The Islamic Boogieman

I am currently reading Fareed Zakaria’s new book “Post-American World.” As the title suggests, the book is about the new global economy, wherein America is no longer the unipolar economic power in the world. He goes on to describe the economic booms in urban Asia, Africa and South America, and how they will not completely unseat or sink the American economy, but is simply changing the world in which we live for the better.

In the first 2 sections, he explains how stable our global economy really is, despite the constant reassurance by popular news pundits that the sky is falling. He demonstrates our current economic stability and debunks the myth of Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism in one fell swoop. Zakaria details that the American economy took about 2 months after 9/11 to regain the economic prosperity it enjoyed prior to the attacks. In subsequent attacks globally, the Bali club bombing, the Spanish train bombing, or the British car bomb scare, the economies in the prospective companies maintained their course, against the logic that the attacks would create an atmosphere of diminished investor confidence. On the contrary, the author continues, the global market actually has been enjoying record steady growth throughout the failed Iraq war, the destabilized Afghanistan, and the natural disasters in Southeast Asia. Basically, the global economy could actually benefit from disasters, or just the potential for disaster.

This brings me to the point of American scare-mongering in the political arena, with prominent politicians from both ends of the aisle trumpeting national security to be a major talking point, referencing to an almost absurd extent the potential for another 9/11. Zakaria touches upon the likelihood of another terrorist attack, painting a picture that you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be a victim of a terrorist attack. His reasoning is that before 9/11, groups like Al Qaeda were regarded as minor annoyances. Obviously, being under the radar was beneficial to the group, and they were allowed to organize financially and physically to create a devastating event. Since then however, America and other prominent countries have been extremely efficient in freezing the financial activity of these groups, apprehending their top officials and succeeding in making known the disenfranchisement of the very people terrorist groups were trying to convert, moderate Muslim citizens. Without their money, terrorist groups cannot organize large scale attacks like 9/11 and are reduced to suicide bombs, a tactic that is falling even deeper out of favor with the Muslim community (Zakaria states that only 3-5% of the Global Muslim population even remotely approves the tactic). This makes them no longer a relevant threat.

Why then is Anti-terrorism such a prominent topic? According to statistics, Terrorism doesn’t significantly affect the market, nor does it even pose a threat to the majority of American citizens. It is not a major threat, nor will it be as long as nations continue to keep an ear to the ground and freeze any financial movements from these groups.

Well, the topic is prominent because instilling fear in the American public stimulates many desirable effects. First, it creates an easily controllable constituency, flowing funds, business and military action through anti-terrorism towards whatever ends a politician desires. Take Iraq for instance. Bush claimed Iraq was a safe-haven for terrorists and that 9/11 was in some way the partial fault of Iraq being under the rule of Hussein. Through the thin veil of anti-terrorism, Bush was easily able to put American military to occupy a country with the world’s third largest in-ground oil supply, not to mention a country whose physical proximity to two of the world’s most vocal opponents of American action, Iran and Syria, puts America within striking distance.

The reason I speak at length about the importance of this topic is because of its current trend to confuse the uneducated poor and manipulate them. While many Americans are beginning to make themselves aware of the tendency of their politicians to bring out the red herring, the white working class poor of the Bible-belt seem to harbor the “anti-terrorism” mentality instilled by the media and politicians, which creates a dangerous situation for the Democrats in the upcoming presidential election. For instance, Obama lost West Virginia, and when interviewed, some voters expressed their dislike for Obama due to his Muslim background. Obama is a Christian, as is evidenced by his membership to the church of Rev. Wright and its ensuing controversy. Why on earth would anyone think that Obama is a Muslim? Well, if you remember, two Republican anti-Obama media runs involved Obama’s younger years, with him being taught in a Muslim school, and his middle name, Hussein. This is just one example of the long-lasting effect of the “anti-terrorism” mentality.

An example of some of the preconceptions. The video isn't all about him being perceived as a Muslim, but you see how easily people are misled.

