Terrorism Exploits Your Brain
"7 years on.
Why does it still evoke so much emotion when I think about it?
I don't know...but I hope it never becomes just another day to me.
Some things are worth a violent, visceral, angry, resolved, proud, patriotic remembrance."
- PCCboard
I have waited until now to post this, in order to not join the flood of September 11 posts about remembering what happened seven years ago. But following 's comments to my last post, I think it's time.
I do not commemorate 9/11. It is just another day for me. Just as many people are killed by a lightning strike as by terrorists.
I understand that sounds callous, but isn't it also callous to weigh a smaller tragedy as greater than a very large one? The hysterical emotion provoked by ghosts of 9/11 leads directly to a bigger problem, which is the War On Terror. If the War On Terror was a justifiable response to 9/11, we would have a War On Automobiles in vengeance for collision deaths. The reason humans make these mistakes of proportion is that our brains are wired to over-emphasize risks when they are very dramatic.
It's like a malicious computer hacker. The brain has security vulnerabilities through the emotions. Getting a sense of proportion can seem callous, but 9/11 is basically a computer virus of the brain now, and we have to issue a patch before even more harm is done in its name. That's more important.
I offer you a copy of that patch right here. Most of you have already installed it.
The message of the anniversary ought to be "remember the heroes," but instead it's "remember to fear, remember to hate." The heroes, like so many others in different tragedies who are equally worthy, are already a footnote in history, replaced by photo-ops for politicians. That's what the anniversary is now. I will not share that kind of memorial.
The word "terrorism" has "terror" in it because it's a form of psychological warfare. The only goal of killing people with a terrorist act is to inflict emotion on the population-- the deaths are just the means to this end. Look around; it worked. In the name of those emotions, we lost a lot of the civil rights and humanity toward prisoners that make this nation distinct from Iran. (Among other factors of course. Those are hardly the only two distinctions.)
Accept that terror is like hurricanes; it will always be with us, so what we need is forecasting and quality emergency response. You can live with this. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are an order of magnitude lower than drowning in one's own bathtub.
Accept that we cannot stop terrorism by force, and in fact, that exacerbates it. Shooting up various other countries is pure vengeance, not deterrent. In fact it increases the problem by raising up a whole generation of new terrorists overseas.
Accept that if you die in a terrorist attack because you wouldn't give up your freedoms to prevent it, that's how you defend your country's freedom with your life.
The virus spreads through commemoration. 9/11 is a tool of manipulation. Let go of it, and the tool can't be used on you any more. That's the patch.
Comments
rwhe on Sep. 30, 2008 7:12 AM
Bravo.
Ron Hale-Evans
rachelann1977 on Sep. 30, 2008 12:04 PM
I've felt this way from the start. When I first saw people shaking from tears at the office on that very day, and discovered that they did not by some strange coordination of events, all have family or friends involved in the tragedy, I was baffled.
People thought I was callous, I suppose, but I cannot fake hysteria, and like you, I find it rather destructive to do so.
In response to that quote from the PCC board, I would say, "Yes, some things are worth such a response, but this is not one of them, and when such a thing does occur in your life, you will not find yourself arguing over your emotional reaction, because you will be too busy worrying about how to survive."
sheryl67 on Sep. 30, 2008 12:48 PM
Great post, Matt.
rbradakis on Sep. 30, 2008 1:07 PM
What you said, indeed.
I've always felt that. If you live in fear, you have given terrorists their win.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 2:38 PM
Comparing terrorist attacks to hurricanes and lightning strikes is beyond absurd. I would have thought the difference would be obvious to even the most wide eyed liberal wearing a deluxe set of Nancy Pelosi blinkers.
For you and others that think this analogy makes sense, the difference is a terrorist attack is mounted against a specific target by a person or people that wish to scare a population into their way of thinking. How you can compare a terrorist attack to a weather event is beyond me. Mother nature doesn't care what your political and social leanings are when she is in a snit.
Terrorism can be and has been stopped by force. In spite of the New York Times acting as Al Queda's US intelligence arm, our efforts crippled Al Queda and other bad actors. You have noticed we have not been attacked in this country since Sept. 11th, haven't you? And that is in spite of repeated declarations of flaming deaths for all of us.
