Righteous Anger 7.7.05
Righteous Anger 7.7.05
It is always a shock to know that simple but terrifying acts can turn lives upside down in the passing of a moment. It never is easy to comprehend immediately just what has happened but our autonomic everyday systems kick the body into motion to run, turn and hide, deny, cry or rage as the events sink in. There has been many such occasion, some natural, which have to be accepted, others not natural but are of our own making like attempts of mass murder, corporate mass deaths or war. That the event happens on our own doorstep in the safety of our known environment at a time unsuspected is part of the power of the shock together with the actual death and destruction wrought for all to see. Although the county has had a taste of similar experiences, those days were to some extent of a time when the events were of a known quality and with an element of organised pre event warnings. People knew the name and face of the antagonist and the form of their attacks, this did not make actual events any easier to forestall but they could be put in a context of why and who.
Now we have a different antagonist, one that does not want to be known or understood and has adopted a form of violent expression that is of a different order of complexity from what has gone before. It is not the scale of the acts that that punches us, even though scale is not a measure that should make an event any greater or lesser than another for the number of individuals caught up in the acts but it is the targets and multiplicity of it that causes us to be rocked back.
The complexity of our social system relies on an expectation of peaceful normality, an understanding of things being reliable, of problems having solution, of knowing the who, what, where, when, of everyday life and of having a sense of being in control. Yet the event of Bhopal, 9-11, Beslan, Bali, Madrid, and now London has raised some unpleasant questions and ones that are not resolvable with conclusive answers. We could start by asking just who or what is the antagonist? There may be no obvious link between these location and acts, as one may be seen a corporate act, another geopolitical localised act and the others labelled as the result of possibly known named terrorist.
There is an assumption that known and concerted action is being taken to curtail the antagonists activities, however what is being done seems to be on the point of affecting the free social systems of our countries with little impact on the ability of the antagonist to perform. Is this because we do not really know the antagonists name, do not understand its cause, or do not recognise the hydra born within the very fabric of modern social cultures. Whatever the impetus of such acts, the immediate energy of the aftermath goes into finding the who and creating a target that can be got at and extract vengeance or justice in the emotion of righteousness however missed placed. This though looses the honesty of action, as there is no such thing as righteous anger unless it is an all encompassing search for the causes, is not protected by self interest subterfuge, is seen to be in place on a world stage with straight political actions and in this current context is it an obnoxious process to ask what have we done to deserve this adversity and does it help our understanding to adopt a righteousness anger?
Can it be that somehow we have created a sub culture that is being played out on a world’s platform that has been squeezed out of the west’s modernity, one that is born out of curable raging poverty or dogmatic ideological jealousy and hate? A culture in which it all too easy to find vehicles for creating destruction, one that dose not have a core focus but is multi facetted, one that can change as the pressures are imposed on it to control it and one that has been allowed into our midst without recourse to active integration fogged by overt injudicious enforced PC.
If the antagonist have no one ideology, no single controlling faction, no asset stakehold and are acting out of a repulsion of what it sees as organised structures being against it or misguided religious zeal, it is going to be very difficult to control similar acts in the future as there is no core enemy to focus on. The antagonist may well turn out to be home grown, if so how do we stop more of them taking the same destructive path? In a modern society it is all to easy to cause disruption and actual damage, so to eliminate the causes the focus should be on reassessing what sort of society we are creating and what benefits does it bestow on its people so they have no need to wish to see its destruction.
Taking a much broader and harder security line does little to identify potential antagonist, the harder society is squeezed with security the faster it will loose any democracy and alienate the less socially involved people. For example it may be common in some element of the community to send their elder children off to a foreign country for extra curricular educational activity (finishing schools?) and they have a right of return no matter how long they have stayed away. Assuming the recent antagonist where British and took this path, would it be acceptable to stop such excursions or deny them access back into the country if it was known that they were undertaking educational training that professed violent political actions or the use of munitions?
The responsibility of the attacked is to defend itself and non combatants and forcibly stop any more, in doing so it has to show that force will be used and be prepared to go beyond just isolating the immediate antagonist that have used a societies own openness and freedom against its self. In addition it has to shift the aptitude of the breeding ground of the antagonist so that it cannot develop with such impunity. In this we have to be aware that the anger felt at being attacked does not have to be righteous for defensive action to be taken but it dose require an examination of the social order that has allowed such acts to be perpetrated.
It is one thing to know the external enemy but it is indiscernible when it is within us.