Another comes in the form of the brand new rhetoric of McCain. The Senator has begun to run ads and make speeches concerning Global Warming. McCain brilliantly transforms the issue, traditionally a left issue (hippie issue more accurately), which has become the current advertising trend and prevailing way of thought since Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, into an issue of National Security. This issue is now spun so that the right can speak confidently about the issue en vogue without sounding like the stereotypical Hippie. This is also an effect of the “anti-terrorism” mentality. National Security was a buzz phrase thrown around quite often by the Bush administration, and immediately brings to mind the lack of National Security leading to 9/11. McCain, by spinning Global Warming as an issue of National Security, misleads those frightened of the shadow of the Islamo-fascist Terrorist Boogieman.

A humorous take on the issue. (Notice how McCain says "Warshington" in an Oregon speech. That's a very crafty dialect tactic to make Oregonians feel at home with his way of speaking.)

With those minor abuses aside, the most frightening ramification of the Neo-“Red scare” comes in the form of our economic bubble. Zakaria explains that the reason that the economy doesn’t get spooked when terrorist attacks occur is because they’ve become common enough that investors are undeterred. In other words, just another day at the office. In fact, the author goes so far to say that the current response to a terrorist act is to continue the business day uninterrupted for to do otherwise would give the metaphorical babies their metaphorical bottles. But that theory for me is a little too clean cut. My take on the subject is that War and Terror has always encouraged consumption. Hitler invading various European countries and the retaliation of Europe against the Nazis ended the great Depression. War creates demand. The USA made a tremendous amount of money off of WW2, and the war in fact cemented America’s global economic dominance. What was a main talking point of Bush after 9/11? “If you stop shopping, and stop investing in the American economy, the terrorist have already won.” Consumption became the correct response to Terror, because if you let them disrupt your business then you play into your hands, a concept to which Zakaria hinted.

However, what happens when the threat of terror is effectively gone? As Zakaria stated, the threat of being a victim of terror is statistically less than the threat of drowning in your own tub. So the establishment has to create this specter of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to continue business as usual. Any time bin Laden puts out a new video, it is sure to be placed all over the national news. Anytime a militia sect is arrested, it is certain that a small connection to terrorist terminology (ie. home-grown terrorism) will be linked. American’s economy then becomes one run most effectively on fear, which creates the supply, which in turn creates demand. Take for instance National reaction to the discovery of “terrorist” plans to detonate a dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area. What was the administration’s response? The head of Homeland Security went on TV and delivered to the American public a hardware store shopping list consisting of duct-tape, plastic sheeting, bottled water, canned food and breathing apparatuses.

The real problem of this fear-based economy is when the fear runs out. Currently, in the last days of the Bush administration, we are beginning to see an American enlightenment, headed partially by the cool-headed handling of foreign affairs by presidential hopeful Obama, as well as the famous pundit parodies of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The generation that matured under the propaganda curtain of the Bush Jr. administration are waking up and realizing that the world isn’t that scary. They’re realizing that the world isn’t a giant cesspool of mass murdering religious zealots, and that maybe, just maybe, they were used.

What will happen in a fear-based economy when the people stop being afraid?

And more frightening, to what extent will the powers that be go to recapture that fear?

The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Web Communities

The internet is an interesting social experiment. Information flies to and fro with mind-boggling speed and frequency. The world is getting smaller and smaller as it is possible to reach almost any industrialized area of the world.

This is great from many perspectives. This is great because there is an ever-watchful eye wherever there is a modem. Victims of social injustice need only blog about it for people around the world to take notice. This is great because of the possibility to grant the poor of any nation a means for self-education.

Of course, there are downsides to every upside. For instance, a company can now collect information about your internet browsing to target you for their products. The government has another means with which to track its citizens. Criminals can directly and anonymously target their prey for identity theft, and congregate in internet safe-houses to commune for the purposes of sharing child porn, sensitive national information, or bomb recipes.

