“But the man’s uniquely evil, isn’t he?”
March 1, 2015 4:35 PM Subscribe
John Gray: The Truth About Evil:
also on Soundcloud.
some responses, here.
John Gray, philosopher, also writes for the BBC: See no evil and The child-like faith in reason.
Philosopher John Gray denigrates reason and promotes religion on the BBC.
Maybe we're all just looking for an Aristotle who punches bad guys or are in a the moral universe of HP Lovecraft.
Blair made this observation in November 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq, when he invited six experts to Downing Street to brief him on the likely consequences of the war. The experts warned that Iraq was a complicated place, riven by deep communal enmities, which Saddam had dominated for over 35 years. Destroying the regime would leave a vacuum; the country could be shaken by Sunni rebellion and might well descend into civil war. These dangers left the prime minster unmoved. What mattered was Saddam’s moral iniquity. The divided society over which he ruled was irrelevant. Get rid of the tyrant and his regime, and the forces of good would prevail. If Saddam was uniquely evil 12 years ago, we have it on the authority of our leaders that Isis is uniquely evil today. Until it swept into Iraq a few months ago, the jihadist group was just one of several that had benefited from the campaign being waged by western governments and their authoritarian allies in the Gulf in support of the Syrian opposition’s struggle to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Since then Isis has been denounced continuously and with increasing intensity; but there has been no change in the ruthless ferocity of the group, which has always practised what a radical Islamist theorist writing under the name Abu Bakr Naji described in an internet handbook in 2006 as “the management of savagery”.
also on Soundcloud.
some responses, here.
John Gray, philosopher, also writes for the BBC: See no evil and The child-like faith in reason.
Philosopher John Gray denigrates reason and promotes religion on the BBC.
Maybe we're all just looking for an Aristotle who punches bad guys or are in a the moral universe of HP Lovecraft.
These dangers left the prime minster unmoved. What mattered was Saddam’s moral iniquity. The divided society over which he ruled was irrelevant. Get rid of the tyrant and his regime, and the forces of good would prevail.
It's too bad there wasn't a humongous amount of precedent for the worst case scenario, since unfortunately all prior attempts at this sort of thing worked out perfectly hunky-dory.
(You know, except for EVERY SINGLE TIME)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:26 PM on March 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's too bad there wasn't a humongous amount of precedent for the worst case scenario, since unfortunately all prior attempts at this sort of thing worked out perfectly hunky-dory.
(You know, except for EVERY SINGLE TIME)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:26 PM on March 1, 2015 [8 favorites]
but what if david cameron, tony blair and barack obama are evil?
posted by ennui.bz at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2015
posted by ennui.bz at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2015
One of the responses in the Guardian:
Well, feminism is part of that whole "liberalism" thing he doesn't have much time for, so not too surprising I guess.....
posted by edheil at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
Barack Obama, David Cameron, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, Bashar al-Assad, Abu Bakr Naji, Vladimir Putin, George W Bush, Jo Biden, the Taliban, Gaddafi, God, Mani, Jesus, St Paul, Satan, St Augustine, Pelagius, David Cesarani, Adolf Eichmann, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Avishai Margalit … are either against, or exponents of, or responsible for, or quoted on, or victims of, or have ideas about evil, in John Gray’s explanation of human conflict as a basic human trait. One woman, Hannah Arendt, had a say.Ouch. Yes, Gray is kind of "old school" in more ways than one.
It’s no wonder women don’t write letters to the Guardian. Surely they deserve better representation in an essay on such an important matter, that affects all of us so deeply. Ok, they are not on the world’s historical cast list, but they did give birth to it, and nurtured it.
Well, feminism is part of that whole "liberalism" thing he doesn't have much time for, so not too surprising I guess.....
posted by edheil at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
"If Saddam was uniquely evil 12 years ago, we have it on the authority of our leaders that Isis is uniquely evil today."
I dunno. I don't recall Saddam being all that much into public beheadings and immolation and throwing people from rooftops because they're gay. Then again, maybe he was and Bush and Blair just forgot to mention it?
posted by monospace at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I dunno. I don't recall Saddam being all that much into public beheadings and immolation and throwing people from rooftops because they're gay. Then again, maybe he was and Bush and Blair just forgot to mention it?
posted by monospace at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know why any of that is more evil than launching chemical weapons at your own people and killing thousands or tens of thousands of them.
