Sunday, 3 July 2005

Terror's War Against The War On Terror

11/9 (please note correct formatting of the date) was an inevitable act of grotesque violence against a world power so far in advance of it's peers that one must question whether it was an act of terror at all, or rather a much needed stab in a wet paper bag against the uber-power that bestrides our globe like an irate toddler.

When some thing becomes as powerful and as all consuming as the US, some thing else must raise up and strike the ascendant power as hard as it can and in the most desperate form possible.

You can not have total power without some force moving to dent that power. It is the natural order of things, so whatever the total power is...let's say chicken, or perhaps Wal-Mart, whenever the subject matter in question reaches a certain level of domination it is then struck hard from another source and no, that source isn't always Muslims.

In chicken's case it was salmonella and the rise in popularity of turkeys (no, not Turkey, you guys are obsessed with Muslims being to blame); Wal-Mart's 11/9 is yet to come but it will come...

What is important to acknowledge is that whatever form the futile attempt to topple the total power takes, it must be on a grand and previously unheard of scale. It must be as vulgar and media friendly in its generation of simulacrum as the total power in question.

And thus the ultimate act of making neutered the total power provokes a response that enables the US to re-assert the size of it's power/phallus and the promise of the mother of all wars and we end up with one of the most wonderful bits of pumped-up nonsense: THE WAR ON TERROR!

This is a fake war. It does not exist. It exists only in the third-person of the media and the minds of people and that does not make it real. It is not being fought, it has no battleground and no form. It is a simulated response to an act that managed to out-aggrandise the US and so in response they belched out a fakery (all they were capable of with no tangible foe to strike) to mask the voluminous of the event that had enveloped them.

Events for a brief time became so real that the total power was struck for any actual means of reposte. And so eventually it creates a fake war that it can win, because the opponent only deals in actuality rather than posturing; it has no care for a war with the total power but rather epic strikes to reduce the mass of it's reach.

One can't help but feel that the US is not only fighting a fictional war but it is losing this war (which is in essence a battle with itself) such is the dilemma faced by the total power. For in truely showing the full force of its power it would destroy itself and all other Nations that by there very existence denotes that they have total power in the first place.


  1. The "war on terror" is probably as real and as fake as "the war on drugs" in the '80s. PR, yes.

    As for the inevitability that "you can not have total power without some force moving to dent that power," does that imply the downfall is deserved? Hubris is a tragic flaw, but is economic success?

  2. AAAAAAAAH - too much Baudrillard! I love Postmodernism - just about as real as the war!

  3. Daniel, I don't approve of the war at this time (I think we should simply pull out). However, it seems that you're implying that the people who died in the World Trade Center incident deserved to die because America was succesfull?

  4. Daniel, you mentioned that your girlfriend (Marie) was going to Los Angeles, California (USA) for 5 weeks. If she was blown up in a terrorist act during that time, would you consider it justified because she became a symbol - a martyr for the cause - a sacrificial victim in the war against the U.S.A.? Or...perhaps being capitalists isn't an offense punishable by death.

  5. P.S. Incidentally, by Marie going to Hollywood, are we to assume that it's convenient for you to dis America until you need us?

  6. Jessica: this is not a moral issue, nothing is deserved it is the natural pattern of things. The US's power is not just about economic success but also the asumption of the persona of 'total power'

    Excellent mention of the 'War Against Drugs' another fictional war that cannot be won!

    Saur: of course those that died did not deserve to die, that was never implied in my writing but rather that the act of 'terror' was inevitable.

    Anon: you're funny. This is not a matter of personal, subjective, emotive nonsense as you suggest but a wider, philosophical issue of the cyclical nature of world power. Please see the bigger picture and stop seeing this as an anti-American piece, it is a study of power and acts of epic violence.


  7. Daniel,

    Ahhh. OK, I was wondering if that might have been what you meant. Thanks for clarifying!

    If you are saying that success and power attracts those that are envious of it (who wish to destroy it) then I agree with you.

