Showing posts sorted by date for query EMOTIONAL PLAGUE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query EMOTIONAL PLAGUE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, May 03, 2024

 

Beyond Murder: Colin Wilson, Criminology, and the Evolution of Consciousness

In 2019, I read Paupers’ Press’ latest release, Colin Wilson’s ‘My Interest in Murder’. Although a short book at 40-pages, I kept a notepad close to hand and jotted down some reflections on Wilson’s many books on murder, most of which I had read. These include: The Criminal History of Mankind, Order of Assassins, A Plague of Murder, as well as the many ‘Mammoth’ crime editions published by Robinson. It quickly occurred to me that one could attempt a general synthesis of his overall philosophy with his works on criminology. I saw that the two ran side-by-side, complementing and reinforcing each other. Consequently, my notes became so substantial that I summarised my findings in this informal essay. It wasn’t until Easter 2022, however, that I revisited this article after two encouraging comments on my original piece. I was moved by these comments to revise and update my originally rather spontaneous musings into a more streamline and — hopefully — pleasurable and insightful read, despite its morbid subject.

‘My Interest in Murder’ was first penned as the Introduction to Wilson’s 1972 book, Order of Assassins, but was shelved by the publisher in favour of an alternative preface. Order of Assassins explores the psychology of murder and presents a uniquely stimulating and evolutionary interpretation of the human mind, as well as some of its darker expressions.

Although ‘My Interest in Murder’ is essentially the size of a pamphlet, it is not lacking as a substantial autobiographical reflection on just how and why Wilson became so fascinated by the subject of criminality and criminal psychology. But like anything Wilson wrote about, he always attempted to go beyond the limitations of the self-defeating, pessimistic mindset that has increasingly plagued the late 20th century and much of the beginning of the 21st. What Wilson penetratingly revealed about the criminal mind, however, is something closer to home for many of us non-murderers: the sense of frustrated energies of the creative individual who finds himself in a society increasingly alienated from its vital reserves — its cultural wellsprings. This was a theme which Wilson had already explored at length in his first book, The Outsider, in 1956.

A young Colin Wilson.

The creative process and the inner tensions that may lead to an evolutionary shift in consciousness — a breakthrough, in short — and the self-defeating collapse of values, which results in nihilism and breakdown, is central to Wilson’s philosophy. However, his fascination with murder, and its psychological and philosophical implications, are to be found in his first creative efforts in the form of the novel, Ritual in the Dark (1960), which took nine years to write. But it was his later novel, The Glass Cage (1966), that became for Wilson the “favourite among my own novels.” The Glass Cage is the crystallisation of his philosophy and the culmination of his early researches into criminology and mysticism — the two extreme poles of human experience; the former emerging from a denial of values — moral, philosophical, even cosmological and religious — and the latter a recognition of affirmation, cosmic consciousness, and universal yea-saying.

For Wilson, these tensions were ever close to the surface, especially in his teenage years and early twenties. He was determined to become a writer despite the banalities of his working-class existence, and declared that he would “make literature out of my revolt”. He had “tasted the pleasures of the imagination and intellect” and “wanted the pleasure to pursue them”. This lead to his first writing venture — Ritual in the Dark, which was originally titled after the Egyptian Book of the Dead as Ritual of the Dead. The novel is timeless, pacey and presents a fascinating reflection on the themes of frustration, alienation, and — importantly — outsiderism. It is hard to avoid comparisons with Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, with the protagonist being torn between the intensities both within himself and the often shady people with whom he’s become embroiled.

In contrast to Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, however, Wilson describes his protagonist — Gerard Sorme — as a ‘Simple Simon’. Sorme is found wandering around London after receiving a large inheritance and, in his aimlessness, meets various eccentrics and intensely driven individuals, each with a backstory of semi-mystical visions which end up defining them, for better or for worse, as outsiders. Individuals who, because of their very intensity and thirst for more encompassing experiences and truths about human existence, make up a social minority.

The Misfits (1988)

Turning to Wilson’s later book, The Misfits (1988), which is advertised as a study of sexual outsiders, it is clear how he had his own ‘Simple Simon’ moments. Wilson admits in this book that he slowly (some would argue too slowly) realized a broad-shouldered, deep-voiced and intensely masculine Charlotte Bach was, in fact, a Hungarian cross dresser and conman called Karoly Hadju. Bach first caught Wilson’s interest when he or she forwarded him a manuscript which posited an evolutionary theory based upon a dynamic and creative tensions or interplay between the male and female psychological forces within each individual. Hadju — or Bach — was, a character that could have been lifted straight out of Wilson’s novels.

It was through Wilson’s such meeting with liminal characters that lead him to explore further the psychology of the outsider or misfit. It is therefore not surprising that this should lead to an interest in criminality and the motives for such extremities of experience, whether through sexual fetishes or indeed murder. After all, what is imperative to all such outsiders is a search for intensity of consciousness — an insight or control over one’s emotions, environment, or having achieved some sense of an ultimate reality from which to act meaningfully.

Wilson’s own interest in murder is reflected in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character John H. Watson, who observed in Sherlock Holmes that he appeared “to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century”. Wilson, commenting upon Watson’s remark, responds: “And why not? — for such knowledge was a part of his working equipment.” Wilson notes that by working with such morbid and extreme material, he felt like a “pathologist, working with unpleasant material, but viewing it with detachment”. And, in some alchemical sense, turning over the darker elements of human psychology and transmuting it into its opposite: affirmation consciousness instead of self-destructive criminality.

For Wilson, the sexual impulse and the impulse for murder or sadism are all driven by an intense stimulus — a release of enormous amounts of pent-up energy. This energy, in its raw state, is neither negative nor positive, but pure potential. In other words, the same forces that underlie these extreme drives could be used for great acts of creativity. But such negative expressions as murder or absurd sexual fetishes result when dammed-up potential has collapsed in upon itself.

Wilson writes:

“[T]here are certain people who possess the potentiality of creation, of purposive action; if this is frustrated it turns rotten. The mind is like a forward flowing river; if it is dammed up, it will turn the land around it into a swamp.”

The trajectory from Wilson’s earliest work is not driven by a morbid obsession, but a recognition of the creative spirit in its more general sense. The Outsider dealt with ballet dancers, poets, mystics, and esoteric teachers like the Russian-Armenian G.I. Gurdjieff, who was obsessed with de-automatising man and introducing a level of freedom rarely found in the ‘triviality of everydayness’. I’d argue that Wilson was not so much a ‘Simple Simon’ — far from it! — but a man of immense openness that enabled to him to actualise in his work what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead described the initiatory experience of all true existentialists. Whitehead argued the true thinkers should make it their job to experience everything; drunkenness, sobriety, depression, ecstasy, and so on. None of this, of course, is pursued out of mere hedonism or sadism, but as an attempt to understand the extent of the human instrument throughout its entire existential spectrum. Only then, Whitehead and Wilson would likely argue, could you comment upon the human condition in any general sense. Not as an ivory tower intellectual, but as one on the frontline of life, so to speak.

Murder emerges out of an immense damming up of frustration which then bursts out as a destructive and utterly pointless act. But it is these implicitly creative potentials that Wilson was so fascinated by. Ritual in the Dark resulted from Wilson’s own frustration, much like other classic books — Fernando Pessoa’s The Book of Disquiet, Emil Cioran’s On The Heights of Despair, and Jean Paul Sartre’s Nausea. These were attempts to describe an essential feeling of alienation and the slippery texture of reality. But, unlike these authors, Wilson was driven by something altogether more optimistic and life-affirming.

Initially, he wrote out of a basically emotional revolt that expressed itself creatively. Once the circumstances in his life lightened up — and his naturally cheerful temperament reasserted itself — the tone and philosophy of Ritual in the Dark changed correspondingly. This in turn meant that the protagonist’s response to murder became more nuanced. A sensitivity or basic will-to-health appeared in Gerard Sorme who, albeit it late on in the novel, recognised the murderous act as truly sick and insane. These murders, Wilson wrote, were a “gesture of revolt” against reality — a reality, that the murderer had completely lost touch with, but was slowly dawning on the more healthy-minded Sorme, and, in turn, the author.

The gesture of revolt against reality underpins Wilson’s study of criminology. In low moods we experience a weak grip on reality, and if we allow ourselves to sink yet further, we perceive from the equivalent of a worms-eye view of existence which, in the murderer, includes the reality of other people. Suddenly, the world seems to us meaningless and uninspiring, but, beneath all this, a resentment builds and seeks some sort of cathartic expression. But, as the individual’s grip on reality fails, so does his value judgements — and such ‘cathartic expressions’ become misleading and self-destructive. Murderers and criminals have fallen down this hole, becoming stuck in a loop where reality becomes increasingly unreal, which in turn requires increasingly extreme experiences to evoke any such sense of what the psychologist Pierre Janet called the fonction du reel, or reality function.

“The real present for us” wrote Janet, “is an act of a certain complexity which we grasp as one single state of consciousness in spite of this complexity, and in spite of its real duration, which can be of greater or lesser extent,” meaning that reality and the perception of it requires a fundamental grasping of complexity — a complexity that is increasingly low-resolution when one is feeling low or depressed. Perception is buoyed-up by energy, and, consequently, the more energised one feels, the more one can grasp complexity and the richness — and inherent meaning — of life.

One thing that has always interested me is how we observe ourselves in certain moments. As I’ve gotten older — I’m now 35 — it’s becoming increasingly obvious just how much we take for granted in our lives. Each moment — no matter how banal — offers itself up as a revelation, especially when considered in retrospect. For instance, I’ve worked in several industries, ranging from office work, apple picking, working as a drayman and working in various pubs. I’ve also written and edited several books. It was becoming acquainted with Wilson’s work that I felt an immediate sense of kinship. I too had sat on trucks and lorries for long journeys and had worked in several offices. On the one hand, I enjoyed the freedom of being out on the road, and on the other, I enjoyed stretching my intellectual muscles in office environments. However, I felt an enormous constriction on my energies in both — whether mental or physical. But after much meditation, I’ve now examined my experiences for more general and transformative insights or themes that revolve around something interesting or potentially helpful about the human condition. This is my debt to the work of Wilson.

Around about February and March 2018, I was working as a drayman during the ‘Beast from the East’ storm. A cold wave had blown over from Russia and North Asia, covering most of the West Midlands in precarious snowdrifts and unusually freezing temperatures. I’d get up early each morning and trek down a long and treacherous hill — Standhills Road in Kingswinford — avoiding the many opportunities for slipping over or filling my boots with powdery snow. Once I had arrived at my workplace, a cold room full of plastic and steel casks of ale would greet me each morning. A forklift truck driver would then prepare to stack up the van, which I attempted as best I could in the biting cold and slippery, black-ice-covered surfaces. Eventually the casks would be secured in place and we’d head out to the various pubs and then reverse the process, hoisting down the casks into the dark cellars using a fraying piece of rope with a hook attached to the end. The snow made it enormously difficult to push eighteen-gallon barrels. Often snow would gather up in front of the barrels as you pushed them, and you’d have to get around and kick out a path ahead of yourself.

After a long day of unloading and loading, I’d be exhausted. Again, I’d have to walk back up Standhills Road. This was made all the more difficult, as you’d have to put in twice the effort to walk up a hill than down it. But occasionally I’d take a shortcut and, each time, I’d pass a warm and inviting salon. Inside, beautiful women were blow-drying hair and manicuring fingernails.

In contrast to my day battling with steel casks and accompanying a grumpy chain-smoker, there seemed an obvious difference between men and women. Feminists had missed an important point about manhood. Suddenly — in my exhausted state — I glimpsed a world that appeared delicate and enchanting, altogether removed from the grim machine-like noise of working with heavy machinery and beer. For instance, I could understand why men working with tarmac or scaffolding would leer at the opposite sex. It wasn’t because they were sexist or sex-obsessed, but because the opposite sex represented another world of values.

Obviously, this is a controversial admittance in our politically saturated times. But I am convinced that this is commonplace enough that it is difficult to argue with. After all, political correctness is usually only correct in one dimension — politics. Psychologically, spiritually, experientially, it might be incorrect, impracticable and impractical, and exposing the limits of a political ideal. Life is not lived for political or economic reality alone, no matter what Aristotle or Karl Marx claimed contrariwise.

A few months later I began working in an office. This work demanded far more attention to detail and a different level of concentration. Initially, it was difficult to adjust to the people who have worked in offices for several years. Each day I’d sit at the same desk writing various bids for council jobs. The other employees baffled me as much as I probably baffled them. And not only did the work not engage me — writing about Health & Safety and fire extinguisher codes is intensely boring — the whole environment was vast contrast to working outdoors with burly, outspoken men, that I felt like I was trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare of pedanticism and bureaucracy. I’d secretly yearn for some chaotic event to break the monotony, whether it was a wasps’ nest falling through the ceiling or a member of staff revealing themselves to be a closet Nazi.

I had had a similar experience while working at an academic bookshop in Nottingham. The manager was insufferably short-tempered and petty-minded. Often, her accusations of misconduct or incompetency turned out to result from her own oversights or misinterpretations. Again, I found the people I worked with lacked a certain humility — or indeed sanity — that I’d found in manual labouring work. Feelings and thoughts seemed to be bottled up and would express themselves through passive aggression and the odd cutting comment. All this transferred itself to me, and I noticed that to calm down after work, I’d watch a film about boxing or listen to gangster rap.