Now you and people that think like you want to elect someone that will undo all that. If Sen. Obama gets in, and sadly enough he stands a good chance of winning, we will once again experience attacks on our soil at home. Obama's often repeated positions are dangerously naive: Being unwilling to drill for oil here, wanting to make nice with that whack job from Iran, dropping Iraq like a hot potato, etc.
It is nice that you are willing to die for your country's freedom. If Sen. Obama is elected, you may well get a chance to do that. It is my firm belief he will probably get us into a major war, possibly a global conflict. And this war will be over oil.
Your analysis that dying in a terror attack is dying for freedom is beyond the limits of reality. You are failing to consider the most fundamental of rights we enjoy in this country. That is the right to walk around a public place without being killed or maimed at random.
I prefer to think the way Gen. Patton did: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." I think this is applicable here to.
So, you believe your freedoms have been imposed upon...
Would you be so good as to list the things you can not do today that you were able to do on Sept. 10, 2001?.
We really are going to have to lose a city before you and others like you wake up. If you have illusions there are anti-terror restrictions on your life now, sit down and think about the knee jerk reaction that will come out the smoldering ruins of a large city. We are talking about congress here.
zifferent on Sep. 30, 2008 3:54 PM
If there really is going to be a city lost. I can assure you it will be by surprise and nothing we could have done will have stopped it.
matt-arnold on Sep. 30, 2008 3:58 PM
Individual terror attacks can be stopped. But as with any other form of crime, there is an infinite supply of new terrorists. You will always be at risk to die randomly while walking in public, as long as there are any human beings still alive. Ever since technology gave individuals the power to cause havoc on this scale without a supporting government, the right you think is most fundamental ceased to exist and can never return.
If we lose a city, why do you think that would change my mind? We lost a city to Hurricane Katrina and I didn't start crying about weather control machines.
It's true, the difference is indeed whether someone is killed by a blind force of nature or accident, and whether they are killed deliberately by force. I am saying that distinction makes no difference to the actual level of the problem-- the actual risk, danger, and threat is smaller from deliberate terror attacks than from blind accidents. The point you bring up is precisely the one I was trying to make.
The level of danger and damage is what matters, not the intention. Katrina's lack of ideology will not bring back any of the destruction it wrought. The only way that the terrorists' hatred adds to the damage they did, is by hurting your feelings, which is what this is about. The Us-vs-Them revenge instinct of a pack animal, which caused the terror attacks in the first place.
We have seen that mentality at work in every cycle of retaliation in modern history. Forgive my bluntness, but you think like a terrorist. They have converted you.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 6:35 PM
Actually, no one converted me to this way of thinking. I've been thinking this way since high school. Later in life I discovered that it is the military way of thinking as well. If there is a clear and present danger, you eliminate the threat before you get around to the niceties.
You are not very good at reading my mind. There is no us verses them mentality here. However, I have no problem with taking out people that are intent on killing us.
Now then, you still have not listed the things you cannot do now that you were able to do on Sept. 10, 2001.
matt-arnold on Sep. 30, 2008 7:07 PM
I could, but I presume you've heard it before and remain unconvinced.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 7:13 PM
Enlighten me. I really want to see the list of things you could freely do on Sept. 10, 2001 that you cannot do now. Many, many people are screaming about their "lost freedoms," but when pressed to list them, they can't seem to list anything they can't do anymore. Perhaps you will be the exception.
matt-arnold on Sep. 30, 2008 8:04 PM
Protest and report journalism outside the Republican National Convention.
Make phone calls without AT&T wiretaps.
Take out a library book without being reported.
Habeas Corpus.
Appeal accusations against me and confront my accusers, when it comes to No Fly Lists.
Fly with drinking water; this has directly prevented loved ones from visiting me.
