We Are All Skyscrapers Now
On September 11, 2001 I was nowhere doing nothing while 2000 people were dying almost simultaneously.
A
week later we had the Anthrax attacks, which, like the 9/11 attacks,
have never been solved. Whoever the Antraxer was, he did manage to
infect one of the 9/11 hijackers, and so he stands as the only person to
have at least injured one of the terrorists.
That was also when we got the text scroll at the bottom of CNN and the definitive end of actionable information from CNN.
This is something I wrote a few weeks after 9/11. It is what it is. A lot has happened since.
If
the TV is any guide, 9/11 is a dramatic miniseries about two buildings
collapsing on firefighters, with the premiere being brought to us
commercial free. Gotta build an audience.
There's enormous
coverage, but no news. None of this is news, it is drama, portraits of
courage and sadness. Last phone calls between loved ones, "the last
time I saw him was when...", "when I saw the first Tower fall I..."
And firefighters. Lots of firefighters. America wants its real life heroes unarmed and unthreatening.
Lots
of sadness, but no anger. No one on TV is angry? The Towers didn't
fall, they were kicked in the face. How many politicians do I have to
watch cry on TV? STOP CRYING. I already know it's sad. Don't tell me
we are resilient, don't tell me we'll go on, are there people worried
they won't go on? Show me the country has some men in it, show me
that we aren't five year olds.
But we are. Cry on TV and
people will think you're sensitive, but bang a fist on the podium and
you're unstable. "He can't control his emotions." What?
According
to the TV, the real events of 9/11 happened not on the 95th floor, but
on the ground floor. I've been looking in the wrong place.
People
tell me that this coverage isn't about the terrorists, it's about the
aftermath, the victims; that there are other shows about the
terrorists.
Separating the TV shows this way fosters a separation
between the cause and the effect; we are focusing only on the effect,
because it is very hard for us to get our heads around the cause. In
doing this we are repackaging this event into a natural disaster.
Something that we have no power over, no way to prevent, but something
that must by necessity bring us together in our grief and our loss, and
something that we must get past. No sense in describing why earthquakes
happen, so let's delve into the victims' stories.
images of the planes being slammed into the Towers. "Come on, you've
seen it enough times, nothing to be gained from that. Here's a
firefighter."
I'm told anger serves no useful purpose. But sadness isn't going to prevent this from happening again, sadness isn't going to restructure the planet so that people don't want to do these things. You might say anger won't either, but I'll take my chances.
They say the hijackers were armed only with box cutters. If that's true, that tells me a lot about how they perceive Americans: they expected no resistance. Not even from the pilots. Would they have brought boxcutters to El-Al or Aeroflot hijacking?
When Timothy Mcveigh and Terry Nichols blew up the OK City Federal building, the media went right for the throat, it wasn't a natural disaster but an violent attack to which we immediately ascribed blame. And they were free to speculate: right wingers, militias, neo-nazis. But 9/11 is different, we don't know what to do with it so we do nothing with it. Say "they attacked us" and then off to the victims. You know the names of both OKC bombers, but you can't name one hijacker other than Mohammed Atta, who is the designated ringleader because his is the only name we can pronounce.
We
don't even know what to call the attacks, so we call it by its date:
"9/11." Just another day that we'll remember where we were when.
"That was such a sad and scary day." Yeah.
"We are all Americans now," announced Le Monde,
with no understanding at all. How can they sympathize with how we feel
when we ourselves don't know what we feel? This attack happened
because we're not all Americans, not even us Americans. Just a group of
individuals now slowly distancing ourselves. "I mean, I sort of knew
him, I'd seen him around and all, but we weren't close or anything..."
"We are all Americans" means to the writer at Le Monde:
"we could be next." That's all he cares about. He's right on that
count, I guess, dead right-- the next attack has to happen in a
different country if it is to have global impact.
If Le Monde
wanted accuracy, it would have announced that we are all skyscrapers
now, each of us standing mightily and individually, who is taller? who
is greater? Living in proximity but not in connection. Waiting to be
knocked down.
And when it happens to someone, our explanations
will really be about why it didn't happen to us: well, that skyscraper
wasn't built right and that skyscraper was too tall, too proud. What
happened to that skyscraper has nothing to do with me, I'm different,
I'm better, and besides, why would anyone hate me?
Because you're a skyscraper, dummy.
When the
towers fell and the pulverized remains of people who might have been
your friends poured through the dust into the streets of lower
New York, what did you feel? Which did you blame, America or Israel?
Oh, both. When someone asks you now about 9/11, do you answer "I am
sad" or "I am angry"? Or do you externalize your answer and put it in
the past tense, as if the emotion was something that came at you from
the outside, "it was sad", or "I felt angry"? Are you not sad or angry
anymore? How long did it take you to get over the worst attack on
America in history? A day, a week? How long before "cooler heads
prevailed"? Do you know people who you think "overreacted" to the
slaughter of 3000 Americans? As others dance while the bodies are
excavated in NYC, are you able to connect with the story? How do you
dialogue? Maybe you should cope on this for a while, until your cooler
heads prevail. Go shopping. Have a nap.
I don't want to cope. I want to see the videos of the planes being flown into the Towers. If we allow ourselves to choose the path of sadness, then nothing has been accomplished, everyone died for nothing. It will have been nothing more than an earthquake.
I don't want to get past this. Nor do I want it to get past me.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
September 11, 2011 10:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"You might say anger won't either, but I'll take my chances."
This anger (extrapolated to the public and converted into political will) resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Your "chances" caused a lot of death - a whole lot more than 9/11 - indirectly. I hope you realise this now.
Score: 6 (142 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 10:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Given what's happened in the intervening decade I can't agree with your main premise, but this line is absolutely spot on:
"How can they sympathize with how we feel when we ourselves don't know what we feel?"
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's true, but sadness alone wasn't the correct path either. Moping and moaning over the event wasn't appropriate, and invading Afghanistan was the right approach at the time. Iraq hardly has anything to do with 9/11 though.
And, as many have noted elsewhere, one of the many effects has been that no one is ever going to try to hijack a plane with box-cutters ever again (even without the stupid laws against it): passengers would resist, no one would stand for it, and people have a different view of what a hijacking is.
Plus there's a very clear disclaimer at the top.
PS I'm not American, and I was only 12 when it happened. (But I stand by what I said).
Score: 3 (23 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Death is bad, and bad is not good. Why don't you just say that?
Casualties of war are much different then blatant terrorism. I imagine you watched the news coverage and got sad, which is besides the point.
Yes there was a clusterfuck of activity in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and feel free to point out the lack of WMDs etc. The fact of the matter is there was a movement which resulted in the fundamental dismantling of a terrorist organization. The leader of which is now dead, and another dictator who openly killed his own population was put to rest.
These are results I didn't expect when dealing with a war centralized around ideology, because I didn't expect any results.
Score: -2 (34 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"sadness isn't going to restructure the planet so that people don't want to do these things."
Because nothing whatsoever is going to "restructure the planet so that people don't want to do these things." Thinking that something might is a childish fantasy that, if acted upon, will inevitably make things worse.
Score: 3 (35 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What bothers me about 9/11 is the victim complex that America developed in the aftermath. "Look at us, we are poor victims of terrorism! All we did was to meddle in a lot of other people lives, but we were doing it for their own good! Silly bastards, we loved you for what you could have been (nonthreatening obese brown people who watch desperate housewives) and that is how you repay us?"
I know this was exploited on purpose. After all, how can you be wrong if you are the victim? It also justified the "righteous" war against afghan insurgents, and since you were already there, why not hit Iraq? 10 years later, your wars killed more than 100k civilians. And you.are.still.the.victim. America, do you want to see real tragedy? Go see what you have done.
Score: 14 (74 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes there was a clusterfuck of activity in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and feel free to point out the lack of WMDs etc. The fact of the matter is there was a movement which resulted in the fundamental dismantling of a terrorist organization. The leader of which is now dead, and another dictator who openly killed his own population was put to rest.
The dismantling of the terrorist organization and the killing of its leaders happened in spite of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because of them.