This digression into my experience has been an attempt to point out how — and in what form — energies can frustrate or be redirected into darker regions of our psychology, collectively or individually. Our day-to-day lives quickly reflect our feelings and those around us, also pent-up and frustrated, may begin to act out or project their unhappiness onto others. This, in turn, can also be taken into oneself unconsciously, and before you know it, you are reflecting your environment. Tensions escalate and the need for expression presents itself, albeit it in a form that is often unrecognised or unaddressed. This logical regression to an outburst of crime is made quite obvious, but relatively few of us are unbalanced enough to commit anything seriously consequential such as taking another person’s life.

Here I am reminded of a question levelled at the Indian mystic, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, about the purification of the mind. Nisargadatta used a brilliantly phenomenological and penetrating analogy, saying:

“Basically, man is afraid. He is afraid of himself most. I feel I am a man who is carrying a bomb that is going to explode. He cannot diffuse it, he cannot throw it away. He is terribly frightened and is searching frantically for a solution, which he cannot find. To me, liberation is getting rid of this bomb. I do not know much about the bomb. I only know that it comes from early childhood. I feel like the frightened child protesting passionately about not being loved. The child is craving for love and because he does not get it, he is afraid and angry. Sometimes I feel like killing somebody, or myself. The desire is so strong that I am constantly afraid. And I do not know how to get free from fear.”

In the frustrated criminal — or in the outsider battling with an inner conflict between absolute affirmation and absolute denial (mystical yea-saying and the negation of existence) — it is common to feel as if one is “carrying a bomb that is going to explode”. Nisargadatta compares the mind two water and honey — the European mind, steeped in logic, is like water; affected by any slight disturbance. Honey — which Nisargadatta compares to the Hindu mind — is disturbed but quickly returns to a state of immobility, of inner-stillness. The more de-energised the mind, the more sensitive is the water of the mind, but the more energised, the more coherence and inner-resilience that buffers such a disturbance.

We are here talking about levels of frustration and their potential consequences — creative or destructive.

One day, while I was working in the bookshop, an electrician arrived to fit some new strip lights. That day, the atmosphere was uniquely dull; the streets were empty, the sky overcast, and dreary and syrupy acoustic music played incessantly in the background. The air seemed to be charged with some sort of life-draining static. After an hour of unbearable tedium, the electrician caught my eye and, probably feeling so bored as to provoke a reaction in me, requested I change the music to death metal (he requested a band called Cannibal Corpse).

This took me aback, as I felt much the same. The environment seemed to demand chaos — a force of energy to stir-up a life-force that had become stagnant and even toxic. Extremity in the form of heavy metal — or even Beethoven — seemed to be the answer to our inner-frustration with the dullness of the job at hand. Indeed, everyone knows children are much more impatient than adults, and during monotonous journeys kick their legs or repeatedly ask, ‘Are we there yet?’. They are attempting to stir-up or spend latent energies that are being dammed by the seemingly endless waiting (time passes much slower for children than adults) and monotony of the journey.

The vitality of a child is redirected and siphoned off into displacement activity, which is defined in a popular dictionary as an activity “that seems inappropriate, such as head-scratching when confused, [and is] considered arising unconsciously when a conflict between antagonistic urges cannot be resolved.” Murder, too, is arguably a form of displacement activity; an attempt to express or channel latent energies into a destructive act. Serial killer Henry Lee Lucas seemed to express this when he told the police that he was bitter at the world and killing someone, for him, “was just like walking outdoors.” Murder had provided him with a sense of reality that had become eclipsed by his own bitterness toward the world.

For many of us, simply walking outdoors can offer us such a release of pent-up energy. Recently I undertook a four-hour walk from Penzance to Porthleven. When I finally arrived, I found I enjoyed it far more than if I had driven there or simply caught the bus. The effort of walking outdoors had amplified my sense of values, my ability to as it were taste experience. For Lucas, this would have not been enough; negative emotions and frustrations had too eroded his grip on reality for him to appreciate anything so ordinary. His tastes — or more over his inability to taste experience — had become deformed and murder became the only form he could ‘walk outdoors’. Like any alcoholic, the only way he can feel his emotions is through increasing the quantity of his indulgence; a negative feedback loop that is ultimately self-defeating. We could say the same of sex and extreme fetishes that have distorted the basic innocence and pure essence of sex and of its higher expressions in lovemaking. All these extremes are attempts to grasp an ever-fading sense of aliveness, and to escape the worms-eye-view of low-pressure consciousness.

According to Wilson, reading about murder reminds us forcibly that we could easily misdirect our energies. This is not to say that most of us could easily become murderers — but simply that we can easily sink into states of passivity in which we require more extreme forms of stimulus to evoke a basic sense of aliveness. A violent act such as murder implicitly suggests that the killer has a low estimation of the meaning of his own life, which, in turn, is projected upon his victim and acted out as a basically pointless and anti-creative activity.

For Wilson, the purpose of such novels as Ritual in the Dark and The Glass Cage is to “confront the two extremes: the mystic and the criminal: the man whose sense of the goodness and worth-whileness of life is constant and fully conscious, and the man whose self-pity and lack of self-belief have driven him to expressing his vitality in the most negative way he can find.” Both novels portray the murderer as a failed mystic in the sense that their violent energies have usurped their emotions and expressed themselves in a profound act of life-negation.

Insightfully, Wilson describes the murderer in The Glass Cage, as a man of “immense and violent energies and appetites” that have curdled and express themselves negatively. He continues:

“[His] conscious attitude to life is so negative and defeated that they cannot find ordinary expression. When he eats, he eats ravenously, with the sweat pouring down his face; when he drinks, he gulps it down until he is unconscious. And when he has sex, all the vast energies roar out like a volcanic explosion there is a desire to eat, to drink, to entirely consume his sexual partner. If he possessed the power to remould his personality to express these energies positively, he might be a Michaelangelo or a Beethoven.”

None of this, of course, is a defence of the act of a murder, or even a celebration of a murderer’s innate potential for genius. Instead, it is a recognition of intensely frustrated energies that could have been put to good use had they found a more fulfilling and evolutionary outlet. The problem with destructive acts is that they are self-cancelling and fraught by diminishing returns — nobody gets anywhere by murder. It is an ultimately devolutionary act and, once the law catches and prosecutes the criminal, his life is over and more often than not the killer attempts suicide.

If one can get past the savagery of murder, then it is quite easy to see how that in our own moments of frustration — whether it’s exhaustion after a hard day’s work, or a sense of diminishing returns in life — we might, too, chose a destructive outlet. It is precisely in these experiences which can undermine our sense of values, of our general sense of a larger meaning to life. The murderer has simply abandoned all such scruples and has declared his statement on life — that it is ultimately meaningless and not worth the effort to elevate, or to pour our energies into producing great art or a loving family environment.

My own experiences have been ordinary enough to share. And I suspect they are general enough to be familiar to many of my readers. Ultimately, this article has explored what Wilson called ‘duo-consciousness’ — that state you find yourselves in when you are in bed during a cold rainy day and know you have to get up in five-minutes. Duo-consciousness is that heightened savouring of warmth and comfort beneath those sheets. This state ceases to affect us on weekends when there is no great demand to get up early. As our mind rests in a type of one-sidedness, we cease to enjoy the moment — the contrast between a warm, comfy bed and the harsh, cold outside world. All this is abruptly changed when we are awaiting the alarm-clock on a busy workday…

The psychological mechanism of duo-consciousness can be accessed by our very reading about such morbid subjects as murder. We can read accounts of horror and tragedy as a sort of mirror, contrasting our more coherent and stable lives against those nightmarish worlds of true crime. Effectively, this reminds us that our lives could be a lot worse than they are. The act of reading true crime is, for Wilson, a means to “throw light upon its opposite: the passion for order, creativity, sainthood.”

‘My Interest in Murder’ is a fascinating study of the basically existential and evolutionary purpose of true crime writing. Wilson wrote the book in the spirit of pleasure and good faith; as an attempt to stimulate duo-consciousness in the reader, a way of ‘throwing light upon its opposite’, and to ignite the spirit to improve our own lives and those of others. Reading about criminality helps us to attain a firmer grip on our own reality — a grip that enables to climb to higher levels of consciousness and contribute to our own inner-development and creatively engage more fully with life.

Monday, April 15, 2024

EMOTIONAL PLAGUE

Economic burden of childhood verbal abuse by adults estimated at $300 billion globally




UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON




Childhood verbal abuse by adults costs society an estimated $300 billion (£239 billion) a year globally, show findings presented at the first international conference on childhood verbal abuse, hosted by UCL, Words Matter and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The Words Matter: Impact and Prevention of Childhood Verbal Abuse conference marks the first time that experts from around the world have come together to focus attention on the lifetime damage of childhood verbal abuse and the need to develop solutions.

Childhood verbal abuse involves behaviours that can be detrimental to a child’s wellbeing, such as belittling, shouting and threatening language.

The new study, led by Professor Xiangming Fang (China Agricultural University and Georgia State University) used data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Violence Against Children Surveys, in four countries: Cambodia (1212 participants), Kenya (1099 participants), Colombia (1415 participants) and Moldova (906 participants), to analyse the effects of childhood verbal abuse on selected health outcomes, including mental distress, self-harm, drug use and problem drinking.

The study then estimated the Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY) lost (the total amount of healthy life years lost due to people dying prematurely or living with a disability caused by a common disease or health problem in the community) due to health outcomes attributed to childhood verbal abuse to estimate its economic burden.

These DALY losses were then converted into monetary value – assuming that one DALY was equal to the country’s per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The mean economic burden of childhood verbal abuse across the four countries was found to be 0.34% of GDP. When this figure was applied to global GDP, it equated to approximately $300 billion every year.

Meanwhile, the DALY losses for outcomes attributed to childhood verbal abuse were significantly great than corresponding estimates for breast cancer and liver cancer in the four countries studied, and similar to the Disability-Adjusted Life Years lost to hypertensive heart disease.

Conference Chair, Professor Peter Fonagy (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences), said: “Verbal abuse of children by adults is all too common, but is one of the most significant modifiable causes of life-long mental health disorders.

“Tackling it gives us a powerful lever to prevent mental health disorders and their enormous cost to both the UK and global economy.

“I am delighted that with the Words Matter charity, we have an organisation finally focusing on this problem. Bringing greater awareness to childhood verbal abuse has the potential to dramatically reduce the economic and psychological burden of psychiatric disorders.”

Previous research from experts at UCL and Wingate University* found that childhood verbal abuse can be as harmful as other forms of abuse and have significant adverse impacts on children’s mental and physical health and development – leading to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse and even suicide.

Professor Xiangming Fang said: “The economic burden of childhood verbal abuse by adults that we have quantified clearly highlights the shocking hidden cost of the damage it causes to children throughout their lifetime. However, this is likely a considerable underestimate given the impact of childhood verbal abuse on several outcomes including healthcare utilisation costs and legal system expenses, which were not included in the analysis due to data unavailability.

“There is clearly a significant opportunity for economic growth by ending childhood verbal abuse, and by revealing these figures, we hope this form of childhood maltreatment will be given the attention it deserves. Vital now is undertaking more research and devoting funds and resources to preventing it, so the cost to society can be reduced.”

Jessica Bondy, Founder of Words Matter, said: “For too long, childhood verbal abuse by adults has gone under the radar, yet it is all around us. We hope this conference helps put the issue firmly on the map and galvanises action. It is possible to bring an end to childhood verbal abuse with greater awareness, understanding and collaboration across the globe to devise solutions. We must act now, given the lifelong impact on children’s mental and physical health and wellbeing and the monumental cost to society. Let’s build children up, not knock them down, and create a better future for children.”

Tim Loughton MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and former Children’s Minister said: “By convening this conference, the work of Words Matter and its expert advisers is filling a gap in understanding the harms that can be inflicted on children from the way adults communicate with them and the routes for prevention. Whilst we are all too familiar with the damage done to children as a result of physical violence, verbal abuse is more insidious and pervasive, impacting so many whose mental health has already been deeply affected due to the Covid pandemic.

“We all have a duty of care to treat children with respect and that includes the words and language we use with them. This conference highlights how much words really do matter and how if used poorly, they can have lasting implications for children and our economy.”

Former Health Minister and Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation and currently Opposition Whip, Lord Philip Hunt of Kings Heath said: “All children deserve to grow up happy and healthy, but millions are suffering verbal abuse by adults which has for far too long been hidden in the shadows. Thanks to the work of Words Matter, we now know that this is not only impacting children's mental health and development but is also, as this new study shows, having a huge cost on society as a whole. We all want children to develop armed with the tools to lead confident and productive adult lives and the words they hear from adults are so important in building self-esteem and confidence. By shining a light on this abuse, lives can and will be changed.”

Study limitations

The $300 billion is likely a considerable underestimate given the impact of childhood verbal abuse on several outcomes, including healthcare utilisation costs and legal system expenses, which were not included in the analysis, due to data unavailability.

Additionally, costs associated with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were not taken into account.

Multiple risk factors can contribute to the occurrence of any disease. When attributing a disease to these factors the maximum attribution is capped at 100%. However, if multiple risk factors are involved and overlap, the sum of DALY estimates for all risk factors may exceed 100%. Failure to fully account for these inter-correlations could potentially result in overestimation of the figures instead.

The field lacks reliable longitudinal data to assess the long-term repercussions of childhood verbal abuse. 

The absence of high-quality cohort studies that adopt a lifetime perspective in economic data estimation may lead to a substantial underestimation of the economic impact of childhood verbal abuse. 

Prioritising the collection of longitudinal data on the consequences of childhood verbal abuse should be a primary focus of future efforts.

Friday, March 29, 2024

Oscar-winner 'Oppenheimer' opens in Japan after months of nuclear theme concerns

Oscar best picture winner "Oppenheimer" was finally released on Friday in Japan, where its subject -- the man who masterminded the creation of the atomic bomb -- is a highly sensitive and emotional topic.


Issued on: 29/03/2024 - 
'Oppenheimer' is about the man who masterminded the creation of the atomic bomb.
 © Yuichi Yamazaki, AFP

The US blockbuster hit screened in the United States and many other countries in July at the same time as "Barbie", inspiring a viral phenomenon dubbed "Barbenheimer" by moviegoers.

But while "Barbie" was released in Japan in August, "Oppenheimer" was conspicuously absent from cinemas for months.

No official explanation was offered at the time, fuelling speculation the film was too controversial to be shown in Japan -- the only country to have ever suffered a wartime nuclear attack.

Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki when the United States dropped atomic bombs on the cities in August 1945, days before the end of World War II.

Japan is the only country to have suffered a wartime nuclear attack. 
© Kazuhiro Nogi / AFP

At a large cinema in central Tokyo where "Oppenheimer" was showing on Friday, there was none of the prominent promotional material that might be expected for a global megahit.

Instead only one small poster advertised the film, which was shot on a $100 million budget and collected nearly $1 billion at box offices worldwide.

"It is a long, three-hour movie, but I watched it attentively, because it was so powerful," audience member Masayuki Hayashi, 51, told AFP after the film.

Japanese distributors may have chosen to avoid a summer release close to the bombings' anniversary, said 65-year-old Tatsuhisa Yue.

But "it would have been unthinkable if a movie which describes how the weapon was developed didn't show here", he said.

"The movie arrived late, but I think it was good that it finally opened in Japan."

'America-centric'


The film tells the story of US physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who oversaw the bomb's invention.

It drew rave reviews and was the most decorated title at this month's Oscars, scooping seven awards including best director for Christopher Nolan and best actor for star Cillian Murphy.

But in Hiroshima, the city devastated by the first nuclear bomb, the biopic's Academy Awards success met a mixed reaction.

'Oppenheimer' stars Irish actor Cillian Murphy. 
© Robyn Beck / AFP

Kyoko Heya, president of the city's international film festival, told AFP after the awards ceremony that she had found Nolan's movie "very America-centric".

"Is this really a movie that people in Hiroshima can bear to watch?" she asked.

Today the city is a thriving metropolis of 1.2 million people, but the ruins of a domed building still stand as a stark reminder of the horrors of the attack, along with a museum and other sombre memorials.

Heya said that after much reflection, "I now want many people to watch the movie."

"I'd be happy to see Hiroshima, Nagasaki and atomic weapons become the subject of discussions thanks to this movie," she said.

Last year, viral "Barbenheimer" memes sparked anger online in Japan, where media reports have highlighted critics who say the film does not show the harm caused by the bombs.

MASS MURDER OF CIVILIANS
Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki when the United States dropped atomic bombs on the cities in 1945. 
© Kazuhiro Nogi / AFP

"There could have been much more description and depiction of the horror of atomic weapons," bomb survivor and former Hiroshima mayor Takashi Hiraoka, 96, said at a special screening in the city earlier this month.

"Oppenheimer" was also shown at a preview event in Nagasaki, where survivor Masao Tomonaga, 80, said he had been impressed by the movie.

"I had thought the film's lack of... images of atomic bomb survivors was a weakness," said Tomonaga, who was two when the second bomb was dropped and later became a professor studying leukaemia caused by the attacks.

"But in fact, Oppenheimer's lines in dozens of scenes showed his shock at the reality of the atomic bombing. That was enough for me."


(AFP)


‘Oppenheimer’ is a disappointment − and a lost opportunity


A visitor to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum views a photo of the aftermath of the 1945 bombing. (Carl Court/Getty Images)


The Conversation
March 09, 2024


With 13 Oscar nominations, all signs point to “Oppenheimer” as the star of the 96th Academy Awards.

Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster about the making of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has already garnered all kinds of accolades – five Golden Globes and seven BAFTA awards, not to mention a sterling 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

But as a historian whose research has revolved around the survivors of the bombings, I cannot help but be disappointed that, yet again, the dominant narrative of the bombs chugs along.

This narrative has long informed how Hollywood and the U.S. media have addressed nuclear weapons. It paints the bombs’ creation as a morally fraught but necessary project – an extraordinary invention by exceptional minds, a national project that was a matter of life or death for a country mired in a global conflict. To use the bombs was a difficult decision at a challenging time. Yet it’s important to remember that, above all, the bombs saved democracy.

There is something that strikes me as so inward-looking to this narrative – it is so focused on the stress over losing an arms race, on fears of making a mistake, on anxiety over what would happen if bombs were to one day be dropped on the U.S. – that it drowns out what actually did happen after the bombs were detonated.

A barren cultural landscape

When Nolan was pressed over why he chose not to show any images of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or the victims, he said, “less can be more” – that the subtext of what’s not shown is even more powerful, since it forces audiences to use their imaginations.

But what images from popular culture do audiences even have to pull from?

From the 1950s to the 1980s, many Hollywood films explored the fear of a nuclear apocalypse. Only a few depicted mass deaths on the ground – “The Day After” comes to mind – but virtually none showed survivors who looked or sounded like real survivors.


‘Oppenheimer’ director Christopher Nolan.
Adrian Dennis/AFP via Getty Images

Instead, films such as “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” simply showed mushroom clouds and bird’s-eye views of the bombs from above. When cameras did zoom in on the ground in films such as “Panic in Year Zero!” and “Testament,” they revealed Americans bracing for or panicking about the bomb being dropped on them.

Watching these films, it’s easy to believe that if a nuclear attack had ever occurred, it must have been in a U.S. city.

This genealogy of films also includes collective biopics of a sort, in which a nuclear drama unfolds among scientists, military officials and politicians.

In the 2024 book “Resisting the Nuclear: Art and Activism across the Pacific,” one chapter describes how Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein reenacted the Trinity test in “Atomic Power,” a 1946 film that celebrates the role of science in U.S. military might. They note that in the film’s outtakes, Einstein seemed unfocused while Oppenheimer appeared stilted.

Clearly, the two scientists were uncomfortable with their newly assigned role as promoters of a mesmerizing, dangerous technology. If “Oppenheimer” expands on this personal discomfort, the film keeps firmly in place the disconnect between the bombs’ creators and the destruction they wrought.
The bombs didn’t discriminate

In the end, films like “Oppenheimer” offer few, if any, new insights about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their repercussions.

More than 200,000 people perished, and the lives lost included not only Japanese civilians but also Koreans who had been in Japan as forced laborers or military conscripts.

In fact, 1 in every 10 people who survived the bomb were Koreans, but the U.S. government has never recognized them as survivors of U.S. military attacks. To this day they struggle to get access to medical treatment for their long-term radiation illness.



Relatives of conscripted Koreans killed in the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki protest at the Japanese embassy in Seoul in 2005.
Seung-il Ryu/NurPhoto via Getty Image

Moreover, about 3,000 to 4,000 of those affected by the bombs were Americans of Japanese ancestry, as I have shown in my book about Asian American survivors of the bombings. Most of them were children who were staying with their families, or students who had enrolled in schools in Japan prior to the war because U.S. schools had become increasingly discriminatory to Asian American students.

These non-Japanese survivors – including many U.S.-born citizens – have been known to scholars and activists since at least the 1990s. So it feels surreal to watch a film that depicts the bombs’ effects purely in the context of the U.S. at war against its enemy, Japan. As my work shows, the bombs didn’t discriminate between friend and foe.

It is not that Christopher Nolan ignores the bombs’ power to destroy.

He gestures toward it when he depicts J. Robert Oppenheimer, the nuclear physicist played by Cillian Murphy, imagining a nuclear holocaust when giving a celebratory speech to his colleagues after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

But what Oppenheimer sees in this hallucination is the face of a young white woman peeling off – played by Nolan’s daughter, Flora – not those of the Japanese, Korean and Asian American people who actually experienced the bombs. Later in the film, Oppenheimer looks away from the images of Hiroshima’s ground zero when they’re shown to him and his Manhattan Project colleagues.

I wondered, as I watched this scene, whether this decision encourages the audience to look away, too.

Global reverberations


Even if this film is seen purely through the lens of entertainment, Nolan could have chosen to recognize why the bombs are such a galvanizing subject to begin with: They have done much, much more than make white, middle-class Americans feel anxious or guilty.

Their blasts reverberated across the globe, tearing apart not only America’s wartime enemies but also colonized peoples and racial minorities.

Cold War nuclear production disproportionately hurt Native and Indigenous Americans who worked at uranium mines and the residents of the Pacific Islands chosen as the sites of several dozens of U.S. nuclear tests.

For those on the receiving end, the effects of the nuclear explosions are not a thing of the past. They are a daily reality.

And the effects of radiation continue to plague not just humans but the environment. Scientists still don’t know what to do with highly radioactive nuclear waste, whether it’s from nuclear power plants or former nuclear test sites that remain off-limits because they are too contaminated to inhabit.

As global conflicts increase the possibility of nuclear war, it’s certainly important to talk about the ongoing legacies of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But to create a more balanced understanding of nuclear weapons, it would be helpful if talented filmmakers like Nolan made more of an effort to look beyond the narrow immediacy of a mushroom cloud.

Naoko Wake, Professor of History, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Friday, March 22, 2024

The Iraq War Remade the World in Its Grisly Image

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been swept to the margins of collective memory. We must refuse to forget it — and seek to understand what led to it, who benefited, who suffered, and how it transformed the world.
March 20, 2024
Source: Jacobin


The failure to reckon with the people and the politics that made the Iraq War happen is one of the most tragic and significant oversights in recent history. To understand where we are today, in terms of both domestic politics and global affairs, we must understand the US invasion of Iraq — what led to it, which actors were strengthened by it, who suffered and for what purpose, and how it remade the world in its grisly image.

The first season of Brendan James and Noah Kulwin’s podcast Blowback, which aired in 2020, sought to rectify that failure, diving into not just the specifics of the Iraq invasion and occupation, but also about the deeper colonial and imperialist history that brought it about. Their podcast was, in many senses, a knowledge recovery mission. Not only is the prehistory of the Iraq invasion buried under heaps of obfuscatory myths and ideology, but its consequences are too — even though they are still being felt powerfully in Iraq, the broader Middle East, and the entire world.

The people who led the Iraq invasion were never held accountable. Mistakes were made, the consensus goes, but it’s all water under the bridge. The fate of the entire bipartisan establishment was bound together: George W. Bush had to be redeemed, in part because Joe Biden had to be redeemed. Today Bush enjoys a largely rehabilitated reputation and Biden is the President of the United States, confirming total impunity for the murderous affair that was the Iraq War.

In 2020, host Daniel Denvir interviewed James and Kulwin for the Jacobin Radio podcast the Dig. The following is a transcript of their conversation about the origins, unfolding, and consequences of the Iraq War. It has been edited for clarity.
DANIEL DENVIR

I think you’re entirely right that we have to look to the Iraq War because, as you say, it provides a skeleton key for the present. And the memory of the Iraq War has been stuffed down our collective memory hole. What has been the result of this mass forgetting and mass disassociation?
NOAH KULWIN

When Brendan and I came up with the idea, I think a lot of what we were responding to was the stuff that you saw in the news — you know, like George W. Bush getting candy from Michelle Obama, that kind of thing. It was rage-inducing, but we didn’t want to let our anger stay at just anger. We had a bunch of questions, like why was George W. Bush, who we thought we all agreed was a bad guy when he left the presidency, being rehabbed now?

When we began researching and looking into it, we came to see the Iraq War, in and of itself, as incredible process of forgetting. And we did a lot of things to make ourselves forget, because remembering would’ve produced a totally distended portrait of who we thought ourselves to be and what we thought our government capable of.
BRENDAN JAMES

Forgetting is part of the algorithm of empire — and the Iraq War is probably the last stand of what we used to think of as the American Empire. That’s not to say the empire ended with the Iraq War, but it was never really the same after that. It was the last gasp of pure hubris.

Every so often empire needs to have a cleanse, basically, and rehabilitate old figures. That happens a lot throughout history in any given empire. Turn them into respectable figures, whether they be dead or alive. That’s a way to not lose the faith you have in this imperial project. And whether it serves a purpose for domestic or foreign conquest, it’s something that you have to do over and over again.

The title of our show, Blowback, is meant to say that the consequences of our previous meddling and violence done toward the rest of the world come back cyclically. In order for the cycle to repeat, you need to forget. You need to cleanse your palate and find yourself surprised when all of a sudden guys you trained in the hills of Afghanistan that were rabidly, militantly dedicated to jihad end up blowing up your center of global commerce.

Things like that require forgetting. And we were attempting to refresh everybody not only on why George W. Bush personally is evil, but what purpose forgetting serves.
DANIEL DENVIR

It’s not just that the victors are the ones who get to write the history. It’s that being a global hegemon requires, as part of its process of legitimation, that history be rewritten and forgotten in particular ways.

And new erasures reaffirm and deepen preexisting erasures, which is why your podcast is not only about taking a fresh look at the monstrosity of the entire political moment around the invasion of Iraq, but looking much deeper than that into the history behind it — the whole invisibilized arc of history of the US and European colonial powers in that region more generally, the US backing Iraq and its murderous war against Iran, the selling out the Kurds to Saddam [Hussein] during the Cold War, the entire history of British colonialism and Iraq after World War I. Why do you think it’s so important to make the entire century of history that precedes 2003 clear?
NOAH KULWIN

On one level it’s because it’s the same cast of characters. You have Donald Rumsfeld helping bring Saddam and the US closer together in the 1980s, and then you have him as the secretary of defense when we invade Iraq in the 2000s. They’re just different chapters of the same story.
BRENDAN JAMES

Colin Powell is head of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf War. Obviously he comes back as secretary of state. Similarly, Dick Cheney is secretary of defense in the Gulf War and then vice president during the invasion of Iraq.
NOAH KULWIN

It is useful to think of American policy toward Iraq and American interests in Iraq, and how American power gets wielded vis-à-vis Iraq, as one longer story. Then, by the time we get to the point of the invasion in 2003, it sort of makes sense as to why people act the way they do, even though it was doomed in retrospect.
BRENDAN JAMES

With regard to the even deeper history, we get into Cold War politics. Iraq had a pretty significant revolution in the ’50s. It essentially abolished the British sponsored monarchy and gave birth to a lot of different fresh and exciting politics for Iraqis to finally seize their own destiny.

The US, of course, moved in pretty quickly to stomp out any possibility of that happening. And one consequence of that was the Ba’ath Party coming to power with the support of the CIA because they were very hardcore anti-communist. And of course, in the tradition of blowback, the Ba’ath Party was the party that Saddam Hussein would soon take over, who the US would then depose in 2003, but also tried to knock off in 1991 as well.

Of course, the US is our main villain in the story. But to bring up British imperialism as well, I think it serves to show that this is really the same playbook whether you’re talking about British or American, French or German colonial projects. There is a basic toolkit, and there is a basic goal that any of these places have. It’s not in the DNA of Americans. On second thought, it might be in the DNA of the British. [Laughs]

In any case, the British carved up Iraq after World War I. And the conglomerate of oil companies that held the keys to all of Iraq’s oil deposits was called the Iraq Petroleum Company, but there wasn’t one share that went to the nation of Iraq — it was mainly British.

Similarly when the US invaded in 2003, almost a hundred years later, the project of Paul Bremer, the viceroy in Iraq — back to Britain, we’re even using the term viceroy there — his main job besides pacifying the country was to crack open that oil market and privatize a whole other bunch of Iraq’s national state industries.

So that’s full circle. It isn’t an American prerogative or a British prerogative. It’s the prerogative of any empire that seeks to do what empires do, which is plunder and control and guard the spigots of the world economy.
NOAH KULWIN

But there are some aspects of how America executed this in 2003 that are pretty distinctly American. In particular, we failed in distinctly American ways. Rumsfeld envisioned a “light footprint.” That was the phrase they were very fond of using in the Defense Department. It meant a military that would be leaner and that would be able to accomplish effectively many of the same goals that these imperial powers had set for themselves in previous decades, but —
DANIEL DENVIR

On the cheap and contracted out.
NOAH KULWIN

Exactly. And it fits very firmly within the neoliberal tradition and that policy rubric and theory of political economy more broadly. And you could see that failure in Iraq quite vividly.
DANIEL DENVIR

The US certainly did “mismanage” the invasion and occupation on technocratic grounds. But of course, and unsurprisingly, that critique also sort of gives cover to liberal supporters of the war, who then disassociate themselves from it afterward by saying, “Well, it was poorly managed.”
BRENDAN JAMES

Yes. The invasion that went pretty smoothly by American standards, but the occupation and the “nation building” in Iraq, if you want to call it that, was definitely bungled. And we don’t pass over all the ways in which it was, but I do think that there’s been such an emphasis — and to your point, a kind of exculpatory emphasis — on the bungling aspect. I think that has helped some figures, not really [Dick] Cheney or Rumsfeld but certainly Bush, to be remembered as basically like Frank Drebin from The Naked Gun, who meant well, but he’s a bit of a goofy cowboy who forgot to dot the Ts and cross the Is. And that is an overcorrection.

We need to get back to a more accurate and honest and therefore critical view, which is that, sure, there were a lot of mistakes, but the basic goal to thrash a country into submission and then create a base of operations inside the Middle East was achieved. And the chaos that spiraled out after that is not altogether unwelcome as, again, the concept of blowback has long showed us. So was it really that big of a bungle on the micro level? Yes. But we want to take “Mission Accomplished” — that banner that Bush stood in front of that everyone thinks is a punchline — at face value in the show.
DANIEL DENVIR

I think you guys talk about the Bush administration or the Defense Department sending like a penis enlargement guy or erectile dysfunction guy or something to talk to a major Shiite leader. [Laughs]
BRENDAN JAMES

Yes. That is in the very wonderful book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran Imperial Life in the Emerald City — just so I can cite my source, so no one thinks I made that up. [Laughs]

That really speaks to the lack of curiosity and knowledge about Iraq. Paul Bremer was quite an aristocrat. He was a career diplomat. He spoke, I’m sure, a bunch of different languages. He was a French-trained chef. But he didn’t know about Iraq. So he just ended up appointing some guy who held a patent to penile enhancement implants to go talk to an ayatollah inside of Iraq, which is like probably the most inappropriate thing you could do. And beyond that, there’s much more bloody and horrifying consequences of that sort of cavalier American right approach.
NOAH KULWIN

One example that I think of a lot in the story is that we demolished in the city of Fallujah a Sunni stronghold where we said there were all these Sunni terrorists that we had to eliminate. We reduced the city to rubble in 2004 over a couple different battles. And one of the ways that we were going to attempt to manage the city of Fallujah was by creating a Fallujah brigade, which meant that in many cases the US military was literally just handing out rifles to people that it had just been fighting. It said like, “Alright, you’re going to help us pacify it,” and then they would just be fighting with the guns the US gave them months later.