One of the ways it has affected me personally is that the mindset of response to 9/11 has resulted in a War On The Unexpected. Bruce Schneier has an excellent essay on the topic detailing our loss of freedom to be seen possessing items as trivial as a tape dispenser. I cannot put up Super Mario Blocks or Lite-Brites or flour on the ground marked with chalk arrows, without the bomb squad being called. That's the kind of thing I would want to do. I don't want to live in a country where we can't be unique, where we must live in bland conformity to expectations, where we can't brighten our lives without being charged with felonies by bed-wetters crying wolf.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 9:20 PM
First off, I'm not interested in what Bruce thinks he can't do anymore. I asked what you personally cannot do anymore.
I didn't know you were in Minneapolis. Do you have first hand information of people being prevented from protesting? The tapes I saw showed lots of wonderful free thinking protesters blocking streets, making obscene gestures for the network cameras, carrying signs, misbehaving and generally demonstrating what a disaster our education system has become.
I'm not exactly sure what it means to "report journalism." However if you are suggesting that reporters weren't allowed to cover in and around the convention, I can show you a crew of a couple hundred people that will disagree with you. And who shot all that video of those protesters acting like ass-hats?
Wiretaps have been a way of life for law enforcement since the first bookie discovered a telephone. By the way, wire taps are not exclusive to AT&T. And AT&T does not do a tap with out government authorization. Contrary to what the New York Times editorial page would have you believe, the government does not tap domestic calls without a warrant. If you are calling or receiving calls from a Iran, Pakistan or some "dirty" phone outside the United States, you might have a guest on the call. But the government has always had the right to do that on overseas calls. No change there either.
Are you seriously suggesting that every time you check out a library book, it goes into some federal register? Who is reporting you to who? And those records, if they are kept, were always available through subpoena. And most librarians, being government employees would turn over information to law enforcement anyway. Those that refused cooperate in an investigation are few and far between. No change there. By the way, did you know that public libraries are public institutions and all of their records (excepting your date of birth and social security number) are already public record. That includes what you check out.
Prisoners of war and terrorists caught outside the United States are not entitled to Habaes Corpus. However your right to Habeas Corpus is still intact. NO change there.
Are you on a no fly list? If so you do have the right to find out why and clear it up. But airlines have had no fly lists since the first drunk slugged a flight attendant on an old Ford Tri-Motor. No real change there either.
Airlines have drinking water on board. That is no excuse not to fly. But I'll have to give you that one. However, your right to travel is still good.
So in short, other then being able to take a bottle of water on an airplane, nothing in your life has changed since Sept. 10, 2001.
matt-arnold on Sep. 30, 2008 10:53 PM
It is necessary to stop talking about politics and start talking about this conversation. I think like me, you prefer to skip over polite pretenses, so I will do so.
I don't need your political advice, because I don't respect your reasoning even when you reach the same conclusions I do.
What is worse, I do not trust you are participating in this conversation sincerely or in good faith. I have no reason to obey the conditions you set on your little challenge games, just for you to claim that I haven't satisfied them.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 11:12 PM
I am participating in good faith. The problem is that if we strip away the left-wing propaganda you find that each and everyone one of your constitutionally guaranteed rights are alive and well. None of us has lost anything.
If you support Sen. Obama, that's fine. But make sure you know what you are supporting. That is higher taxes, more jobs going overseas, weakened national security, weak international policies, continuing oil shortage and dependence on foreign oil, giving what ever is left of our wealth away to third world nations, handicapping the US in a global economy with one sided green house gas restrictions, active promotion of socialist policies, expanded welfare rolls, etc, etc, etc...
I don't want someone that wants to be president of the world. (See his speeches in Germany and his televised speech to the CGI last week.) I want a President that puts the best interests of the United States and its people first.
You are smart enough to look beneath the illusion presented by those that can't see any farther then their hatred of President Bush. Go ahead and have a look.
I leave this thread to you and hopefully with no hard feelings.
brendand on Oct. 3, 2008 2:06 AM
Good. Taxes need to be higher.
How does Obama stand for sending jobs over seas when McCain and Bush are both in favor of giving tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas, but Obama is not?
I do not think that just because Obama does not believe in starting wars that it is a fair conclusion that we will have "weakened national security."
Please explain what you mean by "weak international policies."
It seems you're not smart enough to see through the right-wing propaganda.
uplinktruck on Oct. 3, 2008 4:00 AM
Taxes need to be higher? Really, who do you think is going to end up paying them? You should run for office on that platform. It will be interesting to see how you do.