Score: 5 (35 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Anger certainly isn't going to restructure the planet so that people don't want to do these things, "these things" are fuelled by anger. It's just feeding the cycle of violence (and obviously it's been used as a means to manipulate people into supporting political agendas that are about financing the war machine). People who have the strength to sit with their sadness, who aren't avoiding it with anger, are more capable of stepping outside of the cycle and taking action (and not just blindly reacting). You see an example of this in Israel with some of the parents of children that died in terrorist attacks choosing empathy over hate and reaching out to talk to each other.
Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 12:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't mistake sadness for self pity, they're not the same thing. Self pity is often a feature of anger and anger can be a rather typical narcissistic response to a false self image being challenged. People often prefer anger to sadness because anger can make us feel powerful and it can be a way to avoid feeling sad and vulnerable, and to avoid dealing with reality.
Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 2:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
They've "never been solved"? Really? Everything else you wrote is powerful, but that one sentence really sticks in my mind.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 4:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry friend, I´m just not invested in this whole ordeal to care enough one way or another. I had a nice lazy sunday today and ate a fine meal with some people I actually care about. Hope you did the same.
Score: -7 (23 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 5:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
After a decade of losing our collective shit, invading two countries, dismantling our civil liberties, and creating sweeping stereotypes with a good conscience, can't we just acknowledge that every country has tragedies, deals with enemies, and loses lives?
There's nothing terribly special about 9/11, except in the context of American Exceptionalism (read "narcissism" if it makes you feel better). Enough already.
Score: 16 (44 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 5:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Meh. I think I am with Robin Hanson on this one. Forget 9/11.
Score: -1 (13 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 10:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What in the name of all that's sane is wrong with finding the shitheads that did the deed, and putting them and their supporters where they can do no more harm? It wasn't a goddam earthquake and it wasn't a natural gas explosion: the murders of nearly 3000 humans were caused by followers of a religion that want earnestly to cut the heads off of any infidel on the earth. That time they used aircraft. Next time they'll use ? .
The appropriate response is to stop the threat and make damned sure anyone who knows of it understands the response. Seen a NAZI army lately? How about a Japanese threat to US shipping? A North Korean unification horde marching across the border? There are plenty of other threats and those are nourished by the observable actions of assholes who want to put MY neck on the chopping block in the name of co-existence. Well fine. I am all for co-existence and am a strong proponent of live-and-let-live. Until someone or some culture demands my submission to their (whatever), or seeks my destruction. Then: I have a moral obligation to stop them and their supporters. We have NOT done so.
Cry all you want, babies. Your tears will only help the enemy grow stronger. Put all the numbskull bubmper-stickers on your damned Prius you want but none of it will make a bit of difference. Not even to you.
Score: 7 (39 votes cast)
September 11, 2011 11:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I am all for co-existence and am a strong proponent of live-and-let-live. Until someone or some culture demands my submission to their (whatever), or seeks my destruction."
Funny thing about that Dan Patterson, you're simply repeating the reasons why some fanatics in the Middle East (well, America too) think it's necessary to attack "America" to preserve their "way of life". Since you bring up "live and let live" and don't think some outside culture should try to make another culture submit to their (whatever), are you aware of the other anniversary that falls on 9/11 and involves America and people dying?
Score: 2 (18 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 6:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
America needs an enemy.
Most obviously, there is a huge miltary/intelligence/"security" bureaucracy that needs to justify its existence. But also: communities define themselves by the "other" they are against.
When the Soviet Union fell, America suffered a serious lack of a credible enemy. Then Mohammed Atta and co. got lucky with a terrorist attack that got through, and filled the gap.
There never were enough domestic terrorists to be an "existential" threat, like the old Soviet Union was. Yes, some people died. But the risk to any one individual (e.g. you) was pretty small. Still, we got ten years of terrorism being massively hyped.
Now Osama bin Laden is dead, most of the would be terrorists have been rounded up by the police, and people have built up a tolerance to the hype.
A moment of victory -- sure. But America still needs an enemy. So a new one will be created or found.
Score: 2 (18 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 6:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Regarding 9/11, what about people that don't care about the attack and the victims because "poor people in africa are poor and starving" or something like that?
For me it's hard to believe that people so indifferent to the death of 3000 of their compatriots can feel empathy for poor people of another race in another country in another part of the world. I think it's just a way for them to rationalize their complete indifference towards this kind of disaster, but I might be wrong
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 7:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The anthrax attacks were officially solved, but the culprit being a Christian extremist who worked (with anthrax) for the government isn't exactly something you want to hype, in case someone starts wondering why some kinds of extremists are allowed to work with WMD's.
Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 10:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
when America runs out of enemies is when global warming starts to matter again. Can you imagine what state the American economy would be in if they followed their initial Kyoto agreement guidelines?
Nobody seems to care about the reallocation from that to the military budget because the protection of interests will always preside over environmental concerns.
Not that I have anything against that, but America doesn't need an enemy or even an externalized "other" just fear.
The power of suggestion is exponentially larger over a population in fear.
Read "State of Fear" by Chrichton, its a fiction but all the arguments are sourced it's excellent
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 1:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
thank you for this cogent article.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"What in the name of all that's sane is wrong with finding the shitheads that did the deed, and putting them and their supporters where they can do no more harm?'
Oooh, Mr. tough guy with his all macho language. Just a few problems:
1) The shitheads that did the deed were dead. They were *already* where they could do no more harm.
2) NO ONE whatsoever objected to going after those who helped them plan they attack.
3) But that's not what you mean. By "supporters," you obviously mean anyone who happens to be of the same religion, as is made obvious by your idiotic remark that "the religion wants to cut the heads off of infidels." So what you really mean is, "What the fuck is wrong with bombing the crap out of a bunch of Muslims if it makes me feel better about my tiny dick?"
Score: -2 (28 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, see the planes, again and again.
But also, watch a beheading. Not a before and after shot. Watch them slice into the muscles, and then across the squealing trachea, and then the head folds over on the spinal axis and they saw through that as the throat wheezes and blood spurts across the room.
Watch that. The horror of "Oh, Jesus Christ. This can't happen" soon transforms into a flame of rage that won't go out. You'll carry a gun everywhere, looking for a bearded asshole to shoot in his fucking face.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, idiot. I meant exactly what I wrote.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sacred Trauma= any trauma that results in being a "special victim" something that the culture never requires you to recover from. i.e. sexual abuse, PTSD, and now bullying. anyone who encourages you to "get over it" is unenlightened, and not one of the other special people who really get you.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Danny boy, "exactly what you wrote" is a bit of nonsense, isn't it? Religions don't "want" anything! So I was trying to figure out how someone could write such rubbish: I say the reason is macho posturing helps compensate for your really tiny willie.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nothing was intended as nonsensical, but if that's what you got from it: so be it. Religions of all varieties want quite a bit, and the Muslim religion is no different; many, like the Muslims, seek conversion from unclean to pure but most, unlike the Muslims, don't teach submission or death. Or do they?
And my willie has nothing to do with any of it, despite how badly you seem to want to compare yours to mine.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 4:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Indeed, so imagine how the parents of murdered children in the Middle East feel about Americans...or how the parents of disappeared, tortured and murdered children in South America feel...and how Africans being subjected to the vicious exploitation of American and British multinationals that fly the star spangled banner and union jack feel... Your outrage and your pain are no more special than anyone else's outrage and pain. That's where the narcissism lies - you believe your bloodlust is special and holy....oh, wait, so do the people you hate. Le sigh...
Score: 5 (15 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 4:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah, so you're not aware of the other tragic anniversary that falls on 9/11 then? I'm sure you did mean what you wrote, I'm merely pointing out that your feelings are no more special or valid than those of the people you fear/hate who express exactly the same hate/fears as you do. Pot, have you met kettle?
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 4:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is tedious, and I apologize for my part in it. Maybe better to email, or give me a call??
My points were missed and it's my fault for that.