    However, I think that the Islamic Fundamentalists have a bigger agenda than that. It isn't merely that America is successful, but that America espouses what their religion preaches against. So, it is truly a religious war on the part of the terrorists, and not a war of Those Who Have vs. Those Who Have Not.

  8. The attacks (if they really were sponsored by Al Qaeda) were not directed against America. They were directed against what some factions of radical Muslim thought consider a worldwide Zionist conspiracy to control finance and trade.

    The World Trade Center stood as the definitive symbol of that, and to their shame and disgrace, the Bush Administration hijacked everything about the event in order to aggrandise themselves and justify illegal wars in Middle Asia.

    Hundreds of citizens from several countries were the victims, not just America.

    It is pitiful to watch a people with such potential to assist the development of a universal quality of life better than has ever been imaginable, wasting all of their time strutting around, looking for things to fuck up.

    I fucking hate America for this.

  9. Fair points. By the way, I love the images you've used (crack, dog, W).

  10. I so often hear this response: "and if it was Your girlfriend/family/pet iguanas who were in that attack?"

    What a cop out. First off, the statements are Not about that. Second, maybe if America hadn't stepped on so many toes, the world would tolerate them a little better. Third, if you really Have to use this stale old biscuit of an argument, What if it were Your country being invaded by America. There is no reason America wouldn't stick it to Britain if they ever got too far out of line with American agenda.

    Did the individuals deserve to die? No. Neither did the Iraqi schoolchildren that the Yanks accidentally napalmed...

    The war on drugs has been openly declared to be "an important Part of the war on Terror," by Mr. Bush.

    DHG, you have an interesting blog. Even the people who respond seem even keel about something that usually incites severely magnified reactions...

  11. My god, I really dig the big words used here...sheez...this side of the morning, it's impressive;-)

    To be serious for a second:

    Revisiting the issue of 9/11 to me sometimes seems oh-so-passe, but it merits scrutiny.

    Has anyone forgotten the symbolism inherent in that date--9/11. It precisely being a wake-up call to the US--it can be argued, in particular those Christian fundamentalists who espouse Bush's policies.

    I remember when studying US history (revisionist), and coming across this quote several times: "I have seen the enemy, and it is us" Google tells me it's a cartoon by Pogo.

    The reference you make, Daniel, to the US which prompted this quick reflection is "the ultimate act of making neutered the total power provokes a response that enables the US to re-assert the size of it's power/phallus and the promise of the mother of all wars "

    The point about the power-phallus relationship is inherent in Peace Studies, where power relations are gendered, to a very large extent. Check the planes (they do look like large phalluses) going into the thick and din of war...The sexual connotation of these huge phalluses is too explicit to avoid.

    But on another point was the fact that I find it incredible that almost everyone has forgotten that the putative, or so-called, mastermind -- Bin Laden -- behind these attacks has some SERIOUSLY close ties with the Bush family.

    Not to mention the fact that Bin Laden's brother was killed in a plane crash in texas in the mid-eighties after a visit to Bush senior!!: "In the 2000 PBS Frontline special report, Hunting bin Laden, PBS reported that Salem bin Laden died in a 1988 Texas plane crash - not in a hobby-kit-type, one-man ultralight, but in a full-size British Aerospace BAC 1-11. The death "revived some speculation that he might have been 'eliminated,' " PBS reported, adding that an accident report was "never divulged." "{from

    Secondly, a report from SCOOP.CO>NZ a year and a half ago postulated rather powerfully that one of the reasons why IRAQ happened was to punish Saddam Hussein for having switched the pegging of oil to EUROS in lieu of DOLLARS. Will try to fish that article out...{]

    But bottom line is that the mystery can only ever grow deeper about events leading to 9/11. Time will tell us who the true culprits were--but without a doubt, to refute the culpability of the Bush clan is to not only do a disservice to one's conscience, but to mankind.

    And if that sounds heavy, well, who ever said understanding the world was easy??

  12. Saur: this matter is far bigger than one of religion, if it wasn't the US it would be someone else and the point is if Islam grows to a point of total power, it too will be struck down.

    Col. Dr: They weren't directed at America indeed, they were directed at the visage of total power, a levithian of world power.

    Jess: images are always good!

    Simac: Nice of you to stop by, I'll be over to you.

  13. great stuff ekbensah!

    Please note that it is 11/9 though...

  14. Daniel, an interesting point. One I don't agree with, but an interesting one none the less. There have been many times that totalitarian regimes (which can not be seriously equated with the U.S.A.) have reigned over the majority of the world for a lot longer than the U.S.A. has even been a country. ALL regimes are destined to crumble and fall if they weaken (see the Roman Empire) but I think it's ignoring history to sum it all up so easily.

    Anyway, I'm going to exempt myself from the remainder of the conversation in here because there are SO many fallacious arguments built on misconceptions that it would take a great deal of time to discuss each one. That's not a cop-out on my part, I'm just looking at a busy 4-day work please forgive.

    But I would say in general that it appears there are some posters who are quick to repeat liberal catch phrases without completely knowing all the facts (I'm a moderate, btw, not a neocon).

    Sometimes, the truth IS simple. Sometimes people are so filled with hatred that they have to look for scapegoats. When you cut through all the rhetoric, and the symbolism, and the reasons why, you still end up with this:

    On 9/11 murderous thugs killed thousands of people who didn't deserve to die. Murder is wrong. Therefore, the terrorists were wrong.

    What should have been done after THAT and what we should do NOW are the real debates.

  15. I understand you're opting out and this is not intended to further inflame matters but 11/9 was not carried out by murderous thugs, it was carried out by people at war with the US.

    Innocents always die in war, those in the towers died just as the many innocent civilians across the world have been killed by 'terrorist' US forces, or forces of any other Nation for that matter.

    Saur, your 1+1=2 is a base simplification of massive issue.

    My post was in fact related to the larger picture of the attacks and as for other 'total powers' I would argue that ancient comparisons are not quite the rub; we are discussing the modern phenomena of total power.

    I understand if you don't want to be drawn on this, this is not an effort to draw you in but rather I had to respond.

    The reasons for 11/9 are vastly complex.

  16. "Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. For purple mountain majesties, above the fruited plain. America! America! God shed His grace on thee! And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea."

  17. Red, I totally agree with the words, spirit, and patriotism of America The Beautiful. Unfortunately, the last vestiges of the spirit and patriotism of Revolutionary America were driven out (into Alberta, Canada, I might add), in 1896.

    Since then, what is commonly referred to as "Barnum's America," (deliberately named after P.T. Barnum, the "Father of Modern America) has held the reins of American power.

    P.T. Barnum isn't just a figurehead in this. He showed the influential families and future leaders of the United States the power of deception. His honing of what, at the time, was called "barking," and liberal license with how trusting people could be proved that, in general, people were easily manipulated by rhetoric and what would become known as "propaganda," shortly thereafter.

    The general idea of "a sucker born every minute," characterises the administration of your once-fine nation. Nobody in the White House aches weepingly over their desk in the Oval Office, broken inside by the thought that their executive decisions have killed Americans and children.

    Where is Abraham Lincoln, the spiritual genesis of the one-person-one-vote style of democracy in modern America? A full 70% of your fellow Americans do not support the war in Iraq, and an honest plebescite would probably have troops withdrawn immediately.

    Where is the caring for you and your fellow Americans in all this? Concern for humanity? Where's the beef, so to say?

    Democracy is supposed to improve the lot of the people it rules. This is a tenet, and an underlying principle. When a government establishes itself as an oppressive regime over a population, it is no longer democratic, regardless of how many "votes" it allows its peasantry to cast. Election 2000 proved how dear the idea of voting is to the establishment.

    When do Americans reclaim their country?

  18. Hey Daniel! It's not that I don't want to be drawn in or participate, but I can't really give it as much attention as it deserves this week. But I'll try to check in and shoot little saur-isms here and there. I just can't really dig in like I'd like.

  19. No worries Saur, thanks for debating!

    And Col.Dr, you're the man with the facts.

  20. I actually agree with Col.Dr's last post.


Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.