Blog

Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism: Two Sides of the Same Coin. The mass counter-terrorist hypnosis has begun. The latest gun violence is no surprise to me. 

You all may or may not know as of last night that a shooter hit the former U.S. pres. Donald Trump with a bullet in the right ear during a political rally and a day before the Republican Party gathering as they prepare for the last stretch of the campaign with Trump leading that Party into the 2024 election in Nov. of this year. 

Tensions are high and getting higher, political rhetoric and polarization are at a peak. Meaning anxiety and fear are peaking in that country and around the world, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Right wing fascist like leaders and outright fascists are winning over some governments around the world this year in unprecedented proportions. A terror run through the land, and Trump is situated in that Right conservative extremist agenda overall. No wonder all his incitements of violence against others in his years in politics since 2018 at least, he is finally overtly attacked by a single gun man on a roof with a number of bullets. Of course, the gun man was immediately killed by counter-snipers of the CIA etc. It was a suicide/assassination project by this person whom at this time we don't know any more of their identity or motivations but it is clear that a message of violence was met with a message of violence. Violence begets violence and under that is fear begets fear. This is how "terrorism" of all kinds (and its underbelly of fearism-t) work. 

The times of spectacles of violence and the massive replays by media outlets of Trump being shot in the ear live on camera, will continue, like 9/11... this induces a shock and awe trance in the people, and the rallying of the patriarchal authorities to show they are "strong" and "in charge" and just listen to them and what they tell you--because that is the truth and will bring you safety under their powers of control. This is a most dangerous time in the wake of shock and awe to hypnotize people with messages and mesmerization. Another form of terrorism (fearism). And, its all about "guns" and who gets to wield them. For more on "shock doctrine" (i.e., indoctrination as perpetrated in times of emergency) go to Naomi Klein's book for example, "Shock Doctrine" which looks at this phenomenon and links it to "disaster capitalism" and political manipulation.

I've been thinking about how everyone has to give up their guns at a rally like that to get into the perimeter. Only the law enforcement types are to carry. Yet, it is odd that people at the Pennsylvania event have to give up their constitutional right for the sake of that rally and safety of the political candidate. Why is that? It is because people are terrified that someone will shoot a political leader at any time. The ironic and paradoxical insanity is not that hard to see what is going on. It is even more bizzare when you think about how "law" operates so arbitrary at times, like at a rally. The government tells us you have a right to carry (arms)--and, yet, you have to give them up because we tell you and we only will carry arms. Look, I am no gun lobbyist. I think guns are symbols of fear gone excess and overboard and is toxic to any society--it makes crazy people and they do crazy things. So, I thought to let you know I am most concerned we avoid getting hooked in the shock and awe and turn to the path of fearlessness--read the various blogs over the six years herein this website, and/or other places. Otherwise, it is easy to get caught up in other people's agendas of weaponizing fear for use to control. You can empower yourselves, just by recognizing what is going on. We can talk about this more as a FM ning community as well. 

I looked up to see if Pennsylvania (where the rally and suicide/assassination was carried out) has gun laws of "carry" and they do. Here is an excerpt. 

The opening paragraph states "without a permit" just because you are a citizen of the US, and somehow deemed "law abiding" however that is monitored(?). The 2nd Amendment is clear about guns as part of society. And, that means, violence is part of society. No country with such gun laws is going to be violence free, and in fact gun laws were put in place to manage gun violence. It's like an insanity of trying to manage fear by more fear, manage violence by more violence. And, pretty much that is the definition of "war" as it is known for as long as human history. We live in war torn states and a world where war is constant as a way to manage violence with violence. So, again, I post this up on the FM nign to show you how 'normal' and crazy this has become in logic and reasonable understanding and law. When you step outside of the 'Fear' Matrix of it all for a few moments, or longer, you see much what I am seeing about exactly why the former President would be shot, sooner or later. I won't even go into all the number of statements he has made about using violence against people in his country. Of course, the other President (incumbent) is only not saying these things out loud like a Trump, but the actions of their presidency and violence against people in his country or abroad, are no less gruesome and inhumane. That's my point. Guns are inhumane, and yet, are legalized in the USA constitution. So, what should we expect from that sanctioning (of violence)--that policy on guns(?). 

