When I began putting up these webpages, it seemed a simple enough project. I simply wanted to provide a place for my friend Marc’s writing. Since then this project has taken on a life of its own, growing and evolving on a daily pace. As new pieces have come in, pages have gone up; links have been added, and need to be checked, and sometimes these lead to other links. Through the unfoldment of this process a perspective has begun to emerge, both an appreciation of all the work being done by others, and a reflection within of how engaging in this project has changed me on a personal level. For too long I have been an observer, content to watch what others do. The WTC attack has changed not only the world landscape but the inner one as well, bringing me to a place where I need to express my own voice. The simple fact of supporting the work of others has forced me to take sides, to acknowledge where my beliefs lie. These are reflected in the choices I make, what I choose to believe, what expression of reality I hope influence through being alive. Scoop Nisker, the famous counter-culture radio newscaster, created a famous tagline to end all his broadcasts: “If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.” I’m saying nothing new here; my voice wasn’t the first or the clearest. This website is just my small step towards activism, taking Scoop’s advice to heart. One by one, each pebble added to the pile creates the mountain ….
What I see reflected in the works I have posted is the view that we as a species in general, and America in particular as the world’s most powerful political and economic entity, have failed to live up to our highest potential. Our vaunted standard of living has not been without cost, both to the living environment of the planet on which we must live, and to those who are not fortunate enough to benefit from this standard. That applies not only to those around the world who toil to provide resources, but to those within our American society who cannot afford the full benefits available around them. We might denigrate the Taliban as 12th century fanatics, but in truth the majority of the world’s population live closer to the level of medieval serfs than to that of a corporate executive in our modern society. Fritz Lang’s classic silent movie Metropolis portrayed class struggle in dramatic and eloquent fashion. This foreshadows the split we are now experiencing in this shadow war against terrorism. Classic Marxism might have failed, but the grim economic realities that spurred it are still present, a seething cauldron of resentment against a system that is more exclusive than inclusive. It manifests against political and economic entities around the globe, but the influence of the United States is so interwoven into that global economy that we cannot escape sitting atop the pyramid that is being shaken.
This in no way condones terrorism or the use of murder for political agendas, but how can we decry subversive use of force when our own overt display of power creates the same results? What it now feels like is as if we have been earning credit on other people’s suffering, and now these debts are coming home to roost. By using our own airplanes to bomb our own buildings, the message was loud and clear – return to sender. What irony that we deliver death from the sky around the globe, and that is how it comes back to us. While a response is necessary, we have chosen a path that our own leaders have questioned. Is a war the best way to bring an underground network to justice, or have we stepped into the trap laid by Bin Laden to set us up for even more dire political consequences? This reminds me of the old Brer Rabbit story of the Tar Baby, where Brer Rabbit attacks the inanimate dummy for the insolence of not returning a hello. Each strike mires Brer Rabbit deeper into a sticky mess, until at last he is immobilized by his own impetuous actions. That story might well be a parable for our time. Everyone understands that even if we destroy Bin Laden, the example of what he has done will live on. No matter how we might protest the unjustness of it, someone somewhere will see him as a hero, striking out for the oppressed common man against the faceless power of distant governments and corporations.
There are aspects of our response to the terrorists attacks that are simply confused and inept. I knew from the start that the first anthrax death was a precursor. The synchronicity of events was too deep to think otherwise, and conflicting stories from government spokespersons only underscored the dichotomy between the need to warn people and the desire to maintain control of events. From the start I predicted that the targets were not just the recipients of tainted mail, but the mail itself, and through it everyone who receives it. Like the airplane hijackings, this is indiscriminate terror, and before it is over it might well reach coast to coast and overseas. Like the exhaust left behind by a motor vehicle, the tiny 5 micron spores of anthrax can leak out of the 10 micron pores in envelopes to leave behind a trail. Experts didn’t catch it from the start; now they suspect they have a bigger problem. The first mail could have been a trial run. Once the tactic is confirmed, it can be refined and copied, not unlike how earlier attempts to destroy the World Trade Center led to a final successful one. The terrorists had the core idea; all they needed was a bigger bomb and better delivery system. Big systems are slow to react. Thinking “outside the box” isn’t necessarily encouraged and creative solutions are hard to implement. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, then seeing that multiplied a thousand-fold as entrenched bureaucratic behavior demonstrates the problem of responding to innovative guerrilla warfare tactics.
Other aspects of our response, however, reflect the worst of our behavior, especially by the wealthy international corporate powers that have earned so much fear and enmity. The grab for corporate welfare in the wake of the terrorist attacks is a form of economic takeover. So to is the suppression of liberties being passed in the name of securing freedom. I have been told I take a risk in posting this website. My response is, if such freedom to express my opinion has been lost, then the terrorists have indeed brought down our society. Years ago, from 1979-1981, I was in a band in Berkeley called “The Pornocrats”; we held rallies in People’s Park to get people to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Our slogan was “Pornocracy - when the system is obscene.” (One of our songs was a prescient piece called Oil War) When I see the oil corporations trying to destroy one of the last pristine arctic regions with one excuse after another, this is an obscene abuse of political and economic power. There will always be a handy crisis, so do the ends justify the means? Extremism in the defense of virtue is no virtue. One cannot protect values by selling them out. How much of our interest in Afghanistan is to provide corporate access to the great untapped oil fields of Kazakstan, as opposed, say, to upholding the dignity and rights of oppressed women? As Marc wrote in Politics of Fairness “we are at the turning point in history where we are being challenged to re-envision the great ideals of freedom, equality and opportunity, and bring them to all the world.”
“I read, among others, your statement of purpose in link below. While you make very good points, I'm confused as to what you think America SHOULD do?” - R.B.
Good point. I don't know that anyone does see clearly what we "should" do ... I think before the bombing in Afghanistan we were on the right track. We had public sympathy around the globe; even the North Koreans sent a letter of condolence, but now they've again broken off contact in disgust with American policies, which includes not just this issue but our isolationist arrogance over the environmental Kyoto Accords and the South African conference on racism. There is a blatant hypocrisy in expecting the world to support us when we want help, yet we turn our back to those who ask us to pay attention to their issues.
What I think we should have done is to have exploited the political angle to exert pressure against support for terrorism, pursued them through CIA and other covert channels in conjunction with foreign governments, continued to cut off financial avenues of support wherever possible, and waited for them to show their heads in due time. If we are hunting down criminals, then we must think as hunters, and that means being patient, reading the spoor, following the track. This is not just an Afghanistan issue, it is global. There are terrorists in Afghanistan, but there are terrorists here, where the attacks were launched. Bombing a desolate overseas country merely covers up the failures of our intelligence agencies and the immigration service. Meanwhile we are shooting ourselves in the foot to cure an infection.
As Marc writes, how do we know that NOT bombing would allow the rise of a Hitler-like state? Then again, does bombing prevent this, or simply re-ignite old wounds against the West in many parts of the world that have been politically and economically oppressed since the Age of Exploration began in the 1400's? Clearly we are losing the propaganda war, here and abroad, not just in Muslim countries but also amongst European allies. We had the opportunity to hold the moral upper hand. Now we are bombing one of the poorest and most inflicted people on earth, and it feels as though that shining moment to hold forth the light of higher truth and purpose has been missed. From here the struggle is uphill.
Sincerely,
Jeff Finder
11/1/01
Questions and Answers Further dialogue with readers