On the Bus – I mean, on the side of the bus. 7/7 attack anniversary.


A year ago tomorrow the July 7 tube and bus bombings took place. Terrible. Blowback. Sublime. Whatever your evaluation, opinion, fear, craziness – its the case that the whole thing has become a political football and some folks this week are playing for penalties with flippers and snorkel in a way that can only remind me of Grosso and Henri. Blair trying to play the blame card, moderate Muslim ‘leaders’ trying to suck up, everyone managing to avoid discussion of the reasons and the ongoing open wounds that are Afghanistan, Iraq…

Even some highly respected theorists seem incapable of a open eyed examination of the issues, the grievances, the consequences of global imperial war (on terror): both Buck-Morrs and Zizek have noted that those who attacked the New York Trade towers on September 11, 2001, left no ‘message’ and ‘no list of demands’ – suggesting this absence of explicit message offers a new fold in the practice of dissent. Is it that they want to suggest/agree with the popular understanding that these ‘terrorists’ are only crazed fanatics raged against us, and nothing more? This is poor analysis if so – the ‘reading’ of intent and the characterisation of ‘terrorists’ as fanatics strikes me as something that needs a more careful examination. Not conspiracy theory, but discussion of the ways we talk ourselves into compliance with Blair, accepting the profiles, conceding to the demonisation of Muslims etc etc (shooting on the train, armed police with kill orders – operation Kratos) and other militarisations of everyday life.

Was there really no message? – the portrayal of the fourth bomber on July 7, 2005 as the younger of the lads who had, somehow, chickened out and failed to set off his bomb on the tube, then gets on a bus and ‘accidentally’ the bomb goes off … this should also be reconsidered. Check the bus, check the choice of bus – not that it was on the way to Hackney Wick, but check the image on the side of the bus. Apologies to those who would like to think this was not an organised act of resistance, but there does seem to be a message here. War of terror indeed. Not a matter of profiling, but of examining the ways the event of July 7 (and Sept 11) is managed as an alibi for continuing global violence, bombings, occupations and absolute failure to think through the outcomes achieved on the back of 500 years of global capitalist wealth extraction.

Of course the press misrepresent, but then so does all critique that does not always worry at this question of the co-constitution of outlook and action, prejudice and project.

I think its fairly boring for intellectuals to comment (Zizek, Buck-Morrs) that today protests (the Sept 11 bombers) have ‘no list of demands’. Its not quite so clear cut, but when Zizek, for example, points out that there were no demands, and no ideological program, beyond some claim – as far as he knows – for recognition, and a wish to make an impact, we should take a moment to look. We live in a universe which celebrates the absence of ideology, the dangerous reflexive society (of Giddens) gives rise to the gesture of fascism but not fascism that restores order and dignity (to those of the homeland) but rather now a fascism which would attribute meaning as only a gesture, and achieves this as a totalitarian control. So we comply with fascism when we accept those commentators who would have us avoid thinking, so as to spin the images on our screens. But we do know its not like that, we can actually see the signs on the bus.
.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • Maria Technosux  On 11/07/2006 at 20:37

    Zizek blows. He has only come a celebrity philosopher because he´s East-European, had written stuff for years without anyone batting an eye, then with the expansion of the EU he suddenly apeared on all the reading lists. So he writes these pieces where he basically says that it´s OK for him to be a consumerist because he grew up under the Soviet system (it SO angers me when he says that!). His celebrity status is also because of his association with the Lacan.com clique which includes Agamben (who IMO is better) and the creepzoid Baudrillard. Why would anyone read Welcome To The Desert of The Real when they can read the SI texts from which it´s all totally ripped off? And, as Dr. Mimi Nguyen said: why does EVERYTHING have to point back to Lacan?

    Unfortunately I can´t post this here because you can´t read Dutch, but I have this really neat piece from an art critique paper (De Witte Raaf) wherein the writer alleges that what really pushed terrorist Ata over the brink was that, as an architecture-student in the West, he was force-fed the Disneyfication of Arab architecture (i.e. making it look good to tourists) as the only way to preserve Arab culture in a global capitalist world. What do you think of that one? DWR also had an essay titled “Osama Bin Laden the Cartesian”.

    Tex.

    Like

  • John Hutnyk  On 11/07/2006 at 22:23

    post a link to the dutch anyway because some readers are multi-lingual. And I am in Utrecht tomorrow, so it kinda works.

    Red salute
    -John

    Like

  • Anonymous  On 12/07/2006 at 10:58

    titel: Bin Laden als cartesiaan
    ondertitel: Over de moderniteit van het fundamentalisme
    editie: 108-MRT 2004
    auteur: De Kesel Marc
    http://dewitteraaf.stylelabs.com/web/flash/showfile.asp?file=WR 108 De Kesel.htm

    I can´t find the other one on Atta, and since I am not at home I can´t look up the paper version. Their insite search-engine is really clumsy and they´ve disabled google´s advanced insite search, forcing you to use only their own clumsy interface.

    Tex.

    Like

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,812 other followers

%d bloggers like this: