Mike wrote: .... They did. They fucking brought it on. Oh
shit!
Ah let 'em bring it on...maybe we'll finally get a chance to
stun the world by acts of such cataclysmic barbarity that
history itself will cease to be written. A mountain of
skulls the way the Turks did at Constantinople after the
Peasant's Crusade...that kinda thing. Bring it on redux, you
know, jihad working both ways.
That said, I'm wondering how fear figures into politics.
That is, what the emotional backgrounds of
conservative/liberal are, and how the politics themselves
are replicas of a response to fear.
When the Israelis started to stomp the Hez, I was
corresponding with two friends in Boulder. Both are Naropa
graduates, and both are correspondingly liberal in politics
and art. Both are Jewish Buddhists. And both reacted
strangely to the "crisis in the middle east." The discussion
changed tone and became an exchange of cute photos, jokes,
soothing diversions, family stories, do-you-remember-whens, etc.
At first I thought they were denying their feelings. (You
can't say it's a good thing to stomp the Hez because they
are sentient beings, etc. and etc., so just change the subject.)
Now I think they were not denying their feelings so much as
denying the reality of violence and war. Which was their
normal modus vivendi until this little {{yawn}} crisis
unfolded. So then they have a war that makes sense--but
wait!--by their belief system there cannot be a war that
makes sense...so it's best just to ignore it.
Don't get me wrong. I like cute photos and jokes and
diverting stories as much as anyone. Just wanted to point
out that my friends pulled an ostrich over the Hez stomping,
and am wondering whether their visceral response is the real
backbone of politics. (Just as say, a conservative's lack of
fear of unregulated industry would be a response.)
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