The internet is a digital wild west, a massive frontier, even after 20 years of it being heavily populated. It is near impossible to effectively police, because for every 10 people you imprison, 100 new people step into the void. For instance, despite nearly a decade of the RIAA and MPAA trying to curtail copyright violations through file sharing, the act of downloading a song illegally is easier for the current generation than during the initial Napster fiasco.

So, how is this mini-essay a discussion on Web Communities? Well, since the internet is, for all intents and purposes, without law, it exists as an Anarchy. Now, I mean an anarchy in the political sense, not in the Britpunk "smash-em-up" sense or the term that is used synonymously with "chaos." Anarchy is (theoretically) an orderly society with the absence of a centralized governing body, in which each person within contains absolute freedom. This ideology is usually dismissed as idealistic and naive, basically presupposing that human nature is primitive and selfish and that a centralized government is essential to the survival of ALL at the expense of the minority deviants.

However, with the existence of Web Communities, we can witness experiments in anarchy. Exploring certain websites can reveal somewhat orderly anarchist societies that exist within their national government structure.

Content Aggregates:


Fark is one of a few websites (others being SomethingAwful.com, Slashdot.com and Collegehumor.com) that exist as content aggregates, posting stories and links that are contributed by users, and then discussed. Now this is barely an anarchist structure, but it serves as a decent basis of comparison. These websites are frequently moderated so as to enforce general legality (to protect the site from lawsuits and police raids) and to promote a positive community atmosphere (no racism, warnings before posting explicit material).

These websites are fairly good examples of a community that establishes itself within a global community, sets its own guidelines, and essentially operates on its own without governmental interference. There is no president or centralized figure in the traditional sense, although it could be argued that the site owner Drew set the rules, and can change them at any time. But for this argument, Fark is a self-policed community that exists with relatively little interference.


Social Bookmarking Sites

Digg.com, del.icio.us, Stumbleupon and the ilk are information sharing sites. Digg in particular is very much like Fark, in the sense that it's a community with it's own language and it's basically a news aggregate. The difference in these sites is that the content is contributed and VOTED on by the users, so that the most popular sites, information, photos and videos rise to the top and the least impressive content is forgotten.

This is an interesting bridge between the former websites and the websites that we will discuss after, because the moderation of the site is done primarily without centralized figures. The community decides if a comment is "buried" based on the amount of votes it gets in either direction (dugg or buried). This is essentially an anarchist society. They interact positively and are generally courteous to each other, have spirited debates and the website doesn't cave in on itself. Now of course this can be argued that this is also not a true anarchy because it was established with a certain rule set established by the creators. But it's close.

Imageboards (Futaba clones)


These sets of websites are not only the most interesting, but also the most resembling anarchy. Websites like the "chans" (4chan, 7chan, etc) are essentially forums, based on the Japanese Futaba Channel imageboard, wherein a post consists of an image and a text post. However, contrary to other online forums (which most often reflect totalitarianism), these forums thrive in the anonymity of its users. Typically, no user is named, and each post is made by "Anonymous." Yes, the infamous Anonymous that has been labeled the "Internet Hate Machine" by ill informed media.

The users of these "chan" websites (henceforth referred to as Anonymous for ease) have been responsible for several organized "invasions" of other websites, wherein they join a website, whether it be forum or social roleplaying sites like Secondlife, for the sole purpose of harassing it, typically with racism and extreme pornography. They have been responsible for a nationwide phone pranking of the videogame chain Gamestop. They are essentially responsible for the "Rickroll" phenomenon, as well as many other internet memes.

Upon initial perusal, a casual browser would be appalled by the content on the chans. Many of the posts represent what is most vile about human nature, such as the human fascination with gore and taboo words, with explicit material and Schadenfreude, with spectacle and sexism. But, it is common to human nature to be fascinated with those things in real life. This website just doesn't suppress it.

Now, as for it's anarchist nature, the website does have moderation. However, due to the computer prowess of most Anonymous users, moderation is essentially useless. Most users surf the site through proxies, so that if they are banned or moderated, they simply come back with a different proxy. If they are successfully banned, then they just float to another "chan" which are all interconnected through their common audience. They remain in the link.

Most recently, Anonymous has begun to make itself known, not through silly pranks, but fighting a real threat. They have made it their mission to combat Scientology. They have even organized protests throughout America to bring attention to the seemingly wicked ways of the Church of Scientology.

Now, this was a loosely organized effort on the part of Anonymous, but it's immensely important in terms of Anarchy and its ramifications. Here is a group with no centralized leadership, deciding and enacting its own rules. No centralized leadership, and yet the ability to organize several national protests against a group that it deems dangerous.

Aside from Anonymous being a successful real life application of Anarchy, the ramifications of its organization are extremely important. The successful organization of Anonymous shows that it we have a new power available to us. It shows that the protection of the internet is essential towards preserving our civil liberties. The internet is in its essence our unalienable right to organize, to band together against injustice, and to, if need be, combat evil forces that threaten to take away our rights.

While Anonymous represents a lot of what's reprehensible about humanity, it also represents its resourcefulness. Governments can't necessarily shut down these sites, because as one gets shut down, 3 sprout in its place. They operate similarly to a terrorist cell, in that they are all independent, although interconnected. With no centralized figures, or even individual identities, Anonymous shows a strong internal structure, because if one member or group of members should go down in their illegal or subversive activities, the rest of Anonymous can continue operating without fear, because they are all kept ignorant about with who they are working. Should a nation be invaded, or attacked by its own government, Anonymous shows us that we can fight back. We are safe as long as we are interconnected.

Now, imagine that Anonymous' war on Scientology is just a warm-up. Imagine that they as a hive-mind start developing a conscience, a need for social equity, a desire to see the world better than it is. Imagine if they start working together for good, instead of for self-satisfaction (for the LULZ.)

Imagine then what amazing things they could accomplish.

Update on Pandering

And this is the long version.

This honestly makes me ill that we have to sink so low.

The Green Fad and Earth Day

You're going to see a lot about Earth Day today. Not because the media companies care about the Earth, not because celebrities care about the way things are going, not because corporate entities feel the moral obligation to undo the damage that they do to the planet.

You're going to see a lot about earth day because the fad is currently profitable.

Article about Companies producing "green" products

Clorox Green Works homepage (something about a bleach company trying to tell me that their product is safe for the environment doesn't sit well with me.)

On one hand, someone could argue that this fad could end up benefiting the Earth in that it'll get people more aware of the problems.

I argue that it's detrimental, because the fad will only stimulate solutions that are short-sighted and lack long-term vision, which could severely damage the Earth more than help. I mean hell, look at the problems with ethanol. More on that later tonight.

The "Epic" Battle for President

Politics can certainly be exciting.

But, are we as Americans so starved for action that we have to make this political race a battle of epic proportions?

The media leads us to believe that every political debate is a fight, a knockdown drag-out winner-take-all match of fisticuffs. Each criticism of the other candidate is considered a 'barbed' comment, or that one is 'sniping' at the other. Why can't they simply be discussing important subjects passionately?

Why must every headline you see pertaining to the primaries contain provocative wording? OBAMA VS. HILLARY THE FINAL SHOWDOWN. Duke it out? Epic victories? What the hell is this, football? Professional wrestling?

Now, it's bad enough that the media hooks the public into this divisive battle of epic proportions, but the candidates themselves start to pander to this media coverage. It's a vicious cycle: the media manufactures a battle where there is none, the audience eats it up because it's engrossing (think Greek coliseum warriors), and the candidates, thinking that they have to garner the audience's approval to collect their votes, pander to this character that has been created for them.

The following video is the end result. I couldn't tell if it was satirical at first, but then I realized that it was an ad for the upcoming WWE show. My heart sank.



If the candidates truly want to be taken seriously, and truly care about the issues at hand, then they shouldn't encourage this kind of attention. Because when it comes time for the real issues to be addressed, people aren't going to be listening. They're going to be waiting for the next spectacle.