| |
 |
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 |
NPR: "New York City police arrest nearly 1,000 protesters as they try to reach the site of the Republican convention."
Nathan Newman: "I spent the early part of the evening doing legal observing in Herald Square, where hundreds of police locked down all the corners, blocking all pedestrian traffic, in order to prevent civil disobediance in the streets. They definitely proved that police state tactics work - having shut down the heart of midtown, including simple access to the PATH train for commuters heading to New Jersey, they blocked the protesters from interfering with traffic."
This may be nerdy, but I like it. It's short and says it all.
9:35:23 PM 
|
|
Guardian: "George Bush admitted yesterday the war on terror could not be won, as the Republican party convention, designed to showcase the president as a resolute leader at a time of national peril, was launched in New York."
IHT: "President George W. Bush said Tuesday that 'we will win' the war on terror, as he sought to calm an uproar that has turned attention from Republicans' efforts at their convention here to portray him as an exceptionally resolute leader."
There is a difference of one day between both Bush statements. What's up? On the one side Bush knows that a war on terror cannot be won, he also thinks this war will go on indefinitely, he has told us so many times, and he also wants this war to go on and on (to keep the power in the hands of the right-wing hawks). Of course, he cannot tell his audience he will not be able to win this war on terror. And because his audience predominently consists of either criminals (who know) and morons (who don't want to know), he tells them he is the only person who can win this 'war on terror' and he gets away with it.
Bush's attraction consists in presenting to the people a simplified version of reality, he gives them a spectacle (not the real turkey but a prop turkey, a staged fighter landing, big words, lots of flags), he spares them the trouble of having to think.
The trouble is, there are lots of people like Bush, anxious people unable to cope with reality, to tackle the problems at hand, to think and act humanely. Bush is a pampered rich brat, he always had others to pull him out of trouble due to his learning disabilities, drinking problems, his dissolute behavior and business failures.
His target group is the group of rich criminals without empathy whatsoever for the poor or middle classes and the large group of simple people, brought up in a spirit of patriotism, discipline and fundamentalist religion, with a minimum of education and independent thinking.
From Bush on the Couch:
"...Bush uses religion to simplify and even replace thought, so that in some ways he doesn't even have to think. By positioning himself on the side of the good - of God - he places himself above discussion and worldly debate. Religion serves as a shield to protect him from challenges, including those he might otherwise pose to himself. Having banished disagreement, doubt, and even serious thought, Bush takes solace from a pervasive sense of certainty. Finally, the sheer simplicity of this solution makes them easy to convey to others, allowing him to convert them readily into changes in government and policy - the arenas in which the impact of his faith is felt most dramatically by the rest of the world.
Clearly, Bush was motivated by the search for relief - from doubts about his behavior, his business prospects, and, most important, his drinking - while on the road to conversion.
Regardless of their basis in fact, beliefs simplify one's intellectual life. They narrow the debate, reducing the number of questions to be answered and possibilities to be explored. This is especially evident with faith-based beliefs that extend beyond the purview of reason, those that depend more on wishes than evidence. And as they order and simplify the believer's universe, they have the same effect on his inner world.
Fundamentalist religion narrows the universe of possibilities even further. It divides the world into absolutes of good and evil, rejecting allegorical interpretation of the Bible for a rigid, literal-minded approach that leaves no room for questions.
Within a primitive society, the fundamentally important survival instinct leads its members to magnify the importance of their own tribe - and denigrate all others. Other tribes are lumped together as the enemy; one's own tribe functions as an extension of self, and all other tribes are seen as dangers to the self and its survival. A tribe united primarily by tenets accepted only on faith - by shared illusions or wishes, in Freudian terms - thus experiences any threat to its beliefs as a threat to the tribe, and by extension its individual members. The more tenaciously a group arms itself with a fixed belief, the more fragile it becomes when confronted with anything that might cause anxiety or inner conflict.
The more Bush sends American troops to spread violence around the world, the greater his fears of retribution will be [and quite deservedly and factually so], and the greater his need to resort to violence once again. In trying to heighten security, he actually is heightening his sense of danger. And by making our world seem more dangerous, he creates a permanent, self-fulfilling justification for his behavior. [This sense of danger is projected by him on the rest of the world, both abroad and in the homeland and this is actually making our world more dangerous.]
George W. Bush has created a situation in which he (and thus his followers) will feel, and be, perennially persecuted.
And still he wraps himself in rectitude, externalizing terror and denying his own destructive tendencies. His unconscious awarenesss of Biblical law, which promises that he will be held to account for his actions, may haunt him deep inside.
Living outside the law turns any questioner into a policeman in Bush's mind. He behaves more and more like a criminal who sticks tenaciously to his story, often in the form of random stock phrases that may or may not apply to the point at hand [the same goes for Blair].
In political terms, Bush's omnipotence [examples: Bush personally ordered people to be imprisoned and labelled as 'enemy combatants' without any legal basis; and he loves executions] has proved to be a powerful weapon - for it appeals to the omnipotent fantasies in all of us. From the honest businessman who claims too many deductions on his taxes, to the loyal housekeeper who feels justified in stealing a little something, we all feel at least in part that we should be exempt from certain rules or limitations of life to make up for early injuries to our self-love."
Buy this book and read it.
Blair's psyche is different, but by tackling anti-social behavior, or at least saying so, he is projecting his notion of evil on others, thereby diverting it from himself. Being Prime Minister, Blair stands as an example to society, but it's a negative one. Why should the average Briton stick to the law, when even their PM doesn't follow it and even corrupts it? Blair should resign.
11:57:43 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