ISIS is even less of a threat to us than Hussein was. And yet we're still supposed to fall in line. Again.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
ISIS is even less of a threat to us than Hussein was. And yet we're still supposed to fall in line. Again.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sad dam was evil but he kept Iran in check. now Iran runs the Middle East with no enemy to keep it in check
posted by Postroad at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Postroad at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I dunno. I don't recall Saddam being all that much into public beheadings and immolation and throwing people from rooftops because they're gay. Then again, maybe he was and Bush and Blair just forgot to mention it?
Those forms of killing lack the scope appropriate to a dictator like Saddam
posted by vorpal bunny at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Those forms of killing lack the scope appropriate to a dictator like Saddam
posted by vorpal bunny at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I agree with the author - I'm also believing that Americans have completely lost the habit of moral reflection on these matters.
Even my supposedly-liberal friends are all over this one on Facebook, and when I remind them of how badly Iraq went, you can see the bafflement on their faces... "What does this have to do with the Iraq War? I mean, ISIS are literally worse than Hitler!"
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:30 PM on March 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
Even my supposedly-liberal friends are all over this one on Facebook, and when I remind them of how badly Iraq went, you can see the bafflement on their faces... "What does this have to do with the Iraq War? I mean, ISIS are literally worse than Hitler!"
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:30 PM on March 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
As somebody said in another thread (but which Oscar Wilde-like I now steal): We bombed our way into this mess and dammit we'll bomb our way out of it!
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
I know, I know. Look back at the original Mefi Libya threads. So many gallant Mefi chickenhawks (since our team is in charge now it's okay) and now a state with no government battling against Isis. whatever. who cares. putin is mean
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on March 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on March 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
"Evil" is defined by whoever threatens the West's supply of petroleum. Both Saddam and ISIS fit that bill. Although there are similarities to the House of Saud, they are not "evil" because they sell us oil.
posted by Renoroc at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Eastern front (in winter particularly), occupying Afghanistan, the Middle East.
There are some things that people never learn from and have to keep trying again and again.
posted by quin at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are some things that people never learn from and have to keep trying again and again.
posted by quin at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
and now a state with no government battling against Isis.
Which might very well be the outcome today if the US had done nothing--in addition to a massive killing spree by Gaddafi. I mean, "you did X, and bad situation Y followed" is hardly an iron-clad proof that X was a bad idea or that without X, Y couldn't have happened. The US intervention in Libya was actually pretty minor, and it was ordered because there was good intelligence that Gaddafi was about to engage in some quasi-genocidal violence.
The US intervened in WWII--and look at all the bad shit that went down in East Germany, Poland et al. after the end of the war. Clearly the world would be a better, happier place if we'd all just accepted that the occasional bad actor rises to the top now and again and all we can do is let history take its course. It was clearly a pointless fight, because it didn't eliminate all bad things from the world. That's the "logic" of the argument.
Nor is it true that the US administration is engaged in some kind of massive propaganda push to paint ISIS as "uniquely evil." In fact, it is working hard to limit people's expectations of what the US can plausibly do in response to ISIS. There is basically no desire on the US's part (other than among people like John McCain) to mobilize a massive armed response to ISIS. No talk of deploying 'boots on the ground' or invading anyone.
This is all about fighting the last war. And by that, I mean, it's all about opponents of the last war seeing that same conflict and its particular logics writ everywhere. Yes, the Iraq war was a self-evident disaster that the nation and the world were deliberately bullied and lied into on the basis of a steady stream of bullshit. But the problem here is that people now see that process in every scenario in which the government says "hey, these guys are real assholes and a real threat." If Rwanda happened tomorrow and the Govt. wanted to step in to try to mitigate the slaughter, the US and UK left's response would be "oh, no you don't! Fool us once, shame on you...." One doesn't have to believe that ISIS is "uniquely evil" (as, quite clearly, no one in the Obama administration thinks--because none of them are saying "we need the most massive military campaign in the nation's history to fight this uniquely evil threat") to recognize that it's seriously dangerous and that it presents us with a situation in which failure to act may be judged as harshly by history as over-precipitate action.
posted by yoink at 8:29 PM on March 1, 2015 [19 favorites]
Which might very well be the outcome today if the US had done nothing--in addition to a massive killing spree by Gaddafi. I mean, "you did X, and bad situation Y followed" is hardly an iron-clad proof that X was a bad idea or that without X, Y couldn't have happened. The US intervention in Libya was actually pretty minor, and it was ordered because there was good intelligence that Gaddafi was about to engage in some quasi-genocidal violence.
