw a parallel with her own suicide attempt and included a coded implication in Song For Sharon that Browne was responsible for Major’s suicide. (P 411)

At the time of writing, Wikipedia‘s description of Song For Sharon – in its entry on the album Hejira – cites Weller’s claim that the song alludes to Major’s suicide. Wikipedia relates Weller’s observation that the song asks if the suicide was a means of ‘punishing someone’.

Mitchell’s beautiful Song For Sharon is a long and rambling autobiographical catch-up (nominally – as it were – addressed to an old friend, Sharon). However, the song’s poetic and sonic beauty conceals an ugly bitterness. Verse five (of ten) is a coded account of Mitchell’s vengeful response to the news of Major’s suicide.

Although Major died from a barbiturate overdose, the verse refers cryptically to a woman who ‘just drowned herself’. It says she was ‘just shaking off futility’ – ie of life with Browne – ‘or punishing somebody’ – ie Browne, presumably for his supposed mistreatment of her:

  • A woman I knew just drowned herself
  • The well was deep and muddy
  • She was just shaking off futility
  • Or punishing somebody
  • My friends were calling up all day yesterday
  • All emotions and abstractions
  • It seems we all live so close to that line
  • and so far from satisfaction

In Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter there’s no comment from Mitchell about the coded accusation in Song For Sharon. Nevertheless, Yaffe, perhaps referring to unpublished parts of his conversations with Mitchell, describes her emotional compulsion to make that accusation:

    A woman [Major], who had been married to an ex-lover [Browne], commits suicide. She [Mitchell] feels bad. And she can’t let go of her bitterness toward the man who surely drove her to it, which makes her feel even more sympathy, more anger … She is sad, she is angry, she takes umbrage. She would like to be above settling scores, yet she is compelled to do so. It all came rushing back. Jackson had the nerve to dump her. Then she had such a vivid sense of what was wrong with him, and she could see what he was doing to the women who came after.

    PP 236-7 – my bolding


Mitchell on Major’s suicide  🔼

Not to Blame

(Not to Blame is analysed in detail in the next section.)

The bitterness in Song For Sharon was coded and muted. However, 18 years later Mitchell was still bitter – and she let rip.

Mitchell’s song Not to Blame (on the award-winning album Turbulent Indigo), released in 1994 in the wake of the Browne-Hannah rumour, openly and angrily repeated her accusation that Browne drove Major to suicide.

The first two verses of Not to Blame were about Browne and Hannah, but the last verse, cruelly padded with spurious detail about Browne’s son, addressed Major’s suicide:

  • I heard your baby say
  • When he was only three
  • ‘Daddy let’s get some girls
  • One for you and one for me’
  • His mother had the frailty you despise
  • And the looks you love to drive to suicide
  • Not one wet eye around
  • lonely little grave
  • Said ‘He was out of line girl
  • You were not to blame’

The spurious detail (‘I heard your baby say …’) referred to Browne and Major’s three-year-old son. Interviewed about Not to Blame in 1997, Browne said:

    It was abusive to employ that image of my son as somebody who treated his mother’s death light-heartedly. I mean, he was a three-year-old baby, you know. This is inexcusable.

Major took her own life after apparently suffering long-term mental health issues and extreme postnatal depression.

Browne’s songs Walking Slow, Sleep’s Dark and Silent Gate and – especially – In the Shape of a Heart refer to the difficulties they had in their relationship. (See above.)

Those difficulties may have been known to Mitchell – theirs was a small world. However, no one apart from Mitchell (and forum contributors who believe Mitchell’s accusation) has suggested Browne mistreated Major and drove her to suicide.

There’s no corroboration for the nasty accusation Mitchell made in those two songs and – despite Yaffe’s empathic explanation for Song For Sharon‘s coded accusation – no excuse.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Not to Blame

A sextual analysis of sour revenge
Intro | Verse 1 | Verse 2 | Verse 3 | Outro


Not to Blame  🔼

Intro

Song of hate

In 1994, in the wake of the Jackson Browne-Daryl Hannah rumour – 22 years after her relationship with Browne had ended – Joni Mitchell released her accusatory song Not to Blame (on the award-winning album Turbulent Indigo).

This section offers a detailed analysis of the song, the part it’s played in the rumour about Browne and Hannah, and its reference to the suicide in 1976 of Browne’s first wife, Phyllis Major.

(Mitchell’s twisted take on Major’s suicide in Not to Blame and in the earlier Song For Sharon is also separately addressed above.)

Not to Blame is often invoked in discussion forums and comments as proof Browne’s a wife-beater.

It’s no such thing, but some people seem to think Mitchell’s condemnation of Browne trumps Browne’s protestation of innocence – perhaps because of Mitchell’s stronger reputation and her ‘weaker’ sex.

It doesn’t help, of course, that Browne refuses to explain what happened with Hannah.

Not to Blame offered no proof Browne assaulted anyone or drove them to suicide. Mitchell repeated and embroidered the gossip about Hannah, and she accused Browne of causing Major’s suicide. But the song provided no hint of corroboration or evidence.

For instance, she made no reference to her brief relationship with Browne 20 years previously, despite that being the last time she’d known him.

(Mitchell did talk about their relationship in David Yaffe’s 2017 autobiography, Reckless Daughter. She was highly critical of Browne – see below – but she notably didn’t mention Not to Blame; nor did she repeat her accusations about Hannah’s injuries or Major’s suicide.)

If Not to Blame reveals any truth, it’s not that Browne’s a wife-beater, it’s that Mitchell’s a grudge-holder – and that there’s no rage like love turned to hate.

Not to Blame is beautifully sung over sparse piano chords and sexy bass, with a light, slightly breathless, beguiling purity. Mitchell’s lyrics sound utterly convincing. She doesn’t sound angry or bitter – she sounds like, say, a Norwegian ice-maiden crooning light jazz.

But the song’s dulcet beauty belies its ugly theme: banal vengeance with a poisonous sting.

Not to Blame was released in 1994, when the rumour that Browne beat Hannah was still in the news. The US ‘uncle’ letters about Hannah had been published that year.

Despite Mitchell’s flimsy pretence that Not to Blame wasn’t about anyone in particular, it was clearly about Browne – and was perfectly timed to twist the knife.

The first verse repeated and embellished the rumour of abuse. The second verse addressed domestic abuse in general (and obscurely accused Browne of ‘perversity’). Then, after that banal bluster, came the madness.

The venomous spite of the third verse was openly aimed at Mitchell’s real target: Browne and Major – albeit cloaked with fake sympathy for Major.

Browne left Mitchell for Major in 1972. Mitchell apparently never got over it.

Major committed suicide in 1976. In the same year, in Hejira’s Song For Sharon, Mitchell implied that Browne caused it.

18 years later, in Not to Blame’s final verse, Mitchell returned to Major’s suicide, accusing Browne of despising women’s frailty and loving to drive them to suicide.

Why did she do that?

In David Yaffe’s autobiography, Reckless Daughter, Yaffe often apparently channels Mitchell in order to explain without quoting. (See, for instance, Yaffe’s explanation for Mitchell’s comment on Major’s suicide in Song For Sharon.)

In that spirit, here’s my channelled explanation for Not to Blame’s third verse:

    Jackson had left her – genius Joni – for airhead* Phyllis. The shallow bastard! Then Phyllis killed herself. Joni gatecrashed the funeral. She pretended to feel sorry for Phyllis so she could blame Jackson. Her bitterness towards him festered. Now, years later, here was the Daryl Hannah rumour – a chance too good to miss! It had to be his fault! Like Phyllis’s suicide! Like how he left her!! Bastard! Stab! Stab! Stab!

Or something like that. But however you slice it, Not to Blame’s third verse is quite the Psycho scene.

*Major wasn’t an airhead – her reported response to Browne’s Ready or Not shows that – but Mitchell apparently thought she was. In Yaffe’s book, she said Major was ‘passed from guy to guy to guy’ [P 238].

💔
Not to Blame  🔼

Verse 1

Kick!

The first verse got right to it. Jackson Browne had already been damaged by the gossip about Daryl Hannah. Now Joni Mitchell put the boot in by repeating – and embroidering on – the rumour.