I did not imply that my feelings, nor those of anyone else, are more special or valid (another comment rightly noted that the loss of a loved one has no border and among those lost in the counter-raid were loved one's completely innocent of anything wicked). My point was that a threat to security should be met with effective response and that response is often but not limited to a military one. The military response is why nations have armed forces, not to invade or nation-build as is often the case.
Hate and fear are old and nasty demons; I hope to keep them at bay as much as possible. The need to defend oneself is also old and nasty, and has to be kept handy because not everyone or every nation puts hate and fear in the cellar.
Me, and Pot, and Kettle are old friends. Jumping-to, have you met conclusion?
And I don't know the other anniversary but please let us know.
Thanks.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 4:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is tedious, and I apologize for my part in it. Maybe better to email, or give me a call??
My points were missed and it's my fault for that.
I did not imply that my feelings, nor those of anyone else, are more special or valid (another comment rightly noted that the loss of a loved one has no border and among those lost in the counter-raid were loved one's completely innocent of anything wicked). My point was that a threat to security should be met with effective response and that response is often but not limited to a military one. The military response is why nations have armed forces, not to invade or nation-build as is often the case.
Hate and fear are old and nasty demons; I hope to keep them at bay as much as possible. The need to defend oneself is also old and nasty, and has to be kept handy because not everyone or every nation puts hate and fear in the cellar.
Me, and Pot, and Kettle are old friends. Jumping-to, have you met conclusion?
And I don't know the other anniversary but please let us know.
Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 5:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Always fun to read these articles and the comments, but there's nothing to be done at this point. There is nothing to act on, nor is there good reason for action. What are we getting worked up about? What is there to be angry about? Politicians being deceitful? People dying? Really?
Even if we get into how cheap the whole thing is all that tells us is it's not worth caring about. If the narrative is not pointed at what's actually going on, and you're telling us we're gonna have to read the reports and do my own homework just to know what's actually happening, AND that doing so will not increase the importance of what actually matters or make us a more effective force in the situation then you have told us in no uncertain terms that it is not worth our time.
We've got no reason to care about what happened, even if we're next.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 5:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It was probably unintentional but you did imply that your feelings (and culture) are more valid and special - or at least that's the impression you gave. One thing a great deal of Americans don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of the world has been dealing with terrorist attacks of various kinds for almost half a century - that's why so many people see Americans as trying to claim special victim status (which, indeed, many Americans do vis a vis 9/11). Quite a few of us outside the US saw the 9/11 attacks and new it would be the start of not only intense internal repression in the US but also an excuse for the US to start attacking other nations. (To reveal my personal connection/potential biasing factors, while I didn't know anyone personally who died when the twin towers imploded I do know people who lost friends and family in 9/11 and people I know were scheduled to be there the next day.)
The 9/11 anniversary that predates the twin towers attack is the American backed coupe by General Pinochet in Chile in 1973. It was the start of two decades of murder, torture and "disappearing" Chileans, all done with the backing, training and help of the American government.
Nationalism is almost always about narcissism, particularly when it's really just indoctrination. It's about believing one is more special, more beautiful, more good, etc than other nations/nationalities. After all, nations are constructs in the first place (we tend to see culture as being national but, obviously, it isn't even if it too is tribal).
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 7:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you (perhaps accidentally) hit the nail on the head as to why sadness is useless. Not that you should always be angry, but sadness is essentially narcasistic impotence.
There are two guys who lose a kid to a drunk driver. One gets sad, one gets angry. Play it out, what happens next. The sad guy doesn't do anything about the actual problem. He goes inside himself and essentially shuts down. He watches TV and cries and maybe gets therapy to deal with his emotions. It's all about him. The Angry guy get involved. First he goes to court to do what he can to make sure that the man who hurt his son will not be able to do the same to other kids. He'll perhaps join an organization to educate the public about the danger of drunk driving or lobby for tougher laws about drunk driving.
the differences are stark. Sadness is all about ME. It's how I feel about what's happened to ME. And all the energy is spent on making MYSELF feel better. And secondly it denies that you have any responsibility for what happens next. A sad person doesn't feel the need to do anything for the larger society, even when the evil is not just directed at him/her. The angry man is focused on what can be done. The angry man says this happened because the jerk in the other car was drunk and drove even though he knew he was putting others at risk. Therefore, I have a course of action that will not only help me feel better, but make society safer.
To say that there is "nothing we can do" about terrorism is the essence of the sadman's response. There's nothing to make me feel better. Perhaps. But there are problems that terrorism causes that must be dealt with. Organizations that must be weakened and destroyed to prevent other attacks. Education that must be given so that people don't think that terrorism is the correct response to grievences.
As to why the media chooses sadness -- impotent feelings make good TV. No angry letters about showing the planes. Actions might have opponents. Impotent hand-wringing never does.
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 11:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What a great blog! I'm new to this endeavor of blogging but have been in your line of work for a long time. i will mention your blog in mine if you like that idea.....
http://pocketshrink.blogspot.com/
Score: -8 (8 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 11:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
After the recent release of the audio tapes, we now know that the men who carried out the attack were at peace. They had the reason for their actions focused in their minds clearly (or so it seems).
I wonder, do the people of the US have any conception of this why?
I'm not trying to say the attacks were justified. It seems to me there was never clear answer provided as to why this could happen, or a discussion as to why somebody would want to do such a thing. As the piece says, people just floundered ineffectually and then externalised.
Wait, I take that back, I remember something about Arabs hating freedom.
Sounds like you wrote this a somebody in their late teens or early 20's. Your idea is something Aldous Huxley expressed.
"We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes."
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
September 12, 2011 11:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's really not about the emotion, it's what you do with it. In your example, angry dad could just as easily sit in front if the tv getting drunk and then decide to act out his anger violently against some totally unconnected (except in his mind) target. Anger can lead to constructive action but it can also lead to very destructive action - after all, the angry people who took action by flying planes into the twin towers obviously believe they're doing something constructive for their cause.
In my experience, sadness can be just as much a motivator to action, particularly if you're an empathetic person. Sadness isn't the same as depression (which it sounds more like you're describing, though obviously not all anger leads to righteous rage or psychotic rage either), and in mourning people often experience a variety of emotions. However, whether angry or sad, feelings are just feelings. And, really, ultimately at the end of the day one would hope that international politics aren't being conducted based on feelings (even if a great deal of public manipulation, from advertising to political propaganda/advertising, uses people's emotions to manipulate them) Even though apparently a lot of people think, sorry feel, the world/society should be run based on their feelings. Nothing wrong with feelings, of course, but they do very much get in the way of critical thinking and amp up the personal bias to eleven. And they make people very, very easy to manipulate and deceive - particularly if you're feeding a pre-existing bias.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 9:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nationalism is almost always about narcissism, particularly when it's really just indoctrination. It's about believing one is more special, more beautiful, more good, etc than other nations/nationalities."
You are assuming that believing you are better than others is inherently bad and destructive, but that's not true in my opinion. Have you even read this blog at all?
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 10:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"You are assuming that believing you are better than others is inherently bad and destructive, but that's not true in my opinion. Have you even read this blog at all?"
Do you have anything to back up your opinion or is it just a feeling you have about believing you're better than others? Are you intentionally trying to align yourself with TLP and claim Alone backs up your opinion as an appeal to authority? Are you attempting to be snide as an attempt to assert some kind of superiority?
Considering that one of the recurring topics of this blog is narcissism (with an emphasis on malignant narcissism, rarely does TLP write about healthy narcissism), I find your comment a bit odd (and ironic) because grandiosity - whether it's claiming exceptional victim status or superiority to others - is a pretty key feature of narcissistic disorders. The other is the creation and defence at all costs of a grandiose false self image where there's a disconnect between reality (who you are as expressed by your actions) and self image (who you think you are and tell people you are). We're almost all more talented or skilled at something than someone else but that just means we have a talent (luck of the genetic draw) or skill (ability we've worked to attain) in one area. It doesn't mean you don't totally suck in some other area, perhaps spectacularly so (often an extreme talent/ability, genius if you like, in one type of skill is accompanied by a deficit in another area). One can recognize and celebrate difference and exceptional ability, in oneself and others, without getting wrapped up in believing it makes you a superior person or better than others in general.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 12:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"The numbing of the American mind: culture as anesthetic."