The US intervened in WWII--and look at all the bad shit that went down in East Germany, Poland et al. after the end of the war. Clearly the world would be a better, happier place if we'd all just accepted that the occasional bad actor rises to the top now and again and all we can do is let history take its course. It was clearly a pointless fight, because it didn't eliminate all bad things from the world. That's the "logic" of the argument.
Nor is it true that the US administration is engaged in some kind of massive propaganda push to paint ISIS as "uniquely evil." In fact, it is working hard to limit people's expectations of what the US can plausibly do in response to ISIS. There is basically no desire on the US's part (other than among people like John McCain) to mobilize a massive armed response to ISIS. No talk of deploying 'boots on the ground' or invading anyone.
This is all about fighting the last war. And by that, I mean, it's all about opponents of the last war seeing that same conflict and its particular logics writ everywhere. Yes, the Iraq war was a self-evident disaster that the nation and the world were deliberately bullied and lied into on the basis of a steady stream of bullshit. But the problem here is that people now see that process in every scenario in which the government says "hey, these guys are real assholes and a real threat." If Rwanda happened tomorrow and the Govt. wanted to step in to try to mitigate the slaughter, the US and UK left's response would be "oh, no you don't! Fool us once, shame on you...." One doesn't have to believe that ISIS is "uniquely evil" (as, quite clearly, no one in the Obama administration thinks--because none of them are saying "we need the most massive military campaign in the nation's history to fight this uniquely evil threat") to recognize that it's seriously dangerous and that it presents us with a situation in which failure to act may be judged as harshly by history as over-precipitate action.
posted by yoink at 8:29 PM on March 1, 2015 [19 favorites]
now Iran runs the Middle East
Did I miss this memo? If Iran did run the Middle East, I think it might exert a little more control over the avowedly anti-Shiite ISIS, seeing as it's a Shia majority country and all.
posted by genuinely curious at 8:37 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Did I miss this memo? If Iran did run the Middle East, I think it might exert a little more control over the avowedly anti-Shiite ISIS, seeing as it's a Shia majority country and all.
posted by genuinely curious at 8:37 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Gray's articles don't seem to be about critiquing liberal values or championing religion over reason; but rather about the way we as societies and governments approach the rest of the world by identifying 'evil' and then setting about to fight it, without any reference to the potential consequences, realities, or actual beliefs and motivations of the people on the ground. He rather reminds me of John Ralston Saul in that respect. Both critique the way we don't seem to get (or refuse to accept) that religion, tribalism, and nationalism are all strong motivating forces, and see everything in terms of rational factors like economics and resource consumption, and where that leads.
In my life I've seen the West (because generally it is a collective action) blunder from monster to monster without any sense of context or any consideration of consequences. We topple Saddam and having removed their bitterest enemy in the region are suddenly surprised by waxing Iranian power. We help overthrow Ghaddafi and Mubarak both of whom fought to suppress Islamist parties, and are staggered by the rise of Islamists in Egypt and Lybia. We wonder why Al-Assad, having seen Saddam hang, and Ghaddafi raped to death with a knife, does not hand himself and the fate of the Syrian Alawites over to the Muslim Brotherhood, decide he must be a monster and set about arming insurgents. We arm insurgents in Syria and are shocked and horrified that people willing to pick up guns and kill to achieve a change in government are not motivated by reason and a love of secular egalitarianism. Russia checks us from further intervention in Syria so we help topple the government of Ukraine, and then are mystified and baffled that Russia could be so evil as to want to hang onto a strategically vital piece of their territory that was ceded to Ukraine in the 1950's by the Soviet Union.