Renot 7.7.05 FIED
It is always a shock to know that simple but terrifying acts can turn lives upside down in the passing of a moment. It never is easy to comprehend immediately just what has happened but our autonomic everyday systems kick the body into motion to run, turn and hide, deny, cry or rage as the events sink in. There has been many such occasion, some natural, which have to be accepted, others not natural but are of our own making like attempts of mass murder, corporate mass deaths or war. That the event happens on our own doorstep in the safety of our known environment at a time unsuspected is part of the power of the shock together with the actual death and destruction wrought for all to see. Although the county has had a taste of similar experiences, those days were to some extent of a time when the events were of a known quality and with an element of organised pre event warnings. People knew the name and face of the antagonist and the form of their attacks, this did not make actual events any easier to forestall but they could be put in a context of why and who.
Now we have a different antagonist, one that does not want to be known or understood and has adopted a form of violent expression that is of a different order of complexity from what has gone before. It is not the scale of the acts that that punches us, even though scale is not a measure that should make an event any greater or lesser than another for the number of individuals caught up in the acts but it is the targets and multiplicity of it that causes us to be rocked back.
The complexity of our social system relies on an expectation of peaceful normality, an understanding of things being reliable, of problems having solution, of knowing the who, what, where, when, of everyday life and of having a sense of being in control. Yet the event of Bhopal, 9-11, Beslan, Bali, Madrid, and now London has raised some unpleasant questions and ones that are not resolvable with conclusive answers. We could start by asking just who or what is the antagonist? There may be no obvious link between these location and acts, as one may be seen a corporate act, another geopolitical localised act and the others labelled as the result of possibly known named terrorist.
There is an assumption that known and concerted action is being taken to curtail the antagonists activities, however what is being done seems to be on the point of affecting the free social systems of our countries with little impact on the ability of the antagonist to perform. Is this because we do not really know the antagonists name, do not understand its cause, or do not recognise the hydra born within the very fabric of modern social cultures. Whatever the impetus of such acts, the immediate energy of the aftermath goes into finding the who and creating a target that can be got at and extract vengeance or justice in the emotion of righteousness however missed placed. This though looses the honesty of action, as there is no such thing as righteous anger unless it is an all encompassing search for the causes, is not protected by self interest subterfuge, is seen to be in place on a world stage with straight political actions and in this current context is it an obnoxious process to ask what have we done to deserve this adversity and does it help our understanding to adopt a righteousness anger?
Can it be that somehow we have created a sub culture that is being played out on a world’s platform that has been squeezed out of the west’s modernity, one that is born out of curable raging poverty or dogmatic ideological jealousy and hate? A culture in which it all too easy to find vehicles for creating destruction, one that dose not have a core focus but is multi facetted, one that can change as the pressures are imposed on it to control it and one that has been allowed into our midst without recourse to active integration fogged by overt injudicious enforced PC.
If the antagonist have no one ideology, no single controlling faction, no asset stakehold and are acting out of a repulsion of what it sees as organised structures being against it or misguided religious zeal, it is going to be very difficult to control similar acts in the future as there is no core enemy to focus on. The antagonist may well turn out to be home grown, if so how do we stop more of them taking the same destructive path? In a modern society it is all to easy to cause disruption and actual damage, so to eliminate the causes the focus should be on reassessing what sort of society we are creating and what benefits does it bestow on its people so they have no need to wish to see its destruction.
Taking a much broader and harder security line does little to identify potential antagonist, the harder society is squeezed with security the faster it will loose any democracy and alienate the less socially involved people. For example it may be common in some element of the community to send their elder children off to a foreign country for extra curricular educational activity (finishing schools?) and they have a right of return no matter how long they have stayed away. Assuming the recent antagonist where British and took this path, would it be acceptable to stop such excursions or deny them access back into the country if it was known that they were undertaking educational training that professed violent political actions or the use of munitions?
The responsibility of the attacked is to defend itself and non combatants and forcibly stop any more, in doing so it has to show that force will be used and be prepared to go beyond just isolating the immediate antagonist that have used a societies own openness and freedom against its self. In addition it has to shift the aptitude of the breeding ground of the antagonist so that it cannot develop with such impunity. In this we have to be aware that the anger felt at being attacked does not have to be righteous for defensive action to be taken but it dose require an examination of the social order that has allowed such acts to be perpetrated.
It is one thing to know the external enemy but it is indiscernible when it is within us.
Renot 7.7.05 FIED
posted by Renot at 5:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home