Harper's Magazine, April, 2002, by Thomas de Zengotita
"Conditioned thus relentlessly to move from representation to representation, we got past the thing itself as well; or rather, the thing itself was transformed into a sea of signs and upon it we were borne away from every shore, moving on, moving on."
http://www.csub.edu/~mault/Numbing%20of%20american%20mind.htm
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 12:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Forgetting is never the answer to any tragedy...forgetting is the problem.
blog: http://pocketshrink.blogspot.com
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 1:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Do you have anything to back up your opinion or is it just a feeling you have about believing you're better than others? Are you intentionally trying to align yourself with TLP and claim Alone backs up your opinion as an appeal to authority? Are you attempting to be snide as an attempt to assert some kind of superiority?"
Whoa calm down, I'm not attempting anything, and of course I'm not trying to debate you so your "appeal to authority" stuff is completely misplaced. Only expressed my disagreement about believing yourself the best = bad.
"I find your comment a bit odd (and ironic) because grandiosity - whether it's claiming exceptional victim status or superiority to others - is a pretty key feature of narcissistic disorders."
Well I find yours ironic because you are posting this in a blog where there is an article called "narcissism is not grandiosity" and where alone once posted something along the lines of "believing you are the best kid on the playground is not nearly as destructive as believing the only kid on the playground"*- (I can't remember the exact phrasing). That's why I asked if you read the blog at all. Maybe you haven't, or maybe you did and you disagree. That's what I wanted to know
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 1:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are two ways to forget something traumatic.
One is to not remember it. That is rare.
The other is to construct a version of the traumatic events to be remembered in place of the actual experiences. That is quite common, and is what has been widely encouraged in this country by its political leaders and media.
Often, when people say "never forget", what they mean is "never forget the alternate narrative which we've constructed for you". IMO, we'd be better off forgetting that.
Let those who still have actual memories of 9/11 keep them for as long as they will, but even those will inevitably fade. And this is a Good Thing.
Let those who wish to learn from history make a sincere study of the events of 9/11 and learn what they can from them. But honest historians should realize that while useful things can be learned from study of historical events, that they're always viewed through a lens that is somewhat warped and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Unfortunately the alternative to forgetting is often thought of as "looking for a bearded asshole to shoot in his fucking face."
Anger, if it is properly focused, would do good. But forgetting is better that shooting random bearded people, and seems a more realistic goal to convince people of.
Properly focused anger would involve looking at a complicated situation for what it is in addition to wanting to deal with those responsible, not raging against anyone who looks sort of like them. Is America going to do that? No.
What would it accomplish if the father of a child killed in a drunk driving accident went out and shot drinkers, drunk or not? Imagine this guy drove drunk, and and then started drinking more to deal with his child's death, including while driving. Are drunk drivers still jerks? Yes. Does that excuse the father? No, how could it? He is insane, and his anger will do no good until he works though his own garbage. Even then, after what he's done what could he do? How could he be in any position to encourage others to behave after that, short of a miracle?
If you are that guy's other child, do you hope he will suddenly make everything all better by putting a stop to drunk drivers everywhere? No, you hope he forgets about it and stops hurting the family. Maybe after the insanity passes the pieces could be picked up and eventually something could be done, the right way, about drunk drivers. But for now you just want the insanity to stop. The death of your sibling seems overwhelmed by this new frightening tragedy, that he's used his pain as an excuse to mindlessly hurt you and others.
That is how I feel about America right now, and why I wish we'd forget. Sometimes the healthy option is not realistic/available. When "terrorist" becomes something meaningful instead of "the other guys", I'll be willing to be angry at the bastards. In the mean time, I'm too busy being scared of people I deal with every day.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 2:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Serious question: why should Americans not have felt particularly affected by something that happened in their country and (for the most part) to their countrymen relative to something that happened in another nation to those of other nationalities? I would not presume to suggest the tragedies or horrors that occur in (say) the Sudan are more meaningful to me than they are to the affected Sudanese, nor would I suggest the opposite. I wouldn't think it chauvinistic or narcissistic to feel the loss of my own friend or family member more keenly than if I heard about the death of a stranger (or vice versa).
The argument could (and endlessly has) been made that the US was in a position to grossly overreact militarily to the events of September 11, but I find the critique of the personal reaction of the American populace to them strange.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 2:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fair enough Anonymous, can you see why your "do you even read this blog" question/comment could be perceived as being snide? (Whether you intended it to read that way or not.) In the post of Alone's you're referring to he's speaking about grandiosity in terms of feeling superior but there's a flip side, or other aspect, to grandiosity that he didn't address in that post, perhaps because he was focused on (or it seemed to me) the common belief that people with NPDs all have obviously inflated "positive" self images. Or perhaps because he doesn't perceive "special victim" as a form of grandiosity. You and I, and Alone and I, may disagree here - I enjoy TLP's writing, sometimes I share his views, sometimes I don't, which is one reason I enjoy this blog.
From my perspective, it's just as grandiose (if less recognized as such) to believe one is a special victim and that one's pain is somehow special and therefor should confer special privileges. Both are unrealistic and inflated (aggrandized) self images and both are often expressed by people with NPDs. Less socially successful people with NPDs are more often going to resort to "special victim" as an identity but even socially successful people with NPDs will believe they're "special victims" if their more positively aggrandized self image is under attack by reality.
One thing that rarely gets discussed here is that narcissism isn't in and of itself considered a disorder - a healthy narcissism (or sense of self or self love) is, well, healthy and based in reality and connected to one's actions and not just how one feels or who one believes themselves to be. I could have missed a post but Alone's blogs are almost all focused on unhealthy or malignant narcissism (or shades of unhealthy narcissism). Of course, your mileage may vary and obviously we're both bringing our own perspectives, experiences and biases when we read and interpret what Alone writes (which leads to "hey YOU don't understand narcissism because TLP wrote this" and "no, YOU don't understand narcissism or TLP" - for my part, I don't actually consider TLP an expert on narcissism (malignant or otherwise) but rather someone who has an interest in narcissism and culture that leads to some interesting speculation and blog posts).
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Serious question: why should Americans not have felt particularly affected by something that happened in their country and (for the most part) to their countrymen relative to something that happened in another nation to those of other nationalities? I would not presume to suggest the tragedies or horrors that occur in (say) the Sudan are more meaningful to me than they are to the affected Sudanese, nor would I suggest the opposite. I wouldn't think it chauvinistic or narcissistic to feel the loss of my own friend or family member more keenly than if I heard about the death of a stranger (or vice versa)."
But how many of the people reacting to the twin towers attacks in America actually lost a friend or family member? Or actually love all other Americans they don't have a personal relationship with? Are they really mourning and reacting to the loss of a loved one? Or are they responding to an assault on their ego and/or a false image of America and responding with narcissistic rage because their self image is based upon being "American" and the image they're sold by propagandists and advertisers? Obviously there's a diversity of responses to the event but I'd be wary of assuming that a "patriotic" response automatically means someone actually cares about and is mourning the people who died or that people who are deemed "unpatriotic" haven't actually lost a friend or family member due to the attacks.
There's a pretty wide range of responses from people who actually did lose people, some who object very much to the death of their loved ones being used to perpetuate more violence. Some people who suffered the tangible (and ongoing) loss of a loved one have actively campaigned against using the event and the death of their loved ones for political purposes. Obviously there's a diversity of responses, from rage and a desire for revenge to sadness, compassion and a desire for understanding and to prevent more suffering for all people who lose friends and family in terrorist attacks around the world.
The other fact that's often overlooked (though you allude to it) is that many non-Americans were killed too. 12% of the people killed weren't American.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Forgive my lack of clarity. What I mean when I say it's not worth our energy to invest in this is that there is no grand narrative that is worth joining. Sadness and anger are both useless because they aren't directed at anything useful. I'm all ears for a cause to join but I don't see anything we can do that would make a real difference besides not trying to fix the problem. A favorite quote:
"It seems very likely that the whole world is going to hell, and the only way we could possibly prevent it is by letting it happen."