The recent dialogue (on the FMning) on initial ideas surrounding Fearcriminalysis brought forward thinking about the relationship of law and crime and safety and security enforcement, etc., with politics, and especially with thinking about democracy and the future, as things are getting tense around the world and liberal republics (and democracy) are showing signs of breakdown and being over-taken, more or less, by forces of fundamentalism of one kind or another, often with their own forms of terror(ism) and fear(ism)-t (i.e., toxic variety). 

Barbara sent me an interesting article recently in the N.Y. Times (01/2718) which I want to quote some excerpts for educational purposes here [1] on thinking about governance, politics, law and I think they very much run along parallel to concerns that ought to be taken up in a new subdomain I am labeling Fearpoliticology [2], with concurrent parallel themes in fearcriminalysis. This article is by two Harvard University professors of government. 

Levitsky & Ziblatt (2018) wrote, 

"The problems we face [in America] run deeper than Trump [and his particular autocratic leadership style].... We should not take democracy for granted. There is nothing intrinsic in American culture that immunizes us against its breakdown. Even our brilliantly designed Constitution cannot by itself, guarantee democracy's survival. If it could, then the Republic would not have collapsed into civil war 74 years after its birth. 

To function well, democratic constitutions must be reinforced by two basic norms, or unwritten rules. The first is mutual tolerance [i.e., basic social trust], according to which politicians accept their opponents as legitimate. When mutual tolerance exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do. 

The second norm is forebearance, self-restraint in the exercise of power [and concomitantly, fear]. Forebearance is the act of not exercising a legal right [to win and dominate]. In politics, it means not deplying one's institutional perogatives to the hilt [maximum], even if it is legal to do so. [i.e., what has been called "constitutional hardball" by some legal scholars]

History suggests... that democratic norms are vulnerable to polaraization [via legalism in extremis--i.e., constitutional hardball]. Some polariation is healthy, even necessary, for democracy. But extreme polarization [i.e., enemy-making] can kill it. When societies divide into partisan camps with profound different worldviews, and when those differences are viewed as existential [if not religious] and irreconcilable, political rivalry can devolve into partisan hatred [i.e., extreme fear]. Parties come to view each other not as legitimate rivals but as dangerous enemies. Losing ceases to be an accepted part of the political process and instead becomes [seen as] catastrophe [if not as terrorism or anti-democracy and thus forebearance is abandonded].

If we believe our opponents are dangerous [e.g., fearsome], should we not use any means necessary to stop them? This is how democracy died in Chile [S. cone in 1970s-80s in Latin America] [where, social political life turned into a "death spiral" [3].... [today] our parties are more polarized than at any time during the last century. [according to a Pew Survey]49% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats 'say the other party makes them afraid!' 

This is not a traditional liberal-conservative divide [i.e., it is a Fear Wars, and a type of ideological cleansing campaign]. People don't fear and loathe one another over taxes or health care. As political scientists have shown, the roots of today's polaraization [and growing fear-based governance and rancid conflict, violence] are racial and cultural.

... the norms [informal sociality] that once protected our institutions are coming unmoored....Democracy remains at risk--president Trump or not president Trump." 

 ****

 I have long thought about this, and when Trump got elected, it was a clear sign to me of where a burgeoning (e.g., post-9/11) culture of fear will end up, if it keeps control and manipulates the fears of the people. There is an important role for fearpoliticology and fearcriminalysis in helping to better analyze this reality so more people are aware of the dynamics and how to contradict them, transform them to more creative and transformative growth. We have our work cut out for us. 

Notes: 

1. From Levitsky, S., and Ziblatt, D. (2018). How wobbly is our democracy. New York Times, 01/2718. 

2. Although, I have not fixed a definition or meaning on this term, it obviously has a lot to do with political life and governance overall, and it has to do with what many have called the "politics of affect" (and/or "politics of fear"), and it has a lot to do with fearmongering and enemy-making, and conflict and its managementin its many forms in political life. As I will shape a definition or meaning down the road, fearpoliticology is definitely going to involve my own DCFV theory (i.e., Domination-Conflict-Fear-Violence) which I unraveled and somewhat developed in grad school in the late 1990s.

3. It is not insignificant that the very first coining of the term "culture of fear" came from this time and from interdisciplinary researchers working in the aftermath of these horrors, as they came to configure a new understanding of the major role of fear in these political dynamics and dictatorships.