Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Found this on UK Business forum by a Mr Cohen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Found this on UK Business forum by a Mr Cohen

    It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

    It was a time of beheadings. With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater. Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.

    It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation on earth pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part of a neighboring country, the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane. The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his. He invoked the law the better to trample on it. He invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He reminded humankind that the idiom fascism knows best is untruth so grotesque it begets unreason.

    It was a time of breakup. The most successful union in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution — not because it had failed (refugees from across the seas still clamored to get into it), nor even because of new hatreds between its peoples. The northernmost citizens were bored. They were disgruntled. They were irked, in some insidious way, by the south and its moneyed capital, an emblem to them of globalization and inequality. They imagined they had to control their National Health Service in order to save it even though they already controlled it through devolution and might well have less money for its preservation (not that it was threatened in the first place) as an independent state. The fact that the currency, the debt, the revenue, the defense, the solvency and the European Union membership of such a newborn state were all in doubt did not appear to weigh much on a decision driven by emotion, by urges, by a longing to be heard in the modern cacophony — and to heck with the day after. If all else failed, oil would come to the rescue (unless somebody else owned it or it just ran out).

    It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.

    It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews. Frightened European Jews removed mezuzahs from their homes. Europe’s Muslims felt the ugly backlash from the depravity of the decapitators, who were adept at Facebooking their message. The fabric of society frayed. Democracy looked quaint or outmoded beside new authoritarianisms. Politicians, haunted by their incapacity, played on the fears of their populations, who were device-distracted or under device-driven stress. Dystopia was a vogue word, like utopia in the 20th century. The great rising nations of vast populations held the fate of the world in their hands but hardly seemed to care.

    It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

    Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.
    Chris Ashdown

    #2
    Good writing but very shallow analysis with little to no real understanding of the underlying issues.

    Tbh I find it rather distasteful in the way it picks selected titbits of info and presents them in a way to create and support a pre-conceived story line.

    I guess that's all it is in the end. A piece of story telling rather than any kind of analysis or journalism. I still find it rather distasteful to be making up stories about current events that many people would rather see properly thought through with a view to resolution rather than just being used for entertainment.

    Maybe I'm just too touchy on this but for some reason it doesn't sit right with me.

    Mike
    -----------------------------------------

    First Tackle - Fly Fishing and Game Angling

    -----------------------------------------

    Comment


      #3
      But Mike is that not how most look back on history a short appraisal rather than a deep reading of conflicting experts working either on hindsight or 21st century thinking on a 20 century happening

      Many thought the Japanese barbaric in the 1940-50's but now see a civilised society and as for Journalists they are hired to make a readable story and don't have a requirement to be Impartial
      Chris Ashdown

      Comment


        #4
        Except it's not even an appraisal. the best I can come up with is that this piece is very like it's comment on fascism. A 'grotesque untruth'.

        Mike
        -----------------------------------------

        First Tackle - Fly Fishing and Game Angling

        -----------------------------------------

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Mike Hughes View Post
          rather distasteful in the way it picks selected titbits of info and presents them in a way to create and support a pre-conceived story line.
          I agree - without knowing the author or his race or religion it is very easy to see where his beliefs lay, more so in what he doesn't talk about than what he does. Impartial journalism is almost always impossible to report.

          One of my pet hates is when people start quoting poets, writers and others to try and add weight and greater authority to their own work. There is no need, have confidence in your own musings and be better than Kipling, Keats or Washington.

          If the author wants to avoid an unravelling Dystopia better to put forward solutions as everyone on the planet knows the issues regardless of race, colour and nationality... Kipling's Dog needs to be shown a better source of food and not merely castigated for returning to his vomit time and time again.


          Bikster
          SellerDeck Designs and Responsive Themes

          Comment

          Working...
          X