Date: Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 06:32:53 GMT
On the dark side: The fear factor
"Strong, the pull of the Dark Side is." -- Yoda
Nations once feared to oppose Soviet might. Today they fear
opposing Islamic might. They fear opposing terrorism. They fear
opposing Iraq. So George W. Bush had to try to shame the United
Nations into doing so.
Which makes him contemptible to them. For he exposes their
cowardice. Every day that he shows no fear, he highlights theirs.
Evil always seems more formidable than does good. Some even
scoff at the very notion of its existence, subconsciously
preempting accusations that they might be enabling or siding with
any such thing. If one doesn't delineate the world in terms of good
and evil, one never has to admit that he is supporting the wrong
camp, or why. Fear is masked, and the hunt to collect moral
justification for one's position commences.
"We now have a president who thinks in terms of good and evil,"
balks actor Sean Penn.
Artists. Many of them have been expressing this sentiment in
recent months. Evil is such an alien concept to this sensitive sort
that when it slaps them across the face, a defense mechanism
kicks in and reaches for an explanation, for a rationale to the
To Mr. Penn there is no such thing as clear-cut evil. It's been the
foundation of storytelling over the centuries, but the actor has
declared the centuries outmoded. Millennia of tales, and none of
them rooted in reality. Good guy-bad guy. Hero-villain.
These timeless concepts must have originated from thin air, with
no real-life models. The one example an artist will have at the
ready, as though it's history's first and last, is Adolf Hitler. Yet
today's Hitler isn't so easily defined. Political correctness has
obscured truth from lie, has made wrong appear right and has
justified evil, confusing contemporary generations.
The late Russian-American novelist Mark Aldanov had an insight
into the subconscious motivation of those who obscure good and
bad: Whom would one feel safer having as one's enemy? he asked.
The side without standards or scruples, or the side governed by
morality, which doesn't kill easily but exercises judiciousness and
Today's cowards, even if they know in their gut that the Islamic
world is in the wrong, are scared to oppose it, for they know it has
no internal checks on its behavior. So if crossing to the dark side
will prolong their lives by a single day, they will buy time on evil's
Even from the microcosmic view of a single college campus, a
student may fear his Arabic peers and will sooner rail against the
campus's pro-Israeli forces, since he is less likely to get beat up by
The international community adopts a similar approach to the
Middle East. After all, who is easier to condemn--Arabs or Jews?
And so the pressure always falls on the latter. Especially since
everyone knows that their conduct is generally guided by
principles of humanity, morality, honesty, compassion and justice.
Or else the photojournalism coming from the region would look
entirely different from what it has been so far. We wouldn't see
pictures of militants captured by the Israeli army being fed water
by Israeli soldiers. We wouldn't see photographs of Palestinian
schoolgirls chatting carefree as they walk past Israeli soldiers. We
wouldn't have seen a photograph of a Palestinian man perched on
a low ledge, casually observing machine-gun-wielding Israeli
soldiers in the middle of a gun battle with militants as the soldiers
practically brush by his dangling legs.
Nor would there be PBS footage of Palestinian women coming
out from inside militants' homes during a raid, fearlessly mouthing
off at the soldiers conducting it. Nor would there be 1.3 million
But to the UN, charged with promoting world peace, the Middle
East serves as a constant reminder of its failed mission. As long as
there is fighting, it reflects badly on them. The path of least
resistance becomes tempting. If it leads to the extinction of one
people over the other, that's one way to solve the problem--
without the UN ever directly involving itself in the bloodshed.
The international community doesn't do what's right. It does
what's easier. Who has time to actually sift through the facts,
especially when that could lead to taking the path of greater
It's far easier to do what is popularly perceived as the right thing.
On an individual level, this is driven by a desire for blamelessness
and acceptance. One will never have to defend being "for peace"
or be asked to explain the statement "the Palestinians are an
occupied people." Humanitarianism is a seductive identity to take
on, and there's a lot of ego in doing so. If one doesn't understand
and doesn't care to understand the complexities--which are often
simpler than those he must layer on to justify his position--one
appears to be humane and enlightened and can go through life
It is likewise ego that drives European countries to dissent from
major U.S.-led efforts. Europe, itself essentially a Muslim country
(yes, country), acts like something between a teenager trying to assert his independence and a wishy-washy third party waiting out the escalating conflict in order to align itself with whichever side seems more likely to win, whether right or wrong. So Europeans stand up to American might rather than Islamic might. What courage, after all, does it take to oppose America? America isn't going to terrorize them.
The internationals should note, however, that in traditional story
lines good trumps evil. They should also respect history enough to
know that committing to the dark side rarely scores any long-term
points with it.
But the UN just may go along with the U.S. on this one--on Iraq.
So that its member states can pretend they're good for something.
And, no doubt, so they can later pressure the U.S. to pony up for
building renovations. There has to be a payoff, after all. Doing the
right thing alone isn't enough.
Which is proof that calls for coalitions, resolutions and other
forms of international blessings are meant to obscure the obvious
fact that America could do a far better job of governing the world
single-handedly than in collaboration with the world. So as Bush
finishes his father's work in Iraq, moves to undo Carter's
handiwork in Iran, digs out from under Clinton's work everywhere
and continues Reagan's work everywhere, he proves that getting
one's hands dirty pursuing what is right is far less evil than
keeping one's hands clean enabling the spread of what is wrong.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 06:35:57 GMT