Thinking the unthinkable: exploring unconventional perspectives and ideas

¶ … Unthinkable

The author of this work has a strange outlook. Forget the near-sociopathic detachment to the human suffering of 9/11, there are more alarming things at work, because they are thought processes. The author applies his/her own morals to the developing world, claiming that there is "outrage" about U.S. foreign policy that would lead to such actions. This is the viewpoint of the wealthy man who feels guilt for his wealth. The rational analysis of U.S. foreign policy is that people with limited education know little about economics, or political science. Even where there is understanding that the U.S. might contribute to poverty, there is little direct outrage that would result in terrorism. That much should be plainly obvious -- people most likely to be victimized by U.S. foreign policy have an immediacy to their situation that would result in immediate action, not a months-long planning process and idyll terror. Only those with the luxury of not worrying where their next meal was coming from would be in the position to dedicate themselves to committing such an act of terror. The 9/11 terrorist attacks could in no way shape or form be the result of a spontaneous outburst of anger. It must be derived and manipulated by those with the luxury -- and therefore wealth - to contemplate the complex interrelationships between nation states. That the author would fail to realize this is the direct result of someone projecting their guilt for their own luxurious position in society onto other people.

The author revels in the terror porn of detailed descriptions of death and suffering, clearly his own thoughts already going in this direction -- the guilt of wealth driving him to self-hatred, which naturally manifests itself in phenomenal evil. The worst of evil in the 20th century all derived from those of wealth who had the luxury of not only cultivating hatred but of developing intricate plans to impose that hatred upon others -- Hitler and Pol Pot come to mind.

I guess I found that this article lacked substance. The author was easy to read, but delivered little beyond personal opinion and bias. he/she projects his own personal guilt-driven hate onto those in the developing world, but also those in America as well. We are all agents of hegemony, those who would destroy others. There was nothing compelling in this straw man argument. Does it contribute to the body of understanding? I think not, because it is entirely driven by unsubstantiated bias. What I would want to see is an article covering this topic that doesn't read like a spoiled brat's op-ed. I would want something with some scientific rigor, and with enough humility that the author would understand his biases and the unfounded characteristics the author is projecting on the rest of the world.