In most of these cases there were people pointing out exactly what the consequences would be, usually just by referencing the stated motivations of the various actors. That's all Gray struck me as trying to do, encourage thinking beyond the narrow and so far completely catastrophic reference terms we've been using up to this point.
posted by Grimgrin at 8:43 PM on March 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
In my life I've seen the West (because generally it is a collective action) blunder from monster to monster without any sense of context or any consideration of consequences. We topple Saddam and having removed their bitterest enemy in the region are suddenly surprised by waxing Iranian power. We help overthrow Ghaddafi and Mubarak both of whom fought to suppress Islamist parties, and are staggered by the rise of Islamists in Egypt and Lybia. We wonder why Al-Assad, having seen Saddam hang, and Ghaddafi raped to death with a knife, does not hand himself and the fate of the Syrian Alawites over to the Muslim Brotherhood, decide he must be a monster and set about arming insurgents. We arm insurgents in Syria and are shocked and horrified that people willing to pick up guns and kill to achieve a change in government are not motivated by reason and a love of secular egalitarianism. Russia checks us from further intervention in Syria so we help topple the government of Ukraine, and then are mystified and baffled that Russia could be so evil as to want to hang onto a strategically vital piece of their territory that was ceded to Ukraine in the 1950's by the Soviet Union.
In most of these cases there were people pointing out exactly what the consequences would be, usually just by referencing the stated motivations of the various actors. That's all Gray struck me as trying to do, encourage thinking beyond the narrow and so far completely catastrophic reference terms we've been using up to this point.
posted by Grimgrin at 8:43 PM on March 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
Jebus.
Which might very well be the outcome today if the US had done nothing
Our humanitarian bombs did nothing...and don't mix up x and y because our intervention in libya was just like WWII!
Okay, checking out now.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:56 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Which might very well be the outcome today if the US had done nothing
Our humanitarian bombs did nothing...and don't mix up x and y because our intervention in libya was just like WWII!
Okay, checking out now.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:56 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
The US intervention in Libya was actually pretty minor, and it was ordered because there was good intelligence that Gaddafi was about to engage in some quasi-genocidal violence.
That's actually the opposite of what happened. There was no intelligence to that effect.
So yeah, another military action that we were lied into. War Is A Lie.
And that's not even the most creative deception that we heard with Libya. Remember Gadafi's army of viagra-crazed rapists?
"a self-evident disaster that the nation and the world were deliberately bullied and lied into on the basis of a steady stream of bullshit" ... indeed.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:10 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's actually the opposite of what happened. There was no intelligence to that effect.
So yeah, another military action that we were lied into. War Is A Lie.
And that's not even the most creative deception that we heard with Libya. Remember Gadafi's army of viagra-crazed rapists?
"a self-evident disaster that the nation and the world were deliberately bullied and lied into on the basis of a steady stream of bullshit" ... indeed.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:10 PM on March 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Noisy pink bubbles.
Perhaps the focus should be on the UN decision to authorize these actions as well as the other combatants participation.
"In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi. A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.[37] The Gaddafi government then announced a ceasefire, but failed to uphold it,[38] and accused rebels of violating the ceasefire when they continued to fight as well.[39] Throughout the conflict, rebels rejected government offers..."
Because I'm worried the UN might be lying to our president.
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Perhaps the focus should be on the UN decision to authorize these actions as well as the other combatants participation.
"In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi. A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.[37] The Gaddafi government then announced a ceasefire, but failed to uphold it,[38] and accused rebels of violating the ceasefire when they continued to fight as well.[39] Throughout the conflict, rebels rejected government offers..."
Because I'm worried the UN might be lying to our president.
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Our humanitarian bombs did nothing...and don't mix up x and y because our intervention in libya was just like WWII!
yoink's point, I believe, wasn't that the situation with ISIS (or Libya) is just like WWII- it's that much of the logic used to argue against US intervention, if it's applied consistently, also would imply that the US should have stayed out of WWII, which is probably not an argument many are willing to make. There's certainly a strong case that we shouldn't have intervened in Libya (though from my understanding of the Libyan situation, I think things weren't going to turn out well there no matter what, and determining whether the current state of things is worse than an alternate timeline where the US never intervened seems pretty much impossible), but a blanket assumption that American intervention always makes things worse is not a particularly strong argument for it.