At this point the best thing we can do is focus on helping ourselves. If we try to save the world there's a good chance we will just make things worse.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 4:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You seem to assume that just because someone is angry that he's psycho. That might be true of some people, but for most people, the anger is directed to the target that caused the pain. In the case I mentioned it would be focus on the drunk guy in the car. And I've never seen a person that was ONLY sad about an event do anything to try to stop a similar event from happening again.
Almost all the revolutions in politics and technology have come from someone who was fed up with the way things were and tried to do something about it. In the case of politics, it is anger that drove the colonies to declare independence, or drove the natives to fight people taking their land. if they were just sad -- oh woe is me, I can't afford my tea -- then the Tea Prty doesn't happen. If the Souix were saying how unfair it is that the white man is taking their land, then nothing could possibly improve. Even in technology, the essence of the first thought in technology is "things shouldn't be that way". It shouldn't be this hard to calculate missle tragecories (eniac -- the first computer) or people shouldn't die of malnutrition (various supplemented foods handed out in Africa), or it's not right to treat another human being this way (anti-slavery movements in the USA). All of that came out of anger and frustration at a world seen as unjust. It didn't come from people just trying to make themselves feel better, it came from people being fed up with the old ways and finding a new way.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 4:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The point of the attacks was that they targeted American institutions and Americans (with the slaughter of non-Americans as a bonus). The hijackers didn't take roll on the planes or in the buildings and proceed because they had a beef with the individuals they were intent on killing but because they wanted to make a violent impact on American institutions and Americans. To rephrase the old movie trailer line, "This time, it's impersonal."
As an American, why should I not be profoundly affected by the attacks against my countrymen which occurred precisely because they were my countrymen whether or not I'd had a personal relationship with them? As you write, there are a wide variety of possible responses to the attacks. I'm not convinced the recognition that the violence toward American identity was key to terrorists' schemes and a sense of cultural kinship with those murdered equals the pettiness of ego hurt (resulting in "narcissistic rage") which all leads back to a baseless "image [Americans have been] sold by propagandists and advertisers".
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 5:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
thecobranose - I'm not saying you should or should not be effected by what was obviously a shocking event that people all over the world had a wide variety of reactions to, nor am I trying to dictate what anyone "should" feel. Feelings are just feelings, it's actions that count. The thing is, there's a very big difference between being effected by the deaths of people (whether they're Iraqi or American) and being effected by an attack on "identity" (or image) - particularly if that "identity" is a false one where image and reality (as expressed through actions) don't align. The second one is all about you and your image of yourself as an American, it actually has nothing to do with mourning the real people who died - it's using them as objects (hence the narcissism). What you see as an attack on your "American identity" can also viewed as a being a defensive response to American actions around the world that threaten other people's identity. My point is, when you start to believe your "identity" (image you hold of yourself), particularly when it's a false identity, is more important than anyone else's life - that you need to kill the people who threaten your false identity - then we're getting into the territory of malignant narcissism and using other people as objects to try to affirm a false identity.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 5:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"And I've never seen a person that was ONLY sad about an event do anything to try to stop a similar event from happening again."
I have seen people who express sadness but not anger motivated to take action (and been motivated by sadness and empathy myself, as well as anger) but now we're just comparing anecdotal evidence and basing generalizations on our own personal experiences. The thing is, sadness doesn't usually lead to violent reaction, it more often leads to compassionate action and an empathetic desire to prevent others from suffering the same experience (rather than the desire to make others suffer). In my experience, sadness doesn't prevent action. What often prevents action is depression (and there's usually lots of anger wrapped up in depression).
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 6:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The entire point of the attacks was to assault American identity. The attackers flew American planes into significant American buildings with the intent of murdering as many Americans as possible. (Likewise, when terrorists attacked the trains in Madrid, it was to make a statement about Spain; the London bombings were about the United Kingdom; the destruction of the al-Askari Mosque about the Shi’ah, etc.) In what way is an American’s response—sorrow, anger, vengeance, whatever—not legitimately informed by his or her own American identity? In what regard is American identity as a general construct “a false one”? Don’t members of nations and cultures share profound commonalities? Do you believe an American can be skeptical about aspects of American involvement in other nations and still recognize that as well as a threat to American identity the terrorist network that perpetuated the attacks is a threat to actual American lives and should be treated with grave consideration?
Please keep in mind I haven’t advocated for any course of action, nor condemned nor praised any that were taken in the past. I’m not looking to have my feelings sanctioned. I’m just curious about the idea that the response of the typical American (as best that that notion can be understood) to the September 11 attacks are necessarily overblown, illegitimate, or a symptom of “malignant narcissism”.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 7:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
cobranose - You mean that you believe the whole point of the attacks was to assault "American identity" - perhaps because that's your experience of the event. Not all Americans perceived it as an "attack on American identity" in my experience. Al Quaeda doesn't just target the US, it's focus is much wider than that and the attacks in the US were buildings related to the military and international finance (the first is certainly specifically American and very specifically a military target related to war and foreign policy, the second is symbolic of a global economic system and also related to foreign policy). Certainly the official narrative is that it was an attack on "American identity" - "they hate our freedoms" was cried as American politicians and a willing media (including FoxTV, which is owned by a non-American who is deeply connected with China and who woos the Chinese government) enacted a plan to curtail the real world, non-abstract social and political freedoms of Americans that are also an integral part of the "American identity".
Incidentally, many of the key features of The Patriot Act date back to the Reagan (and Rove) era, back when the US was funding and training the organization that would later claim responsibility for the attacks of 9/11. So, really, both what happened on 9/11 in the US and the response to it were not "out of the blue" or even unexpected to people aware of the reality of American and other Western nation's actions - both corporate and governmental - that include propping up dictators who served American interests in the rest of the world. Bush had also been warned about the possibility of attacks only two weeks prior. There are all kinds of facts that make the official narrative of "innocent Americans being attacked by evil brown people because they hate our freedom" rather ludicrous - just as the "American identity" that pretends that "America supports freedom/democracy" is ludicrous when the reality of what kinds of regimes the America government supports. This is why the "American identity" as promoted via propaganda is narcissistic, it's not based in reality and is, effectively, a denial of reality.
Now, obviously not all Americans buy into the propagandized "American identity" and the kind of simplistic nationalism that's used by governments to manipulate people isn't unique to the US. Propaganda is just advertising, it's not about reality but about creating emotional reactions in people to get them to buy what is being sold (and to act in a way that benefits the advertiser). Like much advertising this is done by selling people a false, off the rack, self image they can buy into. Hell, Bush even got all confused just after the attacks and mistakenly called citizens "consumers" in one speech.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"You seem to assume that just because someone is angry that he's psycho."
No, I've seen a nation weakly justify torturing people. I've seen political ads slamming opponents for caring about how those we've captured are treated, and for caring about whether they are truly enemies or imprisoned by mistake. I've seen enemy combatants blankly labeled terrorists while we glorify terrorizing other populations into submission. I've seen its ideals crumble against an enemy weaker than it.
You think I never felt anger or patriotism over this mess? That I don't hate terrorists? That people who feel those things are alien to me?
We are not at a crossroads where America is deciding how to deal with 9/11. It already decided. Any debate now has to account for the path America chose, and where it can go from there. "Ideally America should respond to 9/11 with" was a subject for ten years ago, not now.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Metaphorical situation.
You have someone in your custody who you have excellent intelligence regarding, who has information that could lead to the prevention of a bombing. Do you advocate torture to extract the information to save the lives of many? Not to say torturing the person is justified in an act of itself, but if you are firmly against torture then lets just modify the scenario a bit.
The building that will be bombed is full of your family and loved ones.
Does torture suddenly not seem so bad?
Your decisions are initially guided by your personal set of ethics or morales. Once your emotions come into play, that is to say you feel strongly towards your family and loved ones, your decision will be guided much differently.