Sens. Obama and Biden are both proudly touting a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Should the House and Senate be ignorant enough to pass such a thing and it stands up to any legal challenges (you must treat everyone equally in the tax code) the oil companies are not going to eat that tax. They will simply raise prices and you and I will end up picking up the tab in higher prices.
As for the jobs, don't forget that the more taxes you raise, the less business you are going to see. This is especially true if the costs of fuel go up. Along with that loss of business goes a loss of jobs. Some businesses, mostly smaller operations will simply vanish along with their tax money and payroll.
Larger companies will move more, if not all of their operations off shore. There is no law forbidding a company from moving any or all of its operations to a place that is easier and cheaper to get along with. Any law you propose that would do that, or apply special taxes for doing that will be tossed out of court as discriminatory.
The United States has one of the highest business tax structures in the world. Sen. Obama is anti-business, pro-big government and all in favor of lots of regulations just to make sure nothing is simple to do.
Have you ever wondered why it is more expensive to buy steel made in Pittsburgh then it is to load all the raw materials on ocean going barges, make the steel somewhere in the Pacific rim, then ship that finished steel back across the ocean? If you think it is bad now, see what happens if Sen. Obama gets in with along with a Democrat House and Senate.
Weak international policies lead to weak national security. His desire to sit down and legitimize terrorists by meeting with them as the head of state is one prime example. The fact that Hamas thinks he is a good idea shows yet another example of bad international policy.
The biggest problem is the Senator thinks he can simply talk to these people that want Israel obliterated and us along with them (for the sin of supporting Israel and not being Muslim) and every thing will be just fine.
His positions on international relations are remarkable for their naivety alone. Think Jimmy Carter only much more so.
dawnwolf on Sep. 30, 2008 4:03 PM
Love you, dear, but this sounds so much like a Faux News report that it's hard to read with a straight face. You seem to be stuck in a seven-year-long knee-jerk reaction with no end in sight.
The fact is, Matt is correct - the terrorists did succeed in scaring this country into a different mode of thinking. One that makes sinking to the terrorists' level, a la committing torture, giving up fundamental freedoms, and invading other countries, seem reasonable in response.
But - you won't convince me, and I won't convince you. We're still both good people.
uplinktruck on Sep. 30, 2008 4:40 PM
Yes you are good people. My good status is debatable depending on who you ask. Even Sen. Obama seems to be a good man. He is horribly misguided and dangerously naive, but still a good man inside.
Giving up fundamental freedoms? Would you be good enough to list the things you can no longer do that you could do prior to Sept. 11th?
justbeast on Sep. 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Have I mentioned that I like the way you think, and write?
Well put.
dawnwolf on Sep. 30, 2008 3:58 PM — Wow. Bravo!
Matt, this is masterful. I hope you publish it more widely than this blog. You have nailed, and I mean, NAILED, most of what I have thought and felt these past seven years.
drew4096 on Sep. 30, 2008 8:28 PM
What about attending a 9/11 commemoration such as these?
http://guyfie.livejournal.com/13765.html#cutid1
http://guyfie.livejournal.com/17676.html
http://guyfie.livejournal.com/19646.html
matt-arnold on Sep. 30, 2008 10:04 PM
That's really interesting.
Wow, I didn't know he was on LJ. I'll friend him.
li885 on Sep. 30, 2008 11:15 PM
(stands, Claps loudly, sits back down) This is almost exactly how I feel about the whole 911 situation. We have spent WAY to long licking our wounds. While what has happened was a tragedy which has not been repeated. I do not agree with how Republican politicians have used "terrorism" as a way to erode personal freedoms, real or imagined.
I've considered myself a republican, but the last six years have been rethinking that. Not to be trendy,I just can't stand the fear mongering that has been carried out.
If a city was reduced to rubble overnight our government would be as blindside as the rest of us. Hopefully, this time the government will not have a knee jerk reaction as in the past. And sadly as a citizen hope is all we can do in that situation. (Remember, hope and duct tape can fix a leaking boat, in time they both give out)
9/11 Move along folks nothing to see here.
Leave a Comment