I'm well aware of how bad an actor the US has often been in the Middle East, and I think military intervention should always be a last resort, but the case of ISIS, I don't think an across-the-board anti-intervention position is particularly viable unless one is either a complete isolationist or a total pacifist, as they really are more a Rwanda-type problem than they are anything like an Iraq-in-2003 situation. Just to start with, Saddam Hussein wasn't trying to conquer as much territory outside of Iraq as he could, and I could go on for quite a while in describing the other differences, but suffice it to say that the outcome of complete non-intervention against ISIS would almost certainly be mass extermination of religious minorities, huge numbers of women being forced into sexual slavery, and, in all probability, a considerable increase in the number of terrorist attacks made in the West and in non-ISIS-controlled areas of the Middle East. I find it impossible to see that as the best available option- I think sending US ground troops would be a very bad idea, but that's far from the only possible course of action.
posted by a louis wain cat at 11:11 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
yoink's point, I believe, wasn't that the situation with ISIS (or Libya) is just like WWII- it's that much of the logic used to argue against US intervention, if it's applied consistently, also would imply that the US should have stayed out of WWII, which is probably not an argument many are willing to make. There's certainly a strong case that we shouldn't have intervened in Libya (though from my understanding of the Libyan situation, I think things weren't going to turn out well there no matter what, and determining whether the current state of things is worse than an alternate timeline where the US never intervened seems pretty much impossible), but a blanket assumption that American intervention always makes things worse is not a particularly strong argument for it.
I'm well aware of how bad an actor the US has often been in the Middle East, and I think military intervention should always be a last resort, but the case of ISIS, I don't think an across-the-board anti-intervention position is particularly viable unless one is either a complete isolationist or a total pacifist, as they really are more a Rwanda-type problem than they are anything like an Iraq-in-2003 situation. Just to start with, Saddam Hussein wasn't trying to conquer as much territory outside of Iraq as he could, and I could go on for quite a while in describing the other differences, but suffice it to say that the outcome of complete non-intervention against ISIS would almost certainly be mass extermination of religious minorities, huge numbers of women being forced into sexual slavery, and, in all probability, a considerable increase in the number of terrorist attacks made in the West and in non-ISIS-controlled areas of the Middle East. I find it impossible to see that as the best available option- I think sending US ground troops would be a very bad idea, but that's far from the only possible course of action.
posted by a louis wain cat at 11:11 PM on March 1, 2015 [7 favorites]
I agree with pretty much everything in the article.
That being said, I am inclined to see ISIS as particularly dangerous partly because I thought the invasion of Iraq was so misguided. This is exactly the kind of chaos that I feared would happen. I don't see ISIS as exceptionally evil, but I worry about the consequences of this ragtag wannabe Sunni Caliphate expanding aggressively into every nation on the fringes of the the greatest concentration of Shiites in the world. I actually think ISIS presents an opportunity to improve relations with Iran and Syria, but that will never happen for exactly the reasons that are outlined in the article.
posted by Edgewise at 11:13 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
That being said, I am inclined to see ISIS as particularly dangerous partly because I thought the invasion of Iraq was so misguided. This is exactly the kind of chaos that I feared would happen. I don't see ISIS as exceptionally evil, but I worry about the consequences of this ragtag wannabe Sunni Caliphate expanding aggressively into every nation on the fringes of the the greatest concentration of Shiites in the world. I actually think ISIS presents an opportunity to improve relations with Iran and Syria, but that will never happen for exactly the reasons that are outlined in the article.
posted by Edgewise at 11:13 PM on March 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
The author takes propaganda and the word 'evil' way too seriously. War is just an extension of imperialism, which is an extension of capitalism. It's no big deal until you get your head blown off.
posted by colie at 11:33 PM on March 1, 2015
posted by colie at 11:33 PM on March 1, 2015
There's also an incredibly comforting narcissism that traces all of the problems we have to the rational, planned, activities of an economic group or class of bad actors in the West. It's pretty much the same as the 'get rid of evil person, therefore good' thinking of governments outlined in the articles; it just places the evil in a different place. Importantly, both involve a refusal to consider that there are people and groups with sincerely held motivations and beliefs that are not reducible to terms we consider reasonable, and that simply getting rid of the 'evil', whether it's Dick Cheney or Saddam Hussein, is not enough for a good outcome.
posted by Grimgrin at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Grimgrin at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
Blair remains our only known example of the insipidity of evil.
So the Tories were right...
posted by chavenet at 2:15 AM on March 2, 2015
So the Tories were right...
posted by chavenet at 2:15 AM on March 2, 2015
Russia checks us from further intervention in Syria so we help topple the government of Ukraine, and then are mystified and baffled that Russia could be so evil as to want to hang onto a strategically vital piece of their territory that was ceded to Ukraine in the 1950's by the Soviet Union.
I was with you until this. Ukraine isn't really connected to any events in the Middle East.
posted by kersplunk at 2:59 AM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was with you until this. Ukraine isn't really connected to any events in the Middle East.
posted by kersplunk at 2:59 AM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
launching chemical weapons at your own people
I never saw why this is supposed to be worse than launching them at someone else's people
posted by thelonius at 3:48 AM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I never saw why this is supposed to be worse than launching them at someone else's people
posted by thelonius at 3:48 AM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The new BBC documentary Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis touches on some of these ideas in quite a beautiful long-form format. Trailer is here.
posted by horopter at 4:23 AM on March 2, 2015
posted by horopter at 4:23 AM on March 2, 2015
launching chemical weapons at your own people
It was actually a subtle masterpiece of propaganda newspeak, since it reinforces the fictional concept of unity among a nation's people, regarding 'us', at the same time as it creates a fictional framework for the politics of the region we're attacking.
And once you've used it to replace even the tiniest analysis of class, power, money, politics and struggle with intangible concepts like 'people' and 'freedom', then you can freewheel along until it may be necessary to inflame and utilise 'tribal hatreds' between religious/cultural factions. Phrases like 'he gassed his own people' are exactly the means by which the politicians and their media allies systematically remove our intelligence and ability to understand the world, and replace it with bullshit noise.
Tom Freidman Twitter Bot.
posted by colie at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
It was actually a subtle masterpiece of propaganda newspeak, since it reinforces the fictional concept of unity among a nation's people, regarding 'us', at the same time as it creates a fictional framework for the politics of the region we're attacking.
And once you've used it to replace even the tiniest analysis of class, power, money, politics and struggle with intangible concepts like 'people' and 'freedom', then you can freewheel along until it may be necessary to inflame and utilise 'tribal hatreds' between religious/cultural factions. Phrases like 'he gassed his own people' are exactly the means by which the politicians and their media allies systematically remove our intelligence and ability to understand the world, and replace it with bullshit noise.
Tom Freidman Twitter Bot.
posted by colie at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have trouble with the serious use of the word 'evil' to describe a person/group/country. When it's applied, you know the speaker or writer is trying to force you towards a not necessarily rational conclusion. (ditto for the word 'terrorist')
posted by Artful Codger at 7:05 AM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Artful Codger at 7:05 AM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am tired of the evil propaganda war on Iran. What is evil? The brush of misinformation that serves the secret, deepest, pockets. There is no holiness or rectitude in any of this. The beautiful sons of women and men are taken at age seven and raised as thugs or slaves, to suit the evil that wears all kinds of suits.
posted by Oyéah at 12:37 PM on March 2, 2015
posted by Oyéah at 12:37 PM on March 2, 2015
Russia checks us from further intervention in Syria so we help topple the government of Ukraine, and then are mystified and baffled that Russia could be so evil as to want to hang onto a strategically vital piece of their territory that was ceded to Ukraine in the 1950's by the Soviet Union.
If by "checks us from further intervention" you mean, "shipped arms to help fight against the 'rebels' with the sole aim of securing its own naval facility, and in so doing prolonged and intensified the conflict," then yes, that is something Russia did.
Then Russia did the exact same thing for the exact same reason in Ukraine.
Neither has ever had the slightest bit to do with "us"; Putin only supported Assad and Yanukovych because Assad and Yanukovych supported Putin.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:28 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
If by "checks us from further intervention" you mean, "shipped arms to help fight against the 'rebels' with the sole aim of securing its own naval facility, and in so doing prolonged and intensified the conflict," then yes, that is something Russia did.
Then Russia did the exact same thing for the exact same reason in Ukraine.
Neither has ever had the slightest bit to do with "us"; Putin only supported Assad and Yanukovych because Assad and Yanukovych supported Putin.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:28 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Eastern front (in winter particularly), occupying Afghanistan, the Middle East.
There are some things that people never learn from and have to keep trying again and again.
posted by quin at 7:18 PM on March 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
I know, it's like they've never watched The Princess Bride!!
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 11:14 AM on March 3, 2015
There are some things that people never learn from and have to keep trying again and again.
posted by quin at 7:18 PM on March 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
I know, it's like they've never watched The Princess Bride!!
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 11:14 AM on March 3, 2015
« Older In Style: The Dress Doctors | The Book of Life Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Blair? Yes, I'm afraid so.
I mean, you can't turn around without bumping into the banality of evil, but Blair remains our only known example of the insipidity of evil.
posted by jamjam at 5:12 PM on March 1, 2015 [27 favorites]