Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Don't Worry: It's Just Armageddon

Bridgethought of the Day: When lies are your opium, truth is your enemy.

So we've reached the point where the "leadership" tells us we're much safer, freer, and more democracy-loving when we march and chant "On to Armageddon!" First, we're numbed into thinking half the world are our enemies, planted in unknown "cells" all over the planet, and only much-more-sophisticated-than-us "agents" of the Hometown-Barbeque-lovin' U S of A are gonna save us from them by using draconian techniques and gittin' them and puttin' them away so they won't come-n-git us. Second, we're numbed into thinking they are not people, but enemies who must be gotten rid of, killed off, whatever it takes, to make the world safe for us. Third, it's the same logic of the war on cancer: zap the bad cells, save the good cells. Both wars ignore the fact that what kills the bad cells, kills the good cells, and that interferes with, sometimes even prevents, recovery. We say there might be a better way, but we don't have it. This is all we have.

So Armageddon is just radiation therapy for bad terrorist cells. Call it radiation, call it chemo, it's what we call "zap 'em for democracy." So Bush comes to us and tells us we've got to "surge" (read "zap" as in "war on terror/cancer") or "they" will come and "get" us. And we will be destroyed and overrun by "them". Anyone who says otherwise is "sick". "Dangerous". He's leaving us open to this cancer, see? He's a wimp, he's a liberal, and we're going to be "taken over" if we don't "march on."

But we're losing the war on cancer, and we're losing the war on terror. In fact, we're making the world far more dangerous for us, and far more prone to terrorism. I know of a cancer victim in another country where there's no law against overkill. Radiation therapy increased his cancer, right off the charts. They figured if radiation killed cancer, right? it must mean that more is better, right? The concept of balance, of complexity, of human life and life-systems, that's all beyond them. It's just a matter, to them, of finding who's the culprit, what will get rid of, i.e., zap, that culprit, and sic 'em. If guns fight terrorism, we need more. Lots more. So what if we don't even know what the hell terrorism is? Do we even know what cancer is? We want easy, fast keywords, not knowledge. We want to know: terrorism, Islam, Arabs, comin' to git us. We don't want to know: oppression, justice, chaos, balance of power, abject poverty, abuse of wealth and power, consequences. We don't want to use our minds. We don't want to use diplomacy. We want someone else to zap the enemy and we can be number one. Couch potatoes rule.

Let Bush explain why an innocent man in the street now can be dragged away and tortured without recourse, without rule of law. Let him explain why mere suspicion is enough to detain someone, regardless of his age, regardless of the consequences to his family. Let him explain why freedom of religion does not extend to those who practice Islam. Let him explain why pornographers have freedom of speech but dissenters do not. Let him explain why innocent people can be dragged away and deprived of their freedom, their livelihood, and their families, for nothing more than a keyword, or a color. A color? Yeah, try being someone with a Muslim name when the terror level goes red, if you really wanna know...

It looks to rational citizens of other countries that Americans are ready to kill and torture people they irrationally do not like only to make the world comfortable for couch potatoes. This may not seem reasonable to those who never walked on the other side, who feel more threatened by a weird-lookin' Mideastern guy who doesn't drink beer than by a computer system that records their every move. People who "fit in" don't have to worry like people who "stand out". They don't need diplomacy. They need a comfort zone. But those outside the comfort zone, those who, try as they might, just can't get there, see that they are under siege. They need a voice of reason. They need a bridge between their hunger, their desperation, and your comfort zone. If all voices of reason, all diplomatic infrastructure, all peaceful response and all hope for economic and political justice are eliminated, bombed, or silenced, what kind of bridge do you think they'll build? They must tell the world their story. They might just tell it the way you tell yours. With violence.

So the war on terror begets more warfare. And more warfare begets more instability. And more instability begets more hostility, more warfare, etc., etc., and we've got full-fledged malignancy. It's out-of-control, unregulated war growth. It thrives on darkness and lack of oxygen. There's no justice, no democracy, no liberty, no freedom in a war zone. We're not fighting terrorism, we're creating it. We're not zapping the enemy. We're zapping our remaining healthy cells. The "terrorists" weren't really after democracy, in spite of all the rhetoric. They were just after getting across a message that they don't like our being bully to the world. It's in a way a macho thing. But if they were against democracy, we have joined them in the fight, and the way our rights are being zapped, the war against democracy might be a winning deal in all this - but it's being won by us, abusing power to erode our own democracy and freedom.

But don't feel bad, feel good - it's Armageddon, and it's good for you.

1 comment:

paradigm said...

Armageddonism is a very big problem.