The same kind of cavalier attitude as sending the dick pill doctor extended to the most basic assumptions. It was just a matter of empowering US military leaders to make the worst possible decisions at every stage.
DANIEL DENVIR

The origins and trajectory of the Iraq War and the “war on terror” really set the stage for the entire political situation at present. And when it’s forgotten or disavowed, everything just appears like it’s out of the blue, because there’s no relevant prior history that the United States might be implicated in. So instead of causality we have interminable enemies who emerge and threaten and hate us, like Iran and ISIS, and conflicts that are tragic but whose roots are unknown, like the Syrian Civil War.
BRENDAN JAMES

This holds for domestic politics as well. It was the Bush administration that created ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in 2002 out of the Department of Homeland Security as a direct response to 9/11. This is now obviously one of the most recognizable faces of the abhorrent politics of Donald Trump, but as I’m sure listeners of your show know, ICE had been operating under George W. Bush in an early version, then [Barack] Obama, and then Trump.

The forgetting, or the outright ignorance altogether, the never-having-known, that’s something that we try to dedicate some time to in the show with regard to domestic politics. Because the story is mostly about Iraq, and most of it takes place in Iraq. But you could easily do a whole show on authoritarianism and Bush and the descent into a baby’s first fascism in America.
NOAH KULWIN

And I think that there are some other places in Iraq specifically where you can see this, like Abu Ghraib and the policy of torture. Iraq, if not necessarily exactly a laboratory, is absolutely a place where a lot of the worst policies that will evolve to become even worse over time were ultimately first carried out, or exposed in their full horror.
BRENDAN JAMES

During the actual invasion itself, it’s striking to look at the Associated Press photographs in their archives of American soldiers throwing Iraqis with hoods over their heads into trucks and just driving them away.

I think people rightly recoil in horror at the images that come out of the Trump regime and the operations of ICE. But I mean, what are we looking at in Iraq if not that same treatment of human beings? And the man in office then is now Secret Santas with Ellen DeGeneres and Michelle Obama. The people at the top of this imperial system just think, “Yeah, all’s forgotten. Those were just Iraqis after all.”
DANIEL DENVIR

I think that we should pause just to emphasize, especially for younger listeners, how shocking it initially was to a lot of us how quickly George W. Bush has been rehabilitated. Because thinking back to 2008, when Obama won, Bush wasn’t just hated by liberals — like really hated by liberals — but he was also abandoned by many conservatives, and he exited office with a rock-bottom approval rating.
NOAH KULWIN

Oh, absolutely. And people also forget that his exit was marked not just by failure in Iraq, but also an enormous breadth of scandal. There was the Alberto Gonzales US attorneys firing scandal, to name just one example. And then, I mean, Dick Cheney shot a guy. [Laughs]
BRENDAN JAMES

Hurricane Katrina, to name another.
DANIEL DENVIR

Which is relevant to the COVID-19, in that it exposed the US government’s total lack of infrastructure or will to protect vulnerable people’s lives in the face of a massive disaster, which we’re now experiencing on a nationwide and global level.

Certainly many things are the same, but the mass forgetting also reflects an incredible weakness of the Left throughout the 2000s. And something we should keep in mind as we mourn the end of the Bernie [Sanders] campaign, at least as we had known it, is that we’re still in a much stronger place now than we were in the 2000s, when we weren’t even relevant.

There was a strong antiwar movement then — not against the invasion of Afghanistan at all, which I know because I was at those protests and not many people were. But the anti–Iraq War movement was really big. However it was incredibly short-lived, and then immediately folded into the 2006 midterm elections when the Democrats took back Congress, and then into Obama’s 2008 campaign, who was an antiwar candidate of sorts in the way he was presented and interpreted.
NOAH KULWIN

The Democratic political leadership are ostensibly — I mean, as we know, this is a joke, but supposedly — meant to represent a Left of some sort. And they just became Bush’s willing co-conspirators in many respects. The Democrats offered very big-picture criticisms of Bush, saying that he lied and that he was bungling the war. But they were happy to continue helping to pass the bills to fund the war, and they were happy to pass the bills that allowed the White House to acquire all of the executive power with which they could do the bungling. So I think that if you want to look for or identify some of the weakness of the Left, a lot of it is because the people who were supposed to represent something like an opposition instead just became lapdogs to power.
BRENDAN JAMES

The Democratic Party was the gravedigger of the antiwar movement. It wasn’t the Republican Party. They were doing all the war. That was a very good opponent to have if you’re an antiwar movement. It was the Democratic Party.

I interviewed Cindy Sheehan a couple years ago in the lead-up to the 2016 election to talk a bit about what she felt about Hillary Clinton being the candidate, and the Democrats portraying Sheehan back in the midterms in 2006. [Nancy] Pelosi and the congressional leadership of the Democrats took back Congress in a bloodbath. In the election, they used Sheehan in particular, but also the antiwar movement in general, as their credential. They were trotted out for the Democrats to embarrass Bush and to claim that the Democrats would essentially end the war. And once they got in, they completely abandoned all of them.

That was yet another lesson about what it means to trust the Democratic Party. And the movement pretty much fizzled. Unfortunately, as you say, it was not much of a broader movement other than this very specific, very worthy issue of ending the war in Iraq. But when you’re attached to a gang of complete flimflams like the Democrats, and they betray you when they get back in power and don’t owe you anything, your movement is almost certain to dissipate. I’m not saying that’s the only thing that was contaminating the antiwar movement, but it was certainly the reason why they fell out of any real position of notice or power in the mid-2000s. And as you say, it took a long time after that for any public face of radical demands from the American left to come up again.
NOAH KULWIN

And Dan, you talked a moment ago a bit about how Barack Obama ran an antiwar campaign of sorts. He spoke to a very obvious disaffection and he didn’t deny the very clear reality of how bad things were going. And his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, was somebody who had voted to help make those bad things the way that they were. I had a very big aha moment when I was going through some of the reporting about Hillary Clinton’s response to the fact that she had supported the war in 2007 and 2008 when she was being pressed on that by Obama. It later emerged that she told staffers that she thought an apology or taking responsibility for it would be a distraction, that it was irrelevant, and that it wasn’t an issue.
BRENDAN JAMES

And also the Iraq War was insanely unpopular by the time that Obama was running for office. He did not talk the same way about an equally destructive and disgusting war in Afghanistan because he didn’t feel politically required to. When he got into office he couldn’t not withdraw from Iraq, which was a good thing of course, but he increased the levels of troops in Afghanistan by tens of thousands.
DANIEL DENVIR

And this became liberal Democratic Party orthodoