Or as normal as life gets post 9/11.
This last week seems to have seen a certain amount of normality returning to ones day to day life. If one looks at the news, the attack on the US still of course dominates the headlines (except of course for The Sun which was good enough to use it's front page yesterday to inform the world that Elton John like girls; rather dashed my hopes of living a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of a sugar daddy actually but I suppose it means my rectum can now live free from the fear of being brutally invaded by a faded rock star whose wigs and hair weaves get more press than he does...) but the rest of the news is gradually expanding to take up more than a few minutes on the 10 o clock news. We are also being exhorted by the great and good to carry on our lives. "Life must go on" is becoming something of a catchphrase amongst politicians now; Giulianni, Dubya, and Blair are all growing increasingly fond of it. So how does the world go about its daily business after such an apocalyptic event?
Well, seemingly it does so in pretty much the same way as it did beforehand. The Elton John headline is one example; one can rely on The Sun to distract us from our daily lives with amusing and sometimes well-written inanities. In Northern Ireland there were loyalist riots last night; presumably in the new climate of anti terrorism those good Protestants took it upon themselves to shoot and bomb those Catholics whom they considered terrorists (i.e. any and all Catholics that they could get there hands on). So we can content ourselves with the knowledge that at least one of the sides in that continuing saga remains as ignorant, stupid, and intolerant as ever.
Of course, some things have radically altered. The idea of the relationship between Iran and the UK developing in the way it has in the last week would have been unthinkable before September 11th, yet the press and political commentators are now pro-Iranian and act as if they have been all their lives. No-one seems to want to point out how unusual, not to mention fantastic, this is. Is that because after the events of that black Tuesday, we want to be reassured with certainties? And if that is the case, is that why events like this are talked of as if they had been expected for years and that no-one should worry themselves about it? That it is, in fact, business as usual?
This is also an opportune moment for me to say something that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would. Dubya made a speech to Congress last week, and it was absolutely bloody brilliant. There, I said it. It was well delivered and displayed none of the usual mangling of the language that has become his forte. It also stopped well short of being the gung-ho, dead or alive, "I think I'm in a movie", rabble rousing diatribe that I had feared and expected. Yet this, when reported on, has had the subtext of "Well what else did you expect? He always makes excellent speeches." If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would begin to compare the media's behaviour with that of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 which saw past newspapers being altered so that the predictions of the past gelled with the facts of the present.
With that in mind we also have the sight of certain people taking advantage of the current, rather peculiar social climate to say or do things that would have caused howls of either amusement or outrage (depending on whether or not you read the Daily Mail) before the 11th. Michael Jackson for example is threatening to sue the BBC over comments made by Iain Lee about Jacko's legendary fondness for children. There was a time not so long ago when this would have caused splutters of disbelief; the man who felt the need to give a multi million dollar settlement to a child who claims that he was sexually abused by Jackson trying to sue an almost unheard of comedian who made his comments on Liquid News which airs on BBC 24hr News. I feel the need to mention the program, as you may not have ever heard of it. I feel the need to mention the name of the comedian, as he is one of the most cancerously unfunny men in televisual history. Michael Jackson apparently feels the need to boost the career of one and the ratings of another by getting upset about comments that, until I read about him intending to sue, I had never even heard. This is pretty much passing by without any comment from the media about how ridiculous the whole affair is. I suspect that in the next few weeks, no-one will want to be seen to be making waves in the press and so Jacko, either by accident or design, is taking full advantage of this.
But, as there are two sides to every coin, one can also say or do good things that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago. The best example of this would be one of my all time favourite bugbears; Israel and Palestine. Jack Straw (a man who looks more like a Gestapo officer every time I see him) wrote that Arab anger over Palestine was one of the major motivations of Middle Eastern based terrorists. He also visited Iran and Jordan to get support for the coalition against...actually, I'm not quite sure exactly who it's meant to be against but we'll leave that for now. In any case, both his statement and his actions are quite correct. Unless you're an Israeli politician in which case both are racist. Never mind the fact that Straw took the opportunity to state that the Iranian view of Israel as a racist and Zionist country was, in his opinion, utter nonsense. Israel brooks no criticism of it's handling of Palestine, however appalling it may be. It would appear that Israel is unhappy that the rest of the world, having been growing increasingly sick of the heavy handed brutality that is routinely used against Palestinians, has leapt upon the opportunity to point out just how ghastly the likes of Shimon Peres et al are. Of course there are those who use this as an excuse to trot out the usual anti-Semitic rubbish but if one discounts them, the mood of the media seems to be fast becoming anti-Israeli concerning their treatment of Palestinians. Peres has always been a jumped up little thug who, but for an accident of birth, would have been far more at home in the Nazi party. It is pleasing to see that message being brought into our homes by the press.
And finally of course, there is politics. Politics seems to have been put on hold since the 11th. This means that we have missed the election of Darth Tory as the Conservative Party leader as well as the fact that the only right-wingers that aren't included in his shadow cabinet are Hermann Goering and Dr. Josef Goebbals. Those great irrelevancies, the party conferences, have for once been under reported and (oh please let this be true) cut back to 2 days instead of a full week. However, this more than anything else is an area where doing strange new things whilst making it seem as if life has always been this way is the most dangerous. Whilst I am fairly ambivalent about the issue of compulsory ID cards, one must acknowledge the strong feeling that this issue causes. Yet there is the danger that an ID card law can be brought in whilst we're not looking. It seems somehow disrespectful to the public to do that, and I hold out hope that it will not yet be the case. But I would hope that people keep an eye on the political scene now more than ever. Not to protect us from our government, but rather to gently remind them when they're going wrong.
So would appear that, despite the spectre of war (worldwide or localised) life does indeed go on. It has become a case of everything is different and it all stays the same. Who knows, perhaps next time I'll be writing about how Jeffrey Archer was hard done by, how the Conservative party is the bright future of British Politics, and how impressed I am with the warm and humane treatment of the Palestinians in Israel.
Tuesday 25 September 2001
Friday 21 September 2001
Feed my Conspiracy
Though my approach is rather scattergun, I stand by this essay; the majority of Conspiracy theorists are so single-minded and egocentric that they ensure any legitimate concern or opposition to government pronouncements can be safely dismissed as the frothings of a lunatic.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Tuesday 18 September 2001
One Week Later
Unfortunately, the latter option of the final paragraph seems to have been the one that has come to pass.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
Wednesday 12 September 2001
The day after the day before
Today there are numerous questions that remain unanswered. I could write all day about them but I shall limit myself to a few that are pertinent to that which I have wrote about previously. Firstly, what does this mean for the Palestinian people? Secondly, what does this mean for Dubya? Finally, what does this mean for the world and for democracy?
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
Friday 7 September 2001
The Red Mist
A fairly straightforward rant about the nature of Anger coupled with it's relevance to a then-current news story.
Anger.
Anger is a curious and oft ignored motivation. It is also one that has been at the forefront of the British news recently, together with its attendant emotions of anguish and humiliation. The latter two are best evidenced (if you're English) by the eminently satisfying reports in the German media concerning the 5-1 drubbing that was dished out to the national team on Saturday. But I mention this only in passing. If one wants to look at anger in the news, one should look no further than the Ardoyne Road in Belfast.
For the last week there has been some horrifically ugly scenes as parents tried to walk their children to school. This act has angered the residents of Ardoyne Road so much that they have attempted to blockade the route to the school and have hurled everything from abuse to bottles at both parents and children. The police have been accused of heavy handedness by the Ardoyne residents, but truth be known they have acted with that force which was necessary to repel them from the pupils of the Holy Cross school. The only reason it may have appeared excessive is that the fury of the people of Ardoyne is so great, so passionate, that it literally took a small army of baton wielding policemen to batter and force them back.
So what has caused all of this anger? Obviously it cannot be the mere fact that some children are walking through their street to get to school. We are told that the reason is a simple one; Holy Cross school is Catholic. The Ardoyne Road is Protestant. The Protestants don't want Catholic's walking through their street as they "feel intimidated". So intimidated in fact that they have suddenly felt the need to turn out in force and bay like wolves at the moon every weekday morning as the children make their frightened way to school.
There has been much said this week of the barbarity of the Ardoyne residents. Even hardened loyalists have frowned upon their behavior, with some commenting that it makes them ashamed to be Protestant. What strikes me about much of the coverage of the disgraceful scenes this week is the assumption that the anger of the Ardoyne is a choice that was rationally made leading to quite voluntary attendance in the mob every morning. Personally, I'm not so sure. These people are Angry with a capital A, that much is for certain. After all, our society is littered with taboos concerning the ill treatment of children (just look at the storm generated by Brass Eye if one wants an example) and yet these people are turning up five mornings a week with the specific intent of screaming hate filled vitriol at a group of 8 to 11 year olds.
I suspect that if it were put in just those terms to the Ardoyne residents then they would perhaps pause for a little thought. But then again, perhaps not. After all, something has caused this tremendous anger, and I cannot believe that it is simply the fact that some children from one local yet distinct group are walking through an area populated by people belonging to another group who are their traditional opponents to get to school. Good lord if that were the case then the boy from Sunderland who attended my High School in Newcastle would have had to run a gauntlet of fury every morning (which, come to think of it, wouldn't have been so bad as he was a noted and notorious git). So why the extreme anger?
In my experience, one doesn't get the choice about whether to be angry or not. One simply reacts to circumstances. Who among us can say that they have sat down and made a conscious decision to get angry about something? Anger is something primal, and logical thought has no place in its genesis. The most ridiculous things can cause it. We are contemptuous of the Ardoyne residents for their anger at schoolchildren, yet I have in my time been roused to fury by my football team losing, or by my girlfriends constant snoring (the kind that sort of hangs around in the background noise when one is trying to sleep, only to rise to a brief crescendo when one is on the very cusp of unconsciousness; most annoying!). If I were to think rationally about these things, the pointlessness of my anger at them quickly becomes apparent. But who thinks rationally when angry? Anger is something that is essentially beyond our control.
So then, if we accept that the anger of the Ardoyne has as much justification as pretty much any other bout of hostility we can perhaps begin to look a little further into their ire. One thing that should be addressed from the very beginning is the mistaken belief that anger (and in particular anger that excites ones passion to the extent that one can proceed no further without either bellowing with rage and/or smashing up inanimate objects and, regrettably, people) is the sole preserve of the stupid. This is not at all the case and I would go as far as to say that it is stupid of anyone to think that. I don't think I'm being too arrogant by saying that I'm an intelligent person. And yet I've become so angry at times that I have screamed hatred and vitriol at whomever was unfortunate enough to be the target of my hostility. I've quite possibly broken holes in more walls than Tom and Jerry. Happily I have resisted the urge to lash out at people, contenting myself with becoming the scourge of kitchen walls instead. Einstein was not exactly noted for his 100% cool temper. If we were to really get into a debate on this one could point out an angry Jesus throwing the moneylenders from the temple. I'm entirely sure that some of the people in the Ardoyne mob are as intelligent or more so than I am (perhaps not quite at the level of Einstein or Jesus though...). But they're still there and their anger is no different to any of the other members of the mob.
This means that anybody can be held to the mercy of his or her rage. And it is not up to us to decide when it happens either. So are the people of the Ardoyne mere slaves to their spleen? Not entirely; I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling of fighting to keep control of your emotions when faced with something pretty much guaranteed to cause an explosion of rage. It is a strong willed person indeed who, faced with an event that causes one to feel almost unreal anger, manages to choke down their hate and attempt to look at the situation with a balanced view. The intoxicating thing about anger is that, at the time, it seems so completely right that one should react in this way. One is afforded a clarity that is rarely (if ever) in evidence during our normal life. Any and all moral objections are swept away. Whatever pockets of reason remain are ignored entirely. Whatever it is that excites our wrath is given our full and undivided attention. And usually, anger being what it is, we are entirely focused on how best to either destroy or hurt that which has caused us to feel this way. The fact that there could be all manner of justifications for the events that caused us to feel so is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that is of any concern is the anger that it has caused. It is for that reason that the people of the Ardoyne have been spitting bile at the children of Holy Cross. If someone objective can fully understand the causes of their anger (by which I mean truly understand rather than trotting out the usual sectarian spiel) then perhaps we can begin to hope that some of the hate can be lanced and that some semblance of normality can return to the Ardoyne.
Anger.
Anger is a curious and oft ignored motivation. It is also one that has been at the forefront of the British news recently, together with its attendant emotions of anguish and humiliation. The latter two are best evidenced (if you're English) by the eminently satisfying reports in the German media concerning the 5-1 drubbing that was dished out to the national team on Saturday. But I mention this only in passing. If one wants to look at anger in the news, one should look no further than the Ardoyne Road in Belfast.
For the last week there has been some horrifically ugly scenes as parents tried to walk their children to school. This act has angered the residents of Ardoyne Road so much that they have attempted to blockade the route to the school and have hurled everything from abuse to bottles at both parents and children. The police have been accused of heavy handedness by the Ardoyne residents, but truth be known they have acted with that force which was necessary to repel them from the pupils of the Holy Cross school. The only reason it may have appeared excessive is that the fury of the people of Ardoyne is so great, so passionate, that it literally took a small army of baton wielding policemen to batter and force them back.
So what has caused all of this anger? Obviously it cannot be the mere fact that some children are walking through their street to get to school. We are told that the reason is a simple one; Holy Cross school is Catholic. The Ardoyne Road is Protestant. The Protestants don't want Catholic's walking through their street as they "feel intimidated". So intimidated in fact that they have suddenly felt the need to turn out in force and bay like wolves at the moon every weekday morning as the children make their frightened way to school.
There has been much said this week of the barbarity of the Ardoyne residents. Even hardened loyalists have frowned upon their behavior, with some commenting that it makes them ashamed to be Protestant. What strikes me about much of the coverage of the disgraceful scenes this week is the assumption that the anger of the Ardoyne is a choice that was rationally made leading to quite voluntary attendance in the mob every morning. Personally, I'm not so sure. These people are Angry with a capital A, that much is for certain. After all, our society is littered with taboos concerning the ill treatment of children (just look at the storm generated by Brass Eye if one wants an example) and yet these people are turning up five mornings a week with the specific intent of screaming hate filled vitriol at a group of 8 to 11 year olds.
I suspect that if it were put in just those terms to the Ardoyne residents then they would perhaps pause for a little thought. But then again, perhaps not. After all, something has caused this tremendous anger, and I cannot believe that it is simply the fact that some children from one local yet distinct group are walking through an area populated by people belonging to another group who are their traditional opponents to get to school. Good lord if that were the case then the boy from Sunderland who attended my High School in Newcastle would have had to run a gauntlet of fury every morning (which, come to think of it, wouldn't have been so bad as he was a noted and notorious git). So why the extreme anger?
In my experience, one doesn't get the choice about whether to be angry or not. One simply reacts to circumstances. Who among us can say that they have sat down and made a conscious decision to get angry about something? Anger is something primal, and logical thought has no place in its genesis. The most ridiculous things can cause it. We are contemptuous of the Ardoyne residents for their anger at schoolchildren, yet I have in my time been roused to fury by my football team losing, or by my girlfriends constant snoring (the kind that sort of hangs around in the background noise when one is trying to sleep, only to rise to a brief crescendo when one is on the very cusp of unconsciousness; most annoying!). If I were to think rationally about these things, the pointlessness of my anger at them quickly becomes apparent. But who thinks rationally when angry? Anger is something that is essentially beyond our control.
So then, if we accept that the anger of the Ardoyne has as much justification as pretty much any other bout of hostility we can perhaps begin to look a little further into their ire. One thing that should be addressed from the very beginning is the mistaken belief that anger (and in particular anger that excites ones passion to the extent that one can proceed no further without either bellowing with rage and/or smashing up inanimate objects and, regrettably, people) is the sole preserve of the stupid. This is not at all the case and I would go as far as to say that it is stupid of anyone to think that. I don't think I'm being too arrogant by saying that I'm an intelligent person. And yet I've become so angry at times that I have screamed hatred and vitriol at whomever was unfortunate enough to be the target of my hostility. I've quite possibly broken holes in more walls than Tom and Jerry. Happily I have resisted the urge to lash out at people, contenting myself with becoming the scourge of kitchen walls instead. Einstein was not exactly noted for his 100% cool temper. If we were to really get into a debate on this one could point out an angry Jesus throwing the moneylenders from the temple. I'm entirely sure that some of the people in the Ardoyne mob are as intelligent or more so than I am (perhaps not quite at the level of Einstein or Jesus though...). But they're still there and their anger is no different to any of the other members of the mob.
This means that anybody can be held to the mercy of his or her rage. And it is not up to us to decide when it happens either. So are the people of the Ardoyne mere slaves to their spleen? Not entirely; I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling of fighting to keep control of your emotions when faced with something pretty much guaranteed to cause an explosion of rage. It is a strong willed person indeed who, faced with an event that causes one to feel almost unreal anger, manages to choke down their hate and attempt to look at the situation with a balanced view. The intoxicating thing about anger is that, at the time, it seems so completely right that one should react in this way. One is afforded a clarity that is rarely (if ever) in evidence during our normal life. Any and all moral objections are swept away. Whatever pockets of reason remain are ignored entirely. Whatever it is that excites our wrath is given our full and undivided attention. And usually, anger being what it is, we are entirely focused on how best to either destroy or hurt that which has caused us to feel this way. The fact that there could be all manner of justifications for the events that caused us to feel so is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that is of any concern is the anger that it has caused. It is for that reason that the people of the Ardoyne have been spitting bile at the children of Holy Cross. If someone objective can fully understand the causes of their anger (by which I mean truly understand rather than trotting out the usual sectarian spiel) then perhaps we can begin to hope that some of the hate can be lanced and that some semblance of normality can return to the Ardoyne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)