Keep in mind that the RIGHT response to something like this happening and what the PUBLIC WANTS are two different things.
Politicians aren't guided by righteousness, they are guided by popular support. Without support they have no power, and subsequently no hegemony.
Would have should have could have.
Head back to the Colosseum and watch the gladiators, he who throws the best party has my support.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 9:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It might make you feel better to torture the person and exact revenge (if that's your way of dealing with the world) but it's unlikely to save your imaginary loved ones from a terrorist - torture in the real world doesn't work like it does on TV. Torture has been shown to be a very ineffective way to get accurate information (it's particularly not going to be effective when used on people who are willing to die for a cause). It (and disappearing people) is mainly used as a means to intimidate a populace or to get false confessions out of innocent people - much like it was used during the Spanish Inquisitions or in Chile by the School of Americas trained torturers.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 11:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Certainly the official narrative is that it was an attack on "American identity" - "they hate our freedoms" was cried as American politicians and a willing media (including FoxTV, which is owned by a non-American who is deeply connected with China ...)
Newscorp's Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 11:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In your scenario, what if the building that was to be blown up was the White House, with the Obama family inside? Or the halls of Congress?
I wonder if some folks would change their minds about the use of "torture" then.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
September 13, 2011 11:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Um, yes, you are aware that the reason he became an American citizen was purely for business purposes? It was necessary to be able to buy American tv stations. So, technically he's American but he's hardly an American in the sense of someone who identifies as American. FoxNews sells patriotism to the masses and uses it to manipulate people - it's not something Murdoch indulges in himself, his interests are international not local.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 2:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That situation isn't going to magically make torture work. Also, the President and White House can be replaced easier than our liberties/legitimacy. The President is not emperor, he is only temporarily a bit more important than the rest of us and his family is just another bunch of celebrities. He gets more protection because more people want to hurt him and he's got the power to demand it, not because he is America. Finally, as far as I know the movie in your example is not representative of a normal torture situation.
I can just imagine Mr. Action-Protagonist having ten seconds to use torture to get the satellite code from the mad scientist who built it as the nuclear bomb counts down in the background. That is not likely to happen and would not justify a policy of torture if it did. It is not even likely to work in that situation, anyway. (Afterwards he will jump out a window in a hail of broken glass and steal someone's car at gunpoint for the greater good of winning back his shapely girlfriend who will be forgotten by the next adventure.)
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Fair enough Anonymous, can you see why your "do you even read this blog" question/comment could be perceived as being snide?"
yes you are right regarding the snide stuff
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 4:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks Anonymous, I very much appreciate your integrity in acknowledging that and that you took the time to interact. Btw, this snide pot recognizes her own snark side ;-)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 7:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Where I was on 9/11, I honestly didn't give a shit. People die all the time. While many loved ones die through a slow and painful death, it doesn't matter in comparisons to a few pissed off Muslims in a plain.
There will always be pissed off attention whores.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 7:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's ten years later, Bin Laden is dead, A.Q. is in ruins, and thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan who had nothing to do with 9/11 have been killed. I'm okay with letting go of the anger and moving on to the grieving part of the process now.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
September 14, 2011 8:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anger is a useful tool. You analyze what caused the anger, focus on a solution and stop the cause of your anger. That's why there's a long way to go, but many terrorists will still be found and taken care of.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 2:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I should probably clarify why I used such an exaggerated "Action-Protagonist" torture example before I get accused of a strawman. I don't see how your example can exist in a more realistic way.
Have time to work with? Evacuate the building. What are they, superglued to the walls? No sense betting their lives on the words of a terrorist who is "totally being honest about where the bomb is this time, really" when you could be saving their lives regardless of him or how hard it is to find.
Don't have time to work with? Then how do you have time to torture someone, which is not a quick ticket to good information, and THEN still be able to find AND disarm the bomb? And yet not have time to evacuate first? If they are crazy enough to use a nuke you are in big trouble and should thank whatever god you pray to if it somehow ends well.
Losing a landmark is a slap in the face. If that is all then we can cry tears of relief it wasn't another 9/11.
Your situation seems to require satellite codes, mad scientists, and ten second countdowns to be meaningful.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 9:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jess, you could say exactly the same thing about any emotion but analyzing an emotion only reveals things about yourself and why you're experiencing that emotion, it isn't the same as analyzing the actual situation and understanding the situation and related cause and effect. The other thing to note is that once one starts analyzing it's an intellectual process that distances one from the emotion. If it's still all about how you feel about something, it's pretty likely that you're not actually going to be very effective at actually analyzing and understanding the event/situation/anything that isn't just all about you and your feelings (which is pretty much the whole of life, the universe and everything - this is true for all of us - even if we may FEEL like or believe we're the centre of the universe and everyone else is just an actor in our personal movie).
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 10:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When Jess wrote, "You analyze what caused the anger, focus on a solution and stop the cause of your anger," that seems quite like "analyzing the actual situation and understanding the situation and related cause and effect" rather than a narcissistic rant about his or her parochial emotions. What is it about you, Anonymous, that causes you to judge opinions and thoughts that run contrary to your own as symptoms of narcissism?
Oh, right--"Fox News." Got it.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 10:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Typical of the commenters here - whenever Americans are killed, it's America's fault.
Whenever non-Americans are killed, it's America's fault.
Simple rules for simple minds, you unique and special snowflakes. Sorry, but as an American and ex-soldier who's had skin in this game, I'm still stuck in the Second Stage of Grieving: Making Motherfuckers Pay.
Aaannnd cue "Anonymous" to snark about "macho" language and having a "tiny dick" while tucking his shamefully inadequate manhood between his legs and sitting down to pee. Easy for you to be above it all, you hate America anyway, you narcissistic dick. Impossible for you to imagine the horror of seeing loved ones murdered when you couldn't possibly love anyone other than yourself, isn't it? Go curl up around your smug self-satisfaction, cupcake. It's all you've got to keep you warm.
Great post, Alone.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 11:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Empire of Jeff. Soooo, you're the special snowflake victim because some people have pointed out that cause and effect exists and that life, the universe and everything are not just all about how you feel? I'm not sure Alone supports you in the way your confirmation bias leads you to believe (though perhaps he does, we'll probably never know).
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look, I don't think "doing something" means doing any of that. It means taking some steps to get the terrorists (jihadists seems a better word) from attacking us or someone else. I don't think it means torture necessarily, nor racially profiling muslims. We've done a decent job though I question the necessity of Iraq.
Working with other countries to destroy the Jihadi networks around the world is however perfectly reasonable.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 1:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
cobranose - What you don't seem to get is that the main focus was still the one person's feelings - it's all about their feelings, even "analyzing" the situation isn't about understanding it or recognizing cause and effect, or that other's experiences and feelings are also valid and part of the equation, it's about making themselves feel better. (It has nothing at all to do with being ethical or moral, it's purely about soothing one's emotions via external means rather than internal self regulation and knowing how to self soothe.) It's not about integrity of words and actions, it's not even about actions (ethical or otherwise) or preventing more people from dying, it's all about feelings and making oneself feel good. I'm not claiming that Jess has a NPD, I'm simply pointing out the kind of culturally malignant narcissism that is often the topic of this blog (so a relevant place to discuss these things) that has become the social norm. It's really not about whether I share an opinion with someone or not that's the issue here, there are plenty of people that I don't share opinions with about potential solutions and constructive action who aren't just proposing things on how they feel. Don't assume everyone's functioning from the perspective of "we disagree so you suck and must be insane" emotional reactions to disagreement (or even claiming others have a NPD) simply because malignant narcissism is being brought up on a blog that takes it as one of its main themes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 2:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Something tells me you're awesome at "self soothing," Anonymous.