The first verse says:

  • The media said Browne beat Hannah
  • His philanthropy was hypocritical
  • She had his fist marks on her face
  • His friends said it was her fault and he was not to blame
  • The story hit the news from coast to coast
  • They said you beat the girl you loved the most
  • Your charitable acts seemed out of place
  • With the beauty, with your fist marks on her face
  • Your buddies all stood by
  • They bet their fortunes and their fame
  • That she was out of line
  • And you were not to blame

In Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter there was no comment from Mitchell on Not to Blame, but Yaffe misleadingly implied the song was Mitchell’s revenge for Browne’s alleged violence against her:

    There was violence of some kind – allegedly in both directions – during Joni’s relationship with Browne, and this song [Not to Blame] finds her carrying a grudge 20 years later.

    P 343 – my bolding

Allegations of violence in a relationship must be taken seriously, but the alleged occasional two-way violence in their relationship (see above) was clearly not the persistently repeated one-way assault typical of domestic abuse.

In 1994, Mitchell’s 20-year grudge resulted in Not to Blame‘s accusation that Browne was a physical abuser. The grudge, however, can’t have been about physical abuse in their relationship – because the infrequent two-way violence in their relationship clearly didn’t amount to that.

Mitchell’s fiercely derogatory comments on Browne in Yaffe’s book (see below) revealed a long-held grudge (over 40 years by that time) but in the book, she notably – perhaps advisedly – didn’t repeat Not to Blame’s physical abuse smear.

Yaffe was wrong to suggest Mitchell’s grudge was about ‘violence of some kind’ in her relationship with Browne. More accurately, Yaffe went on to describe the song as a ‘violent and personal attack‘. (P 344)

💔💔
Not to Blame  🔼

Verse 2

Slice!

The second verse of Not to Blame was less directly accusatory:

  • Six hundred thousand doctors
  • Are putting on rubber gloves
  • And they’re poking at the miseries made of love
  • They say they’re learning how to spot
  • The battered wives among all the women
  • They see bleeding through their lives
  • I bleed for your perversity
  • These red words that make a stain
  • On your white-washed claim
  • That she was out of line
  • And you were not to blame

However, the second verse seemingly gave a coded explanation for the damning accusation in the third verse – that Jackson Browne despises women’s frailty and habitually makes them suicidal.

In the second verse, Joni Mitchell said, ‘I bleed for your perversity‘. That apparently referred to Browne’s obstinacy in insisting he wasn’t to blame. But was wordsmith Mitchell also implying sexual perversity?

Was Mitchell suggesting Browne was secretly gay and his hiding it was a perversion? Was she saying his secret gay misogyny made him despise women’s frailty and beauty and want to drive them to suicide?

Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter openly suggested Browne was secretly gay. According to Mitchell, Browne’s mother said to her:

    I wondered what form your perversion would take.

    P 167

Explaining that gnomic comment (a family trait?), Yaffe, apparently channelling Mitchell, said:

    Joni eventually came to feel she was being given a heads-up. Maybe there was something off about Jackson’s relationships. And he did seem to be more giddy with his male friends than he could ever be with a woman… This guy had issues.

    PP 167-8 – my bolding

Yaffe told me he got most of the people involved to tell their side of the story, but Browne’s management didn’t respond.

However, it seems likely that whatever Browne’s mother was on about, whatever was ‘off’ in Browne’s relationship with Mitchell, and whatever ‘issues’ he had, he’s not secretly gay.

Perhaps Mitchell was pursuing her vendetta against him by slinging any mud that came to hand.

Whether or not Mitchell subtly loaded all that onto the word ‘perversity’, her accusation that Browne loved to drive beautiful women to suicide couldn’t be justified in any case – it was clearly absurd.

Another accusatory element in the second verse was the phrase ‘battered wives’.

Not to Blame implied Browne beat Hannah, but it didn’t imply he beat Mitchell or any other women. The song’s reference to ‘battered wives’ was ostensibly a general comment about doctors not recognising domestic abuse.

However, ‘battered wives’ might also have been a subtle dig at Browne. A few months before the release of Not to Blame, Daryl Hannah’s uncle, Haskell Wexler, in his much-publicised angry letter to monthly film and music magazine US, said:

    I was with her in the hospital … The doctor was shocked by the severity and noted Daryl as ‘a badly battered woman’.

    My bolding

In his reply to Wexler, Browne threatened to go public unless allowed to privately ‘describe Daryl’s actions’. Wexler’s subsequent silence suggests he heard Browne’s explanation and found it plausible – but that wouldn’t have fitted with Mitchell’s bitter preconception.

(Also, Wexler or the doctor may have been exaggerating. According to a contemporaneous People report, although Hannah was seen in New York days after the incident with a bandaged hand and a black eye, 10 days after the incident, the ‘badly battered woman’ was pictured in a paparazzi video ‘smooching’ with JFK Jr in Manhattan.)

Perhaps Mitchell, having seen Wexler’s letter, felt entitled to subliminally enhance her anti-Browne message with the phrase ‘battered wives’.

💔💔💔
Not to Blame  🔼

Verse 3

Stab! Stab! Stab!

In Not to Blame’s third verse, Joni Mitchell finally thrust home the poisoned point: her hatred for Jackson Browne after he left her for Phyllis Major in 1972. In this verse, Mitchell got well and truly Psycho on Browne’s ass.

After Major’s suicide in 1976, Mitchell gatecrashed the funeral. This verse was her twisted account of it, and her even more twisted explanation for Major’s suicide:

  • I heard your baby say when he was only three
  • ‘Daddy let’s get some girls
  • One for you and one for me’
  • His mother had the frailty you despise
  • And the looks you love to drive to suicide
  • Not one wet eye around her lonely little grave
  • Said ‘He was out of line girl
  • You were not to blame’

In two crazy and vicious lines, she suggested not only that Browne despised his wife’s frailty and drove her to suicide but also that he made a habit of it:

  • [She] had the frailty you despise
  • And the looks you love to drive to suicide

Major took her own life after apparently suffering long-term mental health issues and extreme postnatal depression.

Browne and Major apparently had relationship problems. (See above.) That may have been known to Mitchell. But no one apart from Mitchell has suggested Browne drove Major – or any other women – to suicide.

Mitchell’s vengeful accusation was a cheesy, melodramatic lie. Such is art made to serve congealed rage.

Mitchell also callously referred to Browne and Major’s three-year-old son:

  • I heard your baby say when he was only three
  • ‘Daddy let’s get some girls
  • One for you and one for me’

If Mitchell, the unwelcome guest at Major’s funeral, heard those words, they were clearly the foolish words of a baby.

Using those words, whether true or invented, to suggest Browne was a womaniser and his three-year-old son was aware of that and was colluding with it at his mother’s funeral was bizarre. It showed the twistedness of her anger.

Interviewed in 1997, Browne said:

    It was abusive to employ that image of my son as somebody who treated his mother’s death light-heartedly. I mean, he was a three-year-old baby, you know.

Not to Blame  🔼

Outro

Fade to grey

Joni Mitchell should withdraw Not to Blame’s very damaging baseless accusation. It’s not too late for her to put it right. (See my appeal to Mitchell, below.)

In his 1997 interview, Jackson Browne expressed frustration at not being able to talk to Mitchell about Not to Blame.

He said it was inexcusable for her to believe the tabloid gossip, and he was tired of people assuming she was an authority on his life despite not having known him for 20 years.

He said he wrote to Mitchell after hearing the song, but she didn’t reply. He’d tried not to conduct a public defence against Mitchell’s song, but was tired of having to accept her bitter attack.

So Browne had his say – but the song continued to damage him.

In Not to Blame Mitchell used her poetic artistry and her beguiling voice to create the baseless impression of a man who mistreats women, who despises their frailty and loves to drive them to suicide.

The angry and personal tone of the third verse will have convinced some that Browne must be guilty of something terrible. Such is the power of an accusation made by someone of stature.

Mitchell’s reputation – sealed with her unparalleled album, Blue – as the foremost truthful songwriter of her generation, together with her brief but intimate knowledge of Browne, gave Not to Blame an impressive veneer of credibility.

However, behind that cool, authentic exterior, Mitchell was wildly stabbing at Browne like a vengeful goddess* re-enacting the Psycho shower scene.

This song and the unfair damage it’s done to Browne should fade to grey in the limbo reserved for such defamatory fits of passion.

* Thanks to commenter Alan Smith for that apposite epithet.

Not to Blame  🔼


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Browne on Mitchell

Typically gnomic

Typically tight-lipped, Jackson Browne has said very little about his relationship with Joni Mitchell other than in response to Not to Blame and in contemporaneous lyrics, some of which he’s – kind of – explained.

In a 1997 interview about Not to Blame, Browne described Mitchell as a violent woman who twice physically attacked him during their relationship.

Browne has also spoken about the ‘differences’ alluded to in Fountain of Sorrow (from his 1974 album Late for the Sky), believed to be about Mitchell.

In his spoken introduction to a 2014 videoed performance of Fountain of Sorrow, Browne explained he wrote it for an ex-lover. He’d run into her sometime after they separated, was impressed by her beauty, remembered ‘all the good stuff’, and wrote the song for her. His introduction concluded:

    But as time went on, as years went on, it turned out to be a more generous song than she deserved.

    My bolding

The audience’s knowing and sympathetic laughter showed they got Browne’s drily understated reference to Mitchell and her vengeful song, Not to Blame.

Weirdly, however, Fountain of Sorrow isn’t a generous celebration of an ex-lover’s good points at all – it’s a typically deep and soulful meditation on relationships, memory, and loneliness.

  • I’m just one or two years and a couple of changes behind you
  • In my lessons at love’s pain and heartache school
  • Where if you feel too free and you need something to remind you
  • There’s this loneliness springing up from your life
  • Like a fountain from a pool

Asked in a 2014 interview about that introduction to Fountain of Sorrow, Browne said:

    The things that come to bear in that song are the healing and acceptance of each other’s differences. That’s what I meant by it being more generous than she deserved.

Hmmm. In the same interview about Fountain of Sorrow Browne was asked about the meaning of these lines:

  • When you see through love’s illusion there lies the danger
  • And your perfect lover just looks like a perfect fool

He replied, gnomically:

    It’s about the fact that when you fall in love with someone, when you’re broken-hearted, you don’t see them as a person.

    (See above)

The equally brilliant and moody song Late for the SkyLooking hard into your eyes, there was nobody I’d ever known – is also thought to be about Mitchell.

Such were Browne’s thoughtful – if not particularly ‘generous’ – reflections on their relationship. Mitchell’s take on it, however, seemed increasingly angry.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Mitchell on Browne

More heat than light

In 1972, Jackson Browne ended his relationship with Joni Mitchell. Apparently permanently furious ever since, she’s trashed him implicitly in two songs and explicitly in a recent biography.

In 1976, Mitchell’s Song For Sharon, released soon after the suicide of Browne’s first wife Phyllis Major, included a coded implication that Browne caused Major’s suicide.

In 1994, Mitchell’s uncompromisingly vicious Not to Blame, released in the wake of the Browne-Daryl Hannah rumour (22 years after Mitchell’s relationship with Browne had ended), openly implied Browne was a wife-beater who drove his wife to suicide.
 
More recently, in David Yaffe’s 2017 biography Reckless Daughter, published 45 years after her relationship with Browne, Mitchell – apparently consumed by bitterness like a modern-day Miss Havisham – brutally dismissed Browne as a worthless nonentity.

Yaffe’s book drew on conversations he recorded in 2015 shortly before Mitchell’s aneurysm.

Surprisingly – perhaps advisedly – Yaffe’s book contained no comments by Mitchell about Not to Blame. (Readers had to rely on the author’s flawed explanation.)

However, Mitchell wasn’t holding back in Yaffe’s book. She lashed out at Browne, describing him as ‘a leering narcissist‘, ‘just a nasty bit of business‘ and ‘the very worst one’.

Some of Mitchell’s comments about Browne in Yaffe’s book were merged with those about her previous lover, singer-songwriter James Taylor.

Taylor and Browne seemed to have almost fused in Mitchell’s mind into a single lump of uselessness – but while she excused Taylor as a junkie, she condemned Browne as actively vile.
 
Mitchell made the ‘leering narcissist’ comment when speaking about her love not being returned:

    I did love, to the best of my ability, and sometimes, for a while, it was reciprocated, and sometimes … they were incapable. James numbed on drugs and Jackson Browne was never attracted to me … when [Jackson] spoke about old lovers, he leered. He was a leering narcissist.

    Yaffe P 167 – my bolding

The ‘nasty bit of business’ comment occurred when Mitchell explained how her sadness was caused by having her self-worth undermined:

    I wasn’t mentally ill. I was sad … When someone’s undermining your self-worth, it’s not a healthy situation. Well, it’s not James’s fault, he’s fucked up. And Jackson’s just a nasty bit of business.

    Yaffe P 169 – my bolding

The ‘very worst one’ comment was about Browne meeting Phyllis Major at the time he ended his relationship with Mitchell. She described Major as ‘a sensitive … girl, who was passed from guy to guy to guy’ (see above), and claimed a horrified concern:

    Here comes another one – the worst one of all. The very worst one. And all that shit that she’s gone through to fall into his clutches.

    Yaffe P 238 – my bolding

There’s more of this from Mitchell in Yaffe’s and Weller’s books. Yaffe told me he was able to get most of the people involved to tell their side of the story but Browne’s management didn’t respond.

That was probably for the best. Browne must have had his faults, but Mitchell seems to have constructed an alternative reality in which fault is one-sided, exaggerated and vilified.


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼

Conclusion

A woman scorned

In forum discussions and comments, people say Joni Mitchell’s song Not to Blame shows Jackson Browne assaulted Daryl Hannah and drove his wife Phyllis Major to suicide. But they’re wrongNot to Blame’s a baseless accusation made in anger.

Why did Mitchell lash out in 1994 with those damaging smears, 20 years after their relationship had ended? What was it about that brief relationship that made her so vengeful?

Was it simply that Browne didn’t sufficiently return her feelings (perhaps because it was a rebound relationship) and – perhaps even worse for Mitchell – that he ended it?

Was Mitchell inconsolably enraged because he dumped her? Possibly, but James Taylor (Mitchell’s pre-Browne lover) also, apparently, dumped her and they’ve stayed friends – whereas in 2015 she described Browne as ‘just a nasty bit of business’.

He’s got a friend – even if he did dump her | Photo: Marcy Gensic (2018) | Thought bubble: Yaffe [P 169]

Also, Browne and Taylor are apparently good friends. As of late 2021, they were planning to tour together. This suggests Taylor doesn’t share his friend Mitchell’s bad opinion of Browne.

Best of friends: Mr Nasty and Mr Fucked-up | Photo: Taylor’s selfie?

If there’s more to it than the indignity of Browne being the one to end it, perhaps it’s the depth of Mitchell’s feelings for Browne – feelings apparently not fully returned – and the depth of her despair when he ended their relationship.

In 2017 in David Yaffe’s Reckless Daughter, Mitchell angrily dismissed Browne as deeply selfish and unpleasant – ‘the very worst one’.

No one else has publicly said such things about Browne. Mitchell’s unsupported criticism, so bitter after over 40 years, raises the possibility that in denigrating him she was hiding a painful truth.

Perhaps Browne wasn’t the despicable nobody she portrayed to Yaffe, but was actually the lost love of her life. To paraphrase the poet, there’s no fury like that of a woman scorned and no rage like love turned to hate.

Mitchell’s previous lover, James Taylor, was handsome enough, but Browne was undeniably a very good-looking young man.

Browne in 1971. Handsome is … | Photo: Henry Diltz

Was Mitchell entranced by Browne’s combination of talent and beauty – and hopelessly in love with him? As she’s said, ‘I’m a fool for love’.

Perhaps closer to the truth than Mitchell’s bitter comments in Yaffe’s book are her poignant – and erotic – lines about the start of their relationship from Car On A Hill:

  • It always seems so righteous at the start
  • When there’s so much laughter
  • When there’s so much spark
  • When there’s so much sweetness in the dark

Did Browne inadvertently get through Mitchell’s defences like no one else – and leave her permanently embittered when he ended their relationship?

In his 1997 interview about Not to Blame, Browne said:

    She and every one of her friends knows – it’s all about carrying a torch.

    My bolding

💔

Is that the explanation for Mitchell’s lasting bitter anger and its expression in Not to Blame‘s spiteful slur?

We’ll probably never know – Browne has mainly kept quiet about their relationship, and Mitchell’s heated outbursts have shed little light.

Whatever happened and whatever Mitchell’s state of mind, her relationship with Browne gave Not to Blame considerable credibility.

That song’s defamatory message, boosted by Mitchell’s renown as the truthful songwriter and by her more recent expression of lasting hatred in Yaffe’s biography (see above), has continued to damage Browne’s reputation.

Sheila Weller’s 2008 biography Girls Like Us recounts a brief meeting in 2004:

    Mitchell ran into Browne in a grocery store. He told her he couldn’t bear the animosity between them and the two reportedly buried the hatchet.

    P 497

However, Mitchell’s comments on Browne in Yaffe’s 2017 biography (made shortly before her 2015 anneurism) showed the hatchet was buried alright – in Browne’s head.

Contents 🔼


The End


Additional stuff


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

An appeal to Joni

Put it right and let it go

Joni Mitchell said she was thin-skinned and exposed when recording Blue in 1971. If she was still vulnerable in 1972 when she and Jackson Browne had a relationship, perhaps the relatively immature Browne got under her thin skin and – unintentionally – did some lasting damage.

In Not to Blame she used her art to hurt him back. Her more recent comments in David Yaffe’s biography, Reckless Daughter, inflamed the wound.

After all this time, perhaps she could forgive him and retract her claws. Some healing would be good. Not to Blame‘s baseless accusation should be withdrawn

  • Its false note resonates dissonantly
  • It should be silenced, allowed to fade away
  • It’s a bad spell woven with lurid colours
  • It should be undone, allowed to fade to grey
  • It’s a bad smell. Light a candle, hey?

Apparently, Joni Mitchell doesn’t use the internet, but a friend might show her my impudent but well meant direct appeal:

    Dear Joni

    You’ve said some terrible things about Jackson – and many people believe you.

    After Phyllis’s suicide, you implied in Song For Sharon it was his fault.

    After the Daryl Hannah incident, you accused him in Not to Blame of being a violent man who drove his wife to suicide.

    In that song you said to Jackson, about Phyllis’s death:

    [She] had the frailty you despise

    And the looks you love to drive to suicide

    That was baseless and cruel – but a lot of people believe you. In forums and comments, they say, in effect:

    He’s a wife-beater and he drove his wife to suicide. Joni Mitchell says so.

    In David Yaffe’s biography, you said Jackson was a ‘leering narcissist’, a ‘nasty bit of business’ and the ‘very worst one’.

    No one else has said such extreme things about him. Would your discerning friend James Taylor, who presumably knows Jackson pretty well, be his friend if he shared your view of him?

    What d’you say, Joni? You and Jackson were lovers for a while – you know what he was like. Was he really that bad?

    If not, however embarrassing it might be after all that bombast, you owe him an apology – as a debt of honour.

    Before you die would be good. (Flinch not, dear younger Reader. Those of us over 70 may try to deny it – I do – but we know we’re facing death.)

    OK, he pissed you off. He seems to have a knack for doing that. Maybe he broke your heart, and you’ve been lashing out ever since.

    But don’t take this grudge to the grave. C’mon, Canada – let it go!

    You guardedly conceded to Cameron Crowe in 1979 that ‘Jackson writes fine songs.’

    (Faint praise? Like the grocery where you reportedly ran into each other in 2004, a mere purveyor of fine goods?)

    Perhaps he’s not as good as you. Perhaps he’s the Monet to your Manet. But he writes beautiful songs. Like this one about you

    Fountain of sorrow, fountain of light

    You’ve known that hollow sound of your own steps in flight

    You’ve had to struggle, you’ve had to fight

    To keep understanding and compassion in sight

    You could be laughing at me, you’ve got the right

    But you go on smiling, so clear and so bright

🌷

Cat lady in red: Joni and Bootsy, 2020 | Photo: PR


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

Addendum 1

Old Lady of the Year slur – et al

Cheesy crap


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

Introduction

In 1971 Rolling Stone magazine insulted Joni Mitchell by calling her ‘Old Lady of the Year’. The magazine insulted her again in 1972 by putting her name in a lipstick kiss in its ‘Hollywood’s Hot 100’ chart.

Those two creepy incidents are detailed here as an addendum because the second one happened around the time Mitchell got together with Jackson Browne.

They’re not directly relevant to Mitchell’s bitter vendetta against Browne, but they may have worsened her self-confessed downward spiral during that time – when the seeds of bitterness took root.

The two Rolling Stone items are featured on the official Joni Mitchell website, with the Hot 100 introduction and facsimiles of both items.


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

Old Lady of the Year

In February 1971, Joni Mitchell was insultingly dubbed ‘Old Lady of the Year’ by Rolling Stone magazine and its famously misogynist co-founder and editor, Jann Wenner.

From Rolling Stone, 4 February 1971 (#75)
Editor: Jann Wenner

In a would-be humourous 4-page section titled It Happened in 1970: Rolling Stone Annual Awards for Profundity in Arts and Culture, Mitchell got this sarcastic citation:

    Old Lady of the Year: Joni Mitchell (for her friendships with David Crosby, Steve Stills, Graham Nash, Neil Young, James Taylor, et al.)

‘Old lady’ was hippie slang for girlfriend – with, in this case, a snide hint of groupie. Wenner was happy to smear respected musician Mitchell in this way – he’s consistently disprespected her music.

As it happens, despite the award’s lewd implication, Mitchell’s love life wasn’t promiscuous: it was serial. Crosby and Nash were Mitchell’s exes; and at that time, she was in a relationship with Taylor.

And if a female artist was promiscuous, so what? In the age of free love, sexual equality and the contraceptive pill, it would have been deeply hypocritical to shame her for it.

Stills and Young, also named, were friends of Mitchell. Wenner used the word ‘friendships’ suggestively, leeringly adding the Latin phrase ‘et al’ meaning ‘and others’.

(‘Et al’ is used in academic publications when naming authors. Wenner dropped out of university.)

Perhaps Wenner thought his targeted misogyny was daringly funny. Tastefully adjacent to Mitchell’s award was Wenner’s award for ‘Old Man of the Year’: Charles Manson, for his ‘friendships’ – with his murderous female acolytes. Hilarious, Jann.


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

Hollywood’s Hot 100

In February 1972, a year after smearing Joni Mitchell as ‘Old Lady of the Year’, Rolling Stone struck again. Its now-infamous Hollywood’s Hot 100 chart insulted her again – by gratuitously putting her name in a lipstick kiss.

The Hollywood’s Hot 100 chart mapped LA musicians’ musical and ‘romantic’ links. Its introductory text described the LA scene as an ‘incestuous’ society whose members came from several ‘families’.

From Rolling Stone, 3 February 1972
Chart: Jerry Hopkins | Editor: Jann Wenner

The Hot 100 chart had solid lines for musical links. These links were (and still are) fascinating to music lovers. (The brilliant series of rock family trees by UK journalist, author and historian Pete Frame are similarly fascinating.)

More questionably, the chart had dotted lines for ‘romantic’ links. The dotted lines had hearts for existing relationships and broken hearts for previous ones.

The chart linked Mitchell musically to James Taylor, David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Neil Young.

Mitchell was linked ‘romantically’ – by dotted lines with broken hearts – to exes Crosby, Graham Nash and Taylor.

(Mitchell’s 1972 relationship with Jackson Browne hadn’t yet begun – and although Browne was part of that scene and his debut album had just been released, he wasn’t on the Hot 100 chart.)

The Hot 100 chart’s prurient mapping of ‘romantic’ connections was cheesy but apparently accurate. It could be argued the musical and romantic connections were inseparable parts of the story. As such, the chart was borderline-acceptable.

However, the Hot 100 chart crossed the line by singling Mitchell out for some bizarrely puerile and insulting treatment.

The names of all other female artists on the chart were printed normally. But Mitchell’s name was printed at an angle inside a large lipstick kiss, with the words ‘Kiss Kiss’ printed three times.

The Hot 100 chart, uncredited in the magazine, was drawn by the late Jerry Hopkins, author and journalist, who’d been Rolling Stone’s LA correspondent in the late 1960s.

In Joe Hagans’s 2017 biography of Rolling Stone editor Jan Wenner, Hopkins said he drew the chart as a joke, and it was Wenner who insisted on publishing it. Hopkins said:

    I was horrified, but not nearly so much as Joni was. I am grateful only that my name was not attached. Joni – if you see this, I’m sorry.

Why didn’t the horrified Hopkins refuse to let his chart be published? Was it owned – perhaps commissioned – by Wenner?

It seems unlikely that Hopkins produced his carefully detailed chart of musical connections as a joke. Perhaps his ‘joke’ comment referred to the chart’s ‘romantic’ connections. Or perhaps he was referring only to Mitchell’s ‘kiss kiss’ lipstick treatment.

But if Hopkins did that as a ‘joke’, then who was the joke meant for? Was it meant to complement his good friend Wenner’s apparent disdain for the LA folk-rock scene and his sniggering ‘Old Lady of the Year’ sense of humour?

Hopkins said he was sorry the chart was published. But was he sorry for the chart’s leeringly crude kiss graphic – which implicitly libelled Mitchell?

Hopkins died in 2018 after a long illness. Perhaps, when he was asked about the chart for Hagans’s 2017 biography of Wenner, he genuinely regretted that nasty ‘joke’.

In any case, Wenner, in printing the offensive chart in Rolling Stone, was attacking Mitchell again. But why?


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

Jann Wenner’s anti-Mitchell slurs – why?

Why did Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner insult Joni Mitchell by calling her Old Lady of the Year and printing the Hollywood’s Hot 100 chart with her name in a kiss graphic?

Was it gay misogyny? Although Wenner was married at that time to Rolling Stone co-funder Jane Wenner and was supposedly bisexual, he eventually emerged as gay. Male gay misogyny is a well-kept secret (masked, for instance, by the phenomenon of gay men tolerating straight women claiming close friendship).

Beauty and the Beast: the Wenners, 1968 | Baron Wolman

But those smears – and other later ones, such as saying ‘The Hissing of Summer Lawns’ was the worst album title of the year in 1975 – showed something more focussed than generic gay misogyny.

They showed Wenner’s obsessive personal animosity towards Mitchell (albeit unconvincingly presented as edgy humour).

San Francisco-based Wenner apparently scorned the LA folk-rock scene. (Rolling Stone slammed albums by CSNY, Neil Young and David Crosby.) But something beyond that must have irrationally wound him up.

As the necessarily forceful owner and editor of an internationally successful magazine, perhaps Wenner became autocratic and delusional – and felt entitled to indulge what was apparently his whimsical dislike of Mitchell.

    Wenner’s future cultural rehab group session: ‘Hi – I’m Jann. I’m an delusional autocrat with an irrational dislike of Joni Mitchell.’

    (Mitchell’s: ‘Hi – I’m Joni. I’m holding on to my bitterness and my irrational hatred of Jackson Browne.’)

Whatever its cause, Wenner’s anti-Mitchell campaign showed he had no respect for her widely acknowledged artistry.

That disrespect was life-long. The crass remarks Wenner made about Mitchell some 50 years later helped get him thrown off the board of his beloved Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. (See below.)

Back then, understandably offended by Wenner’s smears, Mitchell boycotted Rolling Stone for many years. Supposedly, she later threw tequila at Wenner during an awards ceremony and was then apparently blacklisted by the magazine – as described in her song Lead Balloon (on Taming the Tiger, 1998).

In 1979, because of her friendship with Rolling Stone writer Cameron Crowe, Mitchell broke her boycott and gave the magazine an interview – in which she dismissed Rolling Stone’s obsessive interest in her relationships as ‘ludicrous’.


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

The tide turned

Under owner Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone continued to mistreat Joni Mitchell for decades. But in 2017 Wenner sold the magazine and the tide turned.

In 2023 the magazine celebrated Mitchell’s overdue ‘Jonissance’ recognition; and belatedly repented its misogynist past.

Also in 2023 Wenner got his overdue comeuppance. Promoting his book of interviews (with exclusively white, male musicians), he vented his disrespect for Mitchell and his disdain for black musicians.

Those remarks led to Wenner’s removal from the board of directors of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame – which he’d co-founded.

Wenner’s irrational animosity was an obstruction on Mitchell’s long and winding road to superstardom. But in the end, she won her righteous feud with Wenner. Hoo-fucking-rah.

(Now she should end her pointless feud with Browne.)

I’ve asked Jann Wenner for his comments.


Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼

Mitchell’s revenge?

In March 2024, at an award tribute concert for Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Joni Mitchell sang a jazzy, swing version of I’m Still Standing – with her own lyrics.

The song wasn’t, as might be expected, about Mitchell’s ongoing recovery from her 2015 aneurysm. It was apparently her revenge for mistreatment by former Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner – and her celebration of his downfall.

In September 2023, Wenner, the man behind Rolling Stone’s damaging 1970s anti-Mitchell smear campaign, was sacked from the board of directors of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (which he’d co-founded) after he made derogatory remarks about black musicians – and about Mitchell.

For her performance of I’m Still Standing, Mitchell – apparently with the permission of John and Taupin – rewrote the song’s three verses.

Taupin’s lyrics express bitterness about the ending of a relationship. Mitchell’s lyrics (not her best work – perhaps hastily written) were thematically similar to Taupin’s. They were equally bitter – and aimed at someone who’d wronged her:

  • You’ll never know what love is like
  • You’re too self-centred and you’re too uptight
  • You’re cold and distant and you don’t care
  • I’ve seen the ugly side you hide behind that mask you wear
  • You’re not happy ’til you make me cry
  • That’s not gonna happen – look, my eyes are dry
  • And my heart’s not broken and my path is clear
  • And you were just a bumpy little detour, Dear
  • [Chorus]
  • You think you won, you think I lost
  • You’d get the sunshine and I’d get the frost
  • My life gets better for me every day
  • And I’m still standing while you just fade away
  • [Chorus]
  • [Bold: Taupin]

It might be thought Mitchell’s triumphal put-down was about Jackson Browne – keeping the hate warm after 50 years (and ignoring – or, to be fair, probably completely unaware of – this post’s appeal to her to let it go).

But whatever Mitchell thought of Browne, he clearly wasn’t just fading away. Like Mitchell, he was still standing. So it probably wasn’t about him.

The song could have been about the downfall of anyone who’d crossed Mitchell, but the timing of her exultant performance, just six months after her nemesis Wenner was humiliatingly sacked from the board of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, makes him the likely target.

Also, the ‘bumpy little detour’ from Mitchell’s ‘path’ matched this post’s description of Wenner’s campaign as an obstruction in Mitchell’s road to superstardom.

Mitchell can certainly hold a grudge.

Mitchell, who resumed public performances in 2021, was (still) standing on this occasion – with a stick – and was on good form.

The swing arrangement was very catchy, and (apart from some mistiming in the final chorus) Mitchell sang well. In spite of the caustic lyrics, she didn’t sound bitter – she sounded amused!

Mitchell’s eyes were shielded by tinted glasses, but she had a mischievous glint; and she was laughing and smiling. It was good to see.

Not bad for a post-aneurysm 80-year-old. She’s now truly Old Lady of the Year. Take that, Jann!

Smiling assassin, March 2024 | Taylor Hill/WireImage

Old Lady of the Year slur et al  🔼


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

Addendum 2

Movie News  🎬

Friendship and film

Still friends: Crowe and Mitchell, November 2022
Photo: Bruce Glikas/Getty Images

In 1979, Joni Mitchell broke her anti-Jann Wenner boycott of Rolling Stone by giving an interview to Cameron Crowe. (See above.) They became friends – and were now said to be planning a biopic about Mitchell.

Rolling Stone writer Crowe became a filmmaker, writing and directing films such as award-winners Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire (and the recent controversial flop Aloha).

A 2023 article said Crowe was developing a drama film with Mitchell about her life. That’s good news – but what about Jackson Browne? Will the film feature Mitchell’s obsessive hatred for Browne?

Will Crowe’s film, if it gets made, defame Browne, as Mitchell has? Or will it ignore her brief relationship with Browne and its 45-year aftermath? If Mitchell has an editorial say, the film is unlikely to tell the truth about her and Browne.

And – to complicate things – Crowe’s also been friends with Browne.

There was Crowe’s friendly 1974 Rolling Stone cover interview with Browne. And in 1982, because of their friendship, Browne co-wrote pop hit Somebody’s Baby for Crowe’s screenwriting-debut film, Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

If Crowe and Browne are still friends, Crowe might understandably prefer to airbrush Browne out of the Mitchell picture. (Like he airbrushed Mitchell out of his 1974 interview with Browne.)

Update: November 2024
Crowe said filming would begin soon and should be finished by the end of 2025. He said:

    It’s Joni’s life…through her prism … I get out of the way.

Oh dear. Wasn’t getting out of the way the approach taken by David Crosby for his lax production of Mitchell’s 1968 debut album Song to a Seagul?

A prism bends light. If Browne features in the film, will Crowe let Mitchell bend the truth?

Every documentary I’ve seen about Mitchell makes no mention of Browne. Is that coincidentally an editorial decision in every case, or is it that programme makers. seeking Mitchell’s approval, agree not to mention him?

They don’t need such approval. If facts about living people are in the public domain, and a filmmaker can accurately tell a story, the law allows them to do so without the agreement of the subject. But if it’s a film about a musician or a group, editorial control can be demanded in exchange for music rights.

(For instance the four new Beatles films – one about each Beatle – announced in February 2024 have got the music rights. According to the producer there’s ‘nothing off limits’ – but if McCartney has some editorial control, he may want to sanitise it.)

Update: November 2025
Filming, delayed by the LA wildfires, is now due to begin in 2026. Meryl Streep will play the older Mitchell.

Anyway… how about a (music-free) docudrama film based on this post? The facts are public – but it’s my story (registered with the Writers Guild of America). I’m open to offers


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

The end bit

Unhappy ending

Jackson Browne’s relationships with Joni Mitchell, Phylis Major and Daryl Hannah suggest not that he was an abusive man who liked to drive women to suicide, but rather that he was attracted to troubled women. It happens. Happily, he’s now apparently in a comparitively untroubled relationship.

Joni Mitchell, meanwhile, continues unrepentantly to be… Joni Mitchell. She should repent – if only for her own sake – of her pointless grudge against Browne. But she seems bitterly determined to take it to the grave, like a Norwegian snow-queen version of Miss Havisham.

Dear Reader, this sorry tale is told. Browne and Mitchell, briefly together in beautiful youth, then two middle-aged gods at war, are now ageing artists facing the dying of the light.

This post has sought to counter Mitchells’s libellous anti-Browne campaign. But perhaps in the long run it signifies nothing other then a sad story of love turned to hate. I wish the best to both of them.

Ageing antagonists, 2024 | Jackson Browne: Nels Israelson | Joni Mitchell: Getty Images


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

Reference material

Look it up
Books | Wrong! | The missing book | Mitchell’s official website


Reference material  🔼

Books

Same 1968 photo of Joni on both books | Photo of Mitchell: Jack Robinson/Hulton Archives/Getty Images

This post refers to and quotes from two biographies which cover Jackson Browne and Joni Mitchell’s relationship:

    (There’s an excellent review of Yaffe’s book in Goodreads.)

Weller interviewed confidantes of her three subjects. Yaffe drew mainly on his conversations with Mitchell, recorded in 2015 shortly before her aneurysm.


Reference material  🔼

Wrong!

The two biographies both get one thing wrong when writing about Mitchell’s Not to Blame. They both wrongly say Daryl Hannah accused Browne of assaulting her.

Weller (P 411):

    Browne’s longtime girlfriend, actress Daryl Hannah, accused him of beating her up

Yaffe (P 343):

    Hannah claimed that Browne beat her badly enough to put her in a hospital

That’s careless – Hannah made no such explicit accusation. The only public statement made was a carefully worded press release issued on the day of the incident:

    Daryl Hannah received serious injuries incurred during a domestic dispute with Browne for which she sought medical treatment.

That clever wording implies Browne assaulted her but doesn’t actually say so.

(Why not? In my sister-post, Jackson Browne & Daryl Hannah, I conclude Hannah probably got those injuries when Browne defended himself against her autistic rage attack.)


Reference material  🔼

The missing book

There’s not much published information available about Jackson Browne’s life in the 1970s. There’s an unhelpful Rolling Stone interview – and a rare out-of-print book.


The unhelpful Rolling Stone interview

Baby love: Jackson and Ethan Browne on the cover of the Rolling Stone | May 1974 | Photo: Annie Leibovitch

The 1974 Rolling Stone cover interview with Browne by Cameron Crowe was well researched, but only selectively revealing. (RS is paywalled – there’s a transcript here.)

The interview relayed Browne’s open, rambling recollections of his teenage years (including his 1960s New York encounters with Nico, Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed), but was less revealing about his more recent life.

Crowe briefly mentioned Browne’s relationship with Phyllis Major (referring to her only as ‘Phyllis’), but although Browne spoke about their baby, Ethan, he didn’t mention Major at all.

There was also no mention in the interview of Browne’s 1972 affair with Joni Mitchell.

The interview highlighted the January 1972 release of Browne’s eponymous debut album. But, bizarrely, the interview stopped abruptly short of relating the international promotional tour Browne then did with Mitchell.

The US and European tour began in February 1972. Browne opened for Mitchell, who was promoting her upcoming fifth album, For the Roses (released in November 1972). Their relationship began during the tour.

But the interview censored that. After reporting the release of Browne’s first album in January 1972, Crowe skipped ahead a year and a half to Browne’s next album, For Everyman, released in October 1973.

Browne spoke about how fame made him self-conscious, Crowe wrote about Browne’s friends and collaborators, Browne recalled meeting Dylan – and that was it.

1972 was a big year for Browne:

  • His first album was released.
  • He toured internationally.
  • He began and ended an intense relationship with Joni Mitchell.
  • He met the woman he was now living with, with whom he had a baby.

But 1972 was almost completely airbrushed out of the 1974 Rolling Stone interview. Weirdly, there’s nothing in the interview about Browne and Mitchell.


The missing book  🔼

The rare out-of-print book

The rare book I’m missing is Jackson Browne – the story of a hold out by Rolling Stone writer Rich Wiseman (Doubleday, 1982).

Apparently it’s good. But it’s out of print and it’s $50 or more for a used paperback. My blog’s (deliberately) un-monetised, I’m retired – and I can’t afford it. (Cue violins.) If anyone can send me a copy, please let me know.


Reference material  🔼

Mitchell’s official website

I’ve also found much useful material on Mitchell’s official website, a comprehensive labour of love started, managed, maintained and mainly funded by Les Irvin, the fan who knows (almost) everything about Mitchell.

Joni and Les, September 1997 | Photo: FOJ

Reference material  🔼


The Actual End


Jackson Browne & Joni Mitchell
Contents
🔼 | Additional stuff 🔼

Comments

Dear Reader (or skimmer), feel free to comment. I’ll answer all comments.
(Sorry – to leave one, you have to scroll to the end of the comments. Blame WordPress.com…)


🌷
Bonus track:
Jackson Browne
By Chris Hughes (me)

Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Whatever happened to Andrew Gillingham?

August 2023 | 1,250 words | Contents

The sycophant and his rottweiler: UK premier Tony Blair and his director of communications Alastair Campbell in 2007 | Photo: Ben Curtis / PA


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Top🔺

Contents

Introduction
The ‘dodgy’ dossier
Gilligan’s Today report – and its aftermath
The Hutton inquiry
Fake intelligence and war
Whatever happened to Andrew Gilligan?
Misguided Muslim criticism of Gilligan


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

Introduction

In my post about the 2022 anti-Muslim Hindutva march in my home city of Leicester, UK, I said a Muslim activist who’d muddied the waters with misinformation had been exposed in 2014 as an Islamist. The reporter who exposed him was Andrew Gilligan.

Gilligan was the BBC reporter who in 2003 famously broke the ‘dodgy’ dossier story in the UK shortly after the Iraq war began. His report kicked off a massive row with the Labour government of premier Tony Blair.

Tragically, Gilligan’s source, civil servant David Kelly, committed suicide after being outed by Blair’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. Criticised by the inquiry into Kelly’s death, Gilligan was forced to resign from the BBC.

So was Gilligan a good journalist? Was his Islamism exposé reliable?

And whatever happened to him?


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

The ‘dodgy’ dossier

In 2002 in the wake of al-Qaeda’s 2001 9/11 attack on New York, idiotic US president George W Bush was planning to attack Iraq – and sought the UK’s support. Sychophantic UK premier Tony Blair agreed immediately, famously writing to Bush, ‘with you, whatever’.

In February 2003, UK government director of communications Alastair Campbell released a dossier assessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Crucially, Blair’s foreword to the dossier, referring to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, said:

    ‘His military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.’

    [My bolding]

In March 2003 sychophant Blair took the UK to war – without waiting for UN approval, and in spite of an anti-war protest in February in London by over one million people.


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

Gilligan’s Today report – and its aftermath

On 29 May 2003, Andrew Gilligan, then defence correspondent for Today, the BBC’s flagship radio news programme, reported that the February dossier’s ‘WMD in 45 minutes’ claim was unreliable, but had been added to make the dossier ‘sexier’.

After the broadcast, furious government director of communications Campbell went into spin overdrive; and went on the hunt for Gilligan’s source. But Gilligan and the BBC stood firm.

In June a newspaper article by Gilligan was titled:

    ‘I asked my intelligence source why Blair misled us all over Saddam’s weapons. His reply? One word: Campbell‘.

    [My bolding]

On 8 July spin doctor Campbell, having found Gilligan’s source, outed him to the media. The source was David Kelly, a top UK government weapons expert.

On 15 and 16 July, Kelly was questioned by parliamentary committees. Some of the questioning was overtly hostile.

On 17 July, Kelly died, supposedly by suicide.


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

The Hutton inquiry

In August 2003 the government appointed judge Brian ‘Lord’ Hutton to hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of whistleblower David Kelly.

In his report in January 2004, Hutton concluded Kelly died by suicide.

As for the ‘circumstances’, Hutton’s BBC-bashing, government-whitewashing report deliberately missed the point: Blair’s dodgy dossier.

Ignoring most of the evidence presented, Hutton ridiculously exonerated the government of blame (apart from criticising them for not warning Kelly he was about to be named); and – even more ridiculously – said Andrew Gilligan’s original accusation was ‘unfounded’.

In the face of Hutton’s anti-BBC nitpicking, Gilligan admitted careless note-taking, and asserting some uncorroborated facts; and the BBC admitted editorial lapses.

Gilligan, the BBC chair and the BBC director-general resigned. In his resignation statement, Gilligan said:

    This report…seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers.


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

Fake intelligence and war

Despite the minor errors uncovered by the blinkered cavilling of Brian Hutton’s inquiry, Andrew Gilligan’s shocking report, far from being ‘unfounded’, as Hutton ridiculously claimed, was substantially true.

As David Kelly briefed and Gilligan reported, the dossier’s WMD claim was known to be highly unreliable but was nevertheless included to boost the case for war.

The ‘WMD in 45 minutes’ claim turned out to be, in fact, completely untrue – as did every single allegation in the dossier. The dossier had been cobbled together from various plagiarised non-intelligence sources.

Tony Blair claims he didn’t know the ‘intelligence’ was dodgy, but he’s widely disbelieved. Hence his nickname: Bliar.

Idiot Bush also used fake intelligence in the build-up to war. False information about al-Qaeda in Iraq was obtained by torture. The real US motive for the war was lucrative oil deals and private military contracts for idiot Bush’s billionaire friends.

World-wide protests by ten million people and Gilligan’s revelation of fake intelligence had no effect on the progress of the coalition’s ‘shock and awe’ bombardment.

UK operations ended in 2009. The US finally withdrew in 2011. By the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of people had died needlessly.

A brutal regime was deposed, but the unplanned aftermath, like the eight-year war, was a shambles. 12 years later, the country’s still ruined.

Blair’s reputation was deservedly destroyed.


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

Whatever happened to Andrew Gilligan?

Since the Iraq war controversy, Andrew Gilligan, having presumably improved his journalistic technique to avoid repeating the errors famously detailed in the Hutton report, has recovered his maligned reputation.

He’s been nominated for five awards, one of which he won.

In 2008 Gilligan was named Journalist of the Year by the UK Press Awards panel for his investigative reports into cronyism and corruption by Labour London mayor Ken Livingstone’s administration.

Gilligan’s award-winning work was described as ‘relentless investigative journalism at its best’.

In 2016, Gilligan lost his job as London editor of the right-wing Torygraph in a wave of redundancies. He joined Murdoch rag The Sunday Times.

In 2023, having held several policy adviser posts, Gilligan became a ‘special adviser’ (aka ‘spad’) – one of about 40, each on about £100k of tax-payers’ money! – to (useless) Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak.

As a spad, Gilligan’s credited with persuading Sunak to drop the northern extension of super-rail vanity project HS2.

(The electorate kicked the useless Tories out in July 2024.)

Having specialised in advising on transport, Gilligan, now a freelance journalist, writes articles on, for instance, why Labour’s rail nationalisation won’t work.

Gilligan’s also a ‘senior fellow’ and head of transport and infrastructure at Policy Exchange, the influential, anti-democratic, neoliberal, far-right, big-oil-funded, lobbyist ‘thinktank’.

So Gilligan’s a right-wing neoliberal. He’s a close friend of disgraced superclown Bonzo Johnson (former PM and self-seeking Tory liar); and his two most well-known journalistic targets were Labour politicians.

But despite that, and despite Hutton’s criticism, Gilligan’s basically a good journalist. He was right about Blair’s dodgy dossier – and he’s won a major journalism award.

Not just a pretty face: Andrew Gilligan, award-winning journalist (and former political advisor to the former PM) | Photo: Scott Barbour / Getty

So, to answer the question that prompted this post, Gilligan’s exposé of the Leicester Muslim activist seems reliable.


Gilligan, Blair and the Iraq war

Contents🔺

Misguided Muslim criticism of Gilligan

Andrew Gilligan’s 2014 report of a Leicester Muslim activist as an Islamist was apparently one of many such exposés he made at that time. His anti-Islamism mission attracted some Muslim criticism – but that criticism was misguided.

Gilligan was criticised by Muslim websites including prominent British Muslim news website 5Pillars for his relentless – possibly obsessive – pursuit of Islamism in the UK.

A 2015 5Pillars article indignantly listed the many people and organisations outed by Gilligan.

(The list notably excluded 5pillars favourite Majid Freeman, the Leicester Muslim activist exposed by Gilligan in 2014. Delusional stirrer Freeman was involved in the 2022 Leicester riots and in 2024 was charged with terror offences.)

The 5Pillars article offered no refutations, only saying Gilligan’s campaign, mainly conducted, apparently, in the Torygraph, caused Islamaphobia:

    What is of greater concern is how The Telegraph … has allowed Gilligan to feed the general public with this dangerous rhetoric, which has played a significant role in the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred in the UK.

5Pillars and other Muslim websites criticised Gilligan for exposing Islamism, but they should have thanked him – for defending their religion. As with Hindutva and Hinduism, Islamism poisons Islam.

The controversial 5Pillars could address anti-Muslim feeling by rooting out Islamism themselves (and by not publishing homophobic material and false-flag conspiracy theories about Islamist terror attacks).

It’s not Gilligan’s anti-Islamism campaign that’s caused Islamophobia – it’s Islamism that does that.

The supportive or ambivalent attitude towards Islamism shown by some UK Muslims doesn’t help. Neither do the misconceived denials issued by Muslim representatives after Islamist atrocities.

What’s missing is a public campaign by UK Muslims against Islamism. They’d have to start by admitting that Islamism comes from Islam – but the insecure Muslim diaspora hates to admit fault.


Contents🔺

Top🔺

End

Blog News: Modi to Blair to Brexit

Adobe/Shutterstock

Blog News (a new feature!)
August 2023

Some linked posts, new and not so new

From Muslim killer Modi to Iraq war criminal Blair to all-round disaster Brexit in several complicated moves

I’ve written – am still writing – a new post about the involvement of Hindu-supremacy à la Modi – Narendra Modi – in last year’s Leicester riots:

During the Leicester riots, a self-important stirrer turned out to be an Islamist supporter. But could the reporter who exposed him be trusted after what the Hutton report said about him?

The reporter was Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who in 2003 exposed the Iraq war’s famous dodgy dossier. He was criticised by Hutton and forced to resign.

I checked Gilligan out and concluded that having won a UK Journalist of the Year award, he could (despite being right-wing and a close friend of disgraced superclown Boris ‘Bonzo’ Johnson) be trusted as a journalist.

Re the case of the dodgy dossier, Gilligan had taken on egomaniac Labour PM Tony Blair (high on his sycophancy to US toytown president George W Bush) and his feral PR rottweiler Alastair Campbell.

It didn’t go well for Gilligan. (It went worse for his source, government weapons expert David Kelly, who – supposedly – killed himself.) But Gilligan recovered – unlike the now disgraced Blair.

I put the story in a separate post:

As if Blair’s balls-up in Iraq wasn’t bad enough, there’s also Brexit, Britain’s disastrous 2016 decision to exit the European Union. That was also Blair’s fault.

Blair’s enthusiastic 2004 promotion of EU enlargement and the consequent unrestricted free-movement mass immigration to the UK from Eastern Europe – unrestricted because Blair chose not to use the permitted restrictions that, for instance, Germany and France used – led inevitably to grass-roots precariat pressure for a referendum and to the leave result.

See my (still relevant, I think) older posts:

Whilst double-checking I was right about Blair and Brexit – I was! – I came across an excellent 2016 article by Dr Erica Consterdine in the UK edition of international explanatory journalism magazine The Conversation:

(I emailed Dr C to ask for her comments. Sadly, she didn’t reply.)

Top 🔺

End

Accidentally Zen

A poem | March 2024

your mind disintegrates
you’ve lost control
of your bodily functions

you cling to the wreckage of your mind
you’re living with dementia
advanced dementia

your ego’s shattered
let it go
you’re accidentally Zen

a thread survives, the thread
your core being
you breathe, it answers

follow the guide
follow your breath
let go of the wreckage for a while

float a while
in the ocean of bliss
and forget the forgetting

Hugo Brucciani | 2021

Editor’s note: In a rare interview, Brucciani said he got the idea for this poem from his haphazard hippie studies of Eastern mysticism. “If we’re not our minds or our memories, it should be OK to lose them.”

Blog News: ‘Tw*t’ removed

Adobe/Shutterstock

Blog News #2
January 2024

Men saying ‘tw*t’ is just wrong

Smug self-censorship

I’ve removed all instances of ‘tw*t’ (as an insult) from this blog. It’s not as obvious, but it’s the same as the c-word. I realised (too late) men saying ‘tw*t’ as an insult is wrong. It’s crude – in a bad way. (Unless you’re a poet like John Cooper Clarke.) But there’s no satisfactory non-genitalia-related alternative. Twit? Prat? Not quite the same meaning. And ‘tw*t! is such a satisfing expletive to explete! For the last time: Twat!

AI can mean leisure – with UHI

November 2023

Look into my eyes…you will subscribe to X Premium | Detail of book cover photo: Art Streiber/August | Book: Elon Musk / Simon & Schuster, 2023

Note: Social credit as referred to here is nothing to do with the Big-Brother Chinese social credit system

At a 2023 UK conference on artificial intelligence, visiting US multi-billionaire Elon Musk – owner of Tesla and X – put forward a good idea: universal high income. But it’s not original.

100 years ago the UK Social Credit movement said (in effect – there was some complex economic and religious theory) that technology could mean leisure if the state paid a ‘dividend’ to all.

The dividend wouldn’t have been a handout. It’s owed to the people for the underpaid contribution made by them and their ancestors to the current wealth. (That debt still hasn’t been paid.)

Back then, it never happened (apart from some half-baked Canadian experiments), and the movement all-but fizzled out.

However, the movement survived – as the UK Social Credit Secretariat. Also, currently trending, there’s a related but highly diluted version: universal basic income (UBI).

At the 2023 AI conference, Musk said artificial intelligence means no one will need to work, but only if they get a universal high income – a universal basic income would be insufficient.

Unusually for Musk, this makes sense: a state-provided universal high income (UHI) could replace wages, thereby allowing civilisation to continue without wage-slavery.

And there’s no need to hang it on the futuristic threat of mass job-losses caused by AI. We can do it right now.

But how can a UHI be funded? At, say, £20,000 a year for all adults, it’ll cost the UK over £1tn a year – which obviously can’t be tax-funded.

A UHI can only be funded by the state issuing money as social credit – meaning money issued as credit for the good of society – rather than banks issuing money as profit-making debt.

States currently – historically – outsource their legal responsibility for issuing money: they delegate it to banks. Almost all money is issued by banks as debt – and is then lent to the state! It’s legalised bank robbery: robbery by the banks.

But states can reclaim their responsibility for issuing money and end the environment-destroying debt economy by issuing all money as social credit.

Such social credit will replace income tax and state borrowing. It can fund a UHI and all social spending: green energy, transport, water, health, care, housing, justice, education, infrastructure, defence, etc.

All debt, personal and business, can be forgiven – it’s a new start.

£2tn a year should do it for the UK. The Bank of England can finally make itself useful and stop kowtowing to neoliberal ‘market forces’.

The £200bn or so a year currently invested in UK businesses can be given interest-free to monitored business accounts on receipt of sound business plans including green, social and inclusive considerations.

The UK stock market will reform to facilitate this. Savings accounts and pension funds can contribute to investment by trading in the reformed stock market and sharing the profits of successful companies.

However, the ‘growth’, consumerism and built-in obsolescence needed to service debt will no longer drive business policy.

Privatised utility shareholders can be paid off and utilities run as non-profits.

The unconditional UHI will replace benefits and the state pension. People will, of course, be free to take whatever work is available or to run businesses – for extra money or for personal fulfillment.

There’ll be no hyperinflation: the social credit money issued wil be spent into the economy in a virtuous cycle.

There there’s the pleasure of telling the international money market, the World Bank and the IMF to go fuck themselves. A nation’s social credit money will be intrinsically acceptable for international trading purposes.

One loss will be bankers’ bonuses. What a shame. (Deprived of their scam, banks will have to find a more useful – if less lucrative – role.)

(See also my post Robots could mean leisure.)

Please feel free to comment. (I answer all comments.)

What did Philip K Dick think of Blade Runner?

Digest: He hated the first screenplay he saw, but loved the second one – and the pre-release screening he saw.

Dystopia: Blade Runner‘s Los Angeles | Warner Bros

December 2025 – the lost post

Sadly, my original post was somehow deleted from my blog in November 2025, presumably by me by mistake. By the time I realised, the trash had been emptied – and WordPress.com doesn’t do back-up (at least not on my budget ‘plan’).

After I’d finished weeping and wailing, I found an as-viewed version dating from December 2024, fortunately archived by the wonderful Wayback Machine. There’s a link to it below.

Theres no way I can redo this as a proper post, and no way I can remember and redo the many edits and additions I made between December 2024 and November 2025. They’re lost, like tears in rain. (Too much?)

One thing: I’d like to take back everything I say in my post about BR 2049. I just watched it again and realised – it’s really good! Clearly, I didn’t watch it properly the first time – I must have been too stoned. Sorry, Dennis. Sorry, Hampton. Sorry, Ryan.

Another thing: just before I realised the post was lost, I was about to add something about Hampton Fancher’s screenplays and whether Ridley Scott read the book.

I’d come across a fascinating 1981 interview* in which co-writer David Peoples said Scott was very interested in the book’s animal theme but they hadn’t been able to use that. Apparently Scott got that interest not from reading Dick’s book – he started and found it ‘too difficult’ – but from Fancher’s screenplay(s).

*Interview in Starlog #85, May 1982: Blade Runner: Screenwriters Fancher & Peoples Clear The Air by film historian and author James Van Hise.

So maybe Fancher was more sympathic to the book than I’d realised. Maybe my post misrepresents the Dick-Fancher conflict.

In 1981 Dick said of his 1975 association with Fancher: ‘We had a lot of fun together. I became real good friends with him.’ But he dismissed Fancher’s script as a ‘destruction of the novel’ and ‘Philip Marlowe meets The Stepford Wives‘.

Perhaps that’s why Fancher gainsaid Dick’s recollection of fun and friendship, dismissively saying (in 2017) that although Dick was a genius he was ‘crazy’ and ‘took all the oxygen’.

Perhaps Fancher, apparently the only person involved with the film who actually read the book, deeply resented Dick’s criticism.

Dick then saw a later script, which he understood to be a rewrite by Peoples, the experienced writer brought in by Scott. Peoples has said that on Scott’s advice, he also didn’t read the book. But Dick, thinking Peoples must have read his book, praised the new script as a miraculous transformation of Fancher’s script based on Peoples’ reading of the book. He said:

    [Peoples] took a good book and made a good screenplay … They’re beautifully symmetrical, a real miracle.

Peoples demurred, saying there may have been sections by both writers in both the scripts Dick saw. He said when he was brought in he couldn’t improve on Fancher’s script, which he said was ‘terrific’, ‘brilliant’, ‘fantastic’, ‘awesome’ and even, in parts, ‘exquisite’.

That’s high praise from the award-winning Peoples. And it’s clear that only Fancher read the book. So… maybe Fancher’s not so bad. 😳

Anyway, this is the archived, as-viewed, December 2024 version of my lost post:

This archived post includes links to my other posts as available at that time – but please don’t link to them there. All my posts are available up-to-date from the menu at the top of the page here. Thanks.

Top