Fear of Reason

(cross-posted)

This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.

From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our ingroup. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as outgroup. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.

As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.

The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.

Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.

The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.

The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.

Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.

Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.

Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.

Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.

Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.

As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.

We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.

While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.

Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.

Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.

But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.

If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.

As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.

The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.

Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.

When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.

although attack australia australian commission dr eggs fear haneef human killed liberties life people reason rule start stop terror terrorists victims war world

created at TagCrowd.com

PS: Somehow the 21st century seems not to have arrived in the PIS. The interactive and participatory part of modern digital communication media (such as blogs) remain a mystery to the majority.

I am a bit tired to entertain you here. And I don't want to create the impression that my views would be representative for the club. Or even being said aloud in meetings. However, feel free to check my rants from the centre of the future (which is the fringe of contemporary society) either here, here or here.