Apologies for the cheap crack, but a cold, unemotional analysis of your posts convinced me it was the logical response.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 2:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
cobranose - Why do you have such a disdain for analysis and critical thinking? It seems like an odd position to take coming from someone who reads this blog. It's not necessary to negate or devalue emotions to value critical thinking. I mean, you can continue to call me a poopoo head if that's the best you can manage but it's a pretty childish response to have just because you believe someone has a different opinion than you do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 3:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh, Anonymous--I didn't call you a "poopoo head," silly. My admittedly cheap shot had to do with your onanistic tendency to smugly assume those who responded differently than you to the September 11 attacks are beguiled by commercialism, fake patriotism, self-righteous victimization, or some other irrationality. Are you certain that the movie you're starring in doesn't have you cast as the enlightened one who sees through everybody's delusions but his/her own?
Maybe you could parse the following for me in a way that shows the writer wasn't responding to an event that had an emotional impact on him/her, and why that response wasn't narcissistic in a way you've found commenters on this post to be:
"I'm told anger serves no useful purpose. But sadness isn't going to prevent this from happening again, sadness isn't going to restructure the planet so that people don't want to do these things. You might say anger won't either, but I'll take my chances."
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 4:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Admittedly, it was slightly more sophisticated that "poopoohead" but it was still making a personal attack instead of a cogent argument. And I've talked to all kinds of people who have different opinions and perspectives than me that present a rational argument that isn't all about how they feel so, despite what you seem to want to believe, it's not being partison on my part. I also don't think that someone is rational just because they agree with me or irrational just because they disagree - it's not the beliefs that make something malignantly narcissistic, it's the insistence that a global event is all about ones personal feelings and that all action should be based on making you feel better.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 4:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, it didn't seem to me that Alone was making the event all about his personal feelings to me (but, hey, maybe I'm suffering from some sort of pro-Alone bias here, even if I do find that I disagree with him as much as I agree with him).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 4:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"My admittedly cheap shot had to do with your onanistic tendency to smugly assume those who responded differently than you to the September 11 attacks are beguiled by commercialism, fake patriotism, self-righteous victimization, or some other irrationality. Are you certain that the movie you're starring in doesn't have you cast as the enlightened one who sees through everybody's delusions but his/her own?"
You keep assuming that I assume things that I don't, is this necessary for you in some way or just a habit or something else? This includes your assumption that I believe I'm above confirmation bias or emotional reactions. It's quite the opposite actually, I assume I'm prone to confirmation bias like everyone else and then make efforts to mitigate it as much as possible. I'm quite open to being proven wrong, it's how learning happens and it's pretty exciting to see things from perspectives other than my own (to me, anyway). I also value emotions, I'm just aware of how easy it is to manipulate people (including myself) through their emotions and how propaganda is just advertising and uses the same tactics.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps you could add benevolence to your enlightenment, Anonymous, and give your fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt that they did not express the entirety of their response to the September 11 attacks in brief replies to a blog post. You have not convincingly demonstrated that a sorrowful, sympathetic, or even enraged response to the slaughter of thousands of human beings is an indicator of narcissism on the basis that those individuals were not personally connected to the responders. A nation does not turn its lonely eyes to you to exactly gauge how much emotion its citizens are permitted to have before it becomes a wallow, or whether those emotions were the result of worthy human concern or cheap propaganda. This is not to say a narcissistic response is not possible--just that you have applied it over-liberally (if you'll pardon the expression) in your replies. Frankly, I'm more troubled by the idea that their countrymen should not be moved by their deaths or by the losses to their families and friends without risking the diagnosis of “culturally malignant narcissism.”
Bit of advice: if you don’t wish to seem partisan, you might want to lay off the ravings about Karl Rove, Fox News (and its foreign born founder), and what the sentimental saps who still reel at the memory of an awful day think “brown people” are up to.
Best of luck to you. Exeunt, thecobrasnose.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 5:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
cobranose but I've never claimed that having an emotional response is a sign of a malignant narcissism, mainly because it's not. I've repeatedly said everyone's emotions are valid as feelings, what I'm talking about is the basis for taking action (is is rational or emotional) and how emotion is used to manipulate people and how making it all about one's own personal feelings/emotions and expect the response to indulge those feelings to make you feel better is a symptom of malignant narcissism. Since your impression on me is mainly based upon false assumptions and your own partisan loyalties, who you want/need me to be in opposition to you, and most of your responses have just been seemingly emotionally charged insults, I highly doubt any way I presented myself or what I am trying to communicate would be very effective. I still find it odd that you frequent this blog and are so hostile to critical thinking.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 6:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
cobranose - All in all, you're coming off as pretty emotional and defensive. I'm not taking it personally because you're simply attacking a strawman of your own construction and seem to be generally hostile to critical thinking. Like I said, I find that a bit odd in someone who frequents this blog (just like being all annoyed that malignant narcissism is brought up on a blog that takes malignant narcissism as one of its main themes seems odd to me). Apparently you're very trapped in the (much propagandized) liberals vs conservative silliness and can't see beyond that. For my part, I've found these labels don't really mean much when it comes down to individual beliefs and I don't divide people up according to these labels because I've found over the years that many people who identify as conservatives actually express quite liberal values and vice versa. Apparently you're not able to have conversations of this kind with people you've decided are your enemy because you assume they don't agree with you.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 8:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"...The other thing to note is that once one starts analyzing it's an intellectual process that distances one from the emotion..."
Nope. It distances you from the reactions of an emotion. That's where you acquire control and free yourself from being a puppet to your reactions. To me, that's when you start understanding that life is exactly what you make of it. How you handle this realization is completely up to you, but always has consequences.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 15, 2011 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's a good distinction Jess and I appreciate you clarifying for me and correcting my misunderstanding. You've expressed what I was trying to get at but you've managed to do it with more precision and far fewer words than I could manage. I stand corrected and take my hat off to you (and not just because I agree with what you've written but because I appreciate and respect your ability to express the idea more clearly than I obviously could).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 17, 2011 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You are right about "the definitive end of actionable information from CNN."
I was stranded in Europe for 10 days after the attacks, with nothing else to do but watch the BBC and others while waiting to find out when we could come home, and then when I got back and saw the crap that was on CNN in contrast... it's exactly as you say, mindless drama, and no substance. I pretty much quit watching TV news at that point.
The other thing I got from my temporary exile was the firsthand experience of the tremendous goodwill towards the US in the days after the attacks. It was very sad to watch our leaders squander that in the months following.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 20, 2011 11:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was immediately drawn to the falling towers. I guess that reflects my depression and gravitation towards sadness. Something I have to work on. Great blog.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 26, 2011 7:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I want to never hear about "9/11" again. That was in 2001, 10 years ago.
And it's not about YOU if you weren't in/near the WTC on that day and don't have any "loved ones" who were. If the closest you came to the "tragedy" is watching it on TV in a Starbucks in Des Moines then YOU weren't attacked and you're NOT a victim.
I don't care how you people feel, I want you to get the fuck over it. Stop being such narcissists and STFU.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 2, 2012 1:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
By letting the media make you sad, you become passive. By being passive, you entrust others with the responsibility to make things right. The Iraq and Afghanistan war happened precisely because people were sad (and afraid), so they entrusted the government with protecting them and preventing such things from happening again. True, anger may not solve the problem, but at least when you are angry, you take matters into your own hand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 9, 2012 7:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was glued to the tv set for about 24 hours straight. It felt like sickness. I called my family and asked if they thought I should move back home. I was sure this was going to turn into a war. The next day I wore red, white and blue to school. I had just had guests from Saudi Arabia 4 months prior. They told me America is basically hated over there. I know the news says different, but that's what they told me.
I felt suspicious of Islam, for sure. I didn't know anything about it but given the state of things I didn't want to, either.
I learned more when I got to work a bit with a doctor who was Muslim and an Imam. He was, to this day, one of the greatest men I've ever known. He runs a hospital in Pakistan out of his own pocket, he put his kid's friend to medical school (he paid for it), he pays for surgeries for poor people, etc. "We all worship the same God," he says. He was a hell of a doctor (and I tend to be highly critical of doctors). He had good ethics, which sometimes falls by the wayside in healthcare. People were always assuming he was a janitor because of his scraggly hair and beard. He must've had no ego because it didn't faze him one bit, he wasn't offended. I am ambivalent about the war. I don't want anyone anywhere to be hurt. I just don't know what was accomplished and at what cost.
I liked this piece- TLP did a nice job.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 17, 2012 5:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Their so extremely instructive things are submitted below. These products would be the high quality inside them for hours straight answers are usually posted here, plus 'm seeking for this type of info thanks for current.liulipingcomment201203blog
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 7, 2013 6:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You were drunk when you wrote this
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 10, 2014 9:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Your post is informative as always. Great work ! Keep it up!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 8, 2014 10:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This post seems to me very interesting. Thank you for information.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 9, 2014 10:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I totally agree with you. I always prefer mineral makeup rather than traditional makeup.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2014 6:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, this is true! I agree with you!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 8:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Weird, it feels like a formality. Perhaps it shouldn't, I don't know.
Presently I can't imagine something to be exciting. I'm a passenger, passive. If nothing wrong can happen, a life without risks? How can that be exciting? Wait, aha. Fun.
Embrace it, there is another day waiting. In retrospect today will be very different. How many days left of this circus thing, movie, theater? Hope it is a comedy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 7:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From what I've been told, quite a few of the nazis - german or not - working at Auschwitz had a "choice", that it is fair to say that they were perhaps not forced, but very much pressured.
- "It will happen no matter what I do. If not me, than someone else. My choice doesn't affect the big picture."
I wonder to what extent such mentality would apply to 911.
Don't know much about the details, nor do I care. Whether you're at NIST doing fake/creative science or did the actual rigging of explosives: I'm not in a better position than you, according to what I've read.
Another similarity, is that a lot of people strongly prefer not knowing the truth. Would that imply being caught by the net?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 8:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Isn't current thinking in law that it is more important to pursue the mind behind a crime rather than the minds instruments?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 9:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In a sense, I think of justice as a science.
At least, what considered to be lawful should be independent of culture, easy to accept/internalize for _anyone_
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 9:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone. Yet another well written post.
The picture at top, what does it mean?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 12:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The federal reserve, congress, the white house, "the intelligence community" - just to drop some examples - I'm guessing they know next to nothing about 911.
Sure, a lot of people know fragments, a name here and there, practical details whatever. But no overview. If you ask someone "in the know" they may point to a direction for you, but nothing specific.
- its "the jews"
- it was "the globalists". They've been in charge as long as I've been playing, but I've never seen the secret handshake.
- obviously it was a co-op with "military and bankers". Its been going on since WWII.
I know, it is a leap. Questions?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 1:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you see it as something that simply happened, or something that was done?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It was an unfortunate way of expressing it. Let me put it this way, the explosives wasn't smuggled in by invisible joe and while I may have my specific and personal opinions about how the momentum of the events are driven, it was certainly done and executed by people with full awareness and planned/administrated by enthusiasts.
I'm guessing it fire them up. Excitement.
Atheists: I have now presented you an excellent example on how religious thinking may cloud things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 1:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's apt you say that; atheists can think religiously too.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 1:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there any significance to the fact that some of the text is grey?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 2:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sure, I've got opinions about 911.
It is an important event, so I prefer not saying anything that can be twisted or misrepresented. But yes, there are solid statements to be made about the murder of 3000 people, not to mention the wars that followed. I mean, except the thing about explosives and fake science in the cover up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's curious that Alone seems to have made an understatement in: "2000 people were dying almost simultaneously."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 3:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not going to pretend I didn't read that.
I'm guessing the total is 3000
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 4:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't know how it will be presented, but let us start with a minor clarification.
Please correct me, but isn't this obviously wrong? No need to be technical minded, at all.
From Wikipedia:
Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began.
The steel structure is continuous. Cut and paste didn't happen, 10 feet of (vertical) steel structure didn't spontaneously disappear.
If we're talking about a failure due to fire, the steel softened and it failed at one specific point. In a fire narrative, the motion never began with a free fall.
Am I being an idiot?
PS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. The estimate is just under 3000 total deaths.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Note: I was referring to your second-to-last comment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the motion begins with the steel softening, as you said, but the portion that collapses is in free fall, and it exerts too great a force for the lower structures to hold
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The motion didn't begin with steel softening.
In the fire narrative, the idea is that you have "a brick" resting its weight on ca 100 steel beams.
"The brick" experience continuous resistance. Not an inch of free fall.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please disregard the first sentence.
Anyway, the most relevant sentence was the last one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Steel structures are over dimensioned. A steel beam designed for 100 will - in reality - be able to carry 250.
Factor 2.5
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 6:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
the motion begins with the steel softening, as you said, but the portion that collapses is in free fall, and it exerts too great a force for the lower structures to hold
Yes, I know - languages ability to conceal ignorance, confuse or create an illusion of knowledge.
Not an inch of free fall. Steel structure continuous.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So--I could be wrong, but--is Anonymous saying that some part of the steel structure mushified and collapsed on top of itself, bringing down with it all the structure below it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 7:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You nailed it. From collapse and after you got it exactly.
I'm positive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 8:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's hard to prove a negative. How do I prove there is no unicorn behind the moon?
I feel Lacanish.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 8:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What about that understatement again?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I dunno, but in such a case I feel some sympathy, as I'm one who tends to understate. Hehe. Also, mirth is not inherently disrespectful--we are safe, I'd hope--and sometimes it is actually quite respectful, at the very least at heart.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 9:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Generally speaking, less harm means more enthusiasm.
Of course, an angry population can be beneficial as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 9:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I may have understated my sensitivity here, but if you look, I think you can find it, and, to me, it feels more "authentic" to understate than to overstate, as long as I do state.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 9:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, firefighting -- must be a risky business?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 9:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Probably wrong question.
Anyway, I'm tired. How much time do I need to redo my brain? I thought it was solid stuff but its only holes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 10:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Only you can prevent forest fires. If one has already started, be the hell away from it."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 10:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>"Yes, I know - languages ability to conceal ignorance, confuse or create an illusion of knowledge."
Wag the Dog. Done often enough, it becomes history.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 10:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The sooner it 'becomes' history in an telescoping fashion, the closer the event horizon of the irreversibility of the Virtual. Game over, as they say. (nod to you, Abbey)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 8:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Passengers on the planes.
I remember storytelling. Phonecalls. Tales of heroism and sacrifice. It's not a spot that has been avoided, that cause emotional discomfort like the jumpers.
Could it be a bluff, remote control and Lacan?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 10:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Curious about percentage. How many knew? Guesses?
I suspect it to be a significant fraction.
I'm guessing, most people complicit in 911, wasn't in advance aware of the part about domestic blood, the jumpers. It became an undesirable surprise, but once you're in, you're in.
I know the feeling, no influence: - "It's happening. It doesn't matter what I do. My choice doesn't affect the big picture. No point in sacrificing my life for no gain."
Most people would go along with it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
911
Change is coming. At some point it will be desirable to change how we think about and practice law.
Did the event of 911 cause any further events?
Non-domestic blood.
Most people would go along with it.
Which makes it more relevant. We're not heading for a showtrial. I believe - no, I know - that given proper magnification we're all guilty. If old-school justice is to be applied on presidents, it is to be applied on everyone.
In hindsight, we'll probably agree it wasn't that hard after all. Don't be stressed or alarmed. We got plenty of time, and other topics will be discussed as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 11:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The more I think about it, the more I fail to realize why TLP rapport 2000 people dead. Why not make one thousand instead?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 12:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Had this idea a while back but it's too crazy to be said out loud: how about no casualties?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 12:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Come on! Get real. I saw it on tele-vision.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 10:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Most of the time, if you try to tell someone something that breaks too much with the established world-view, it won't succeed.
If I came back from New York and told my neighbor the towers are still standing there? Out of self-interest, I probably wouldn't even try.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 4:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
911 as a tv-drama, manufactured to impress me, you, us - a statement of know-how and control, a message saying the old days are over. Modern technology allow hubs of information to be set up with minimal cost, which undermine traditional media influence over the public mind.
Clearly, the leaders of the world have little control over its evolution, so it feels safe to say primarily 911 was a response to something, rather than a mean to achieve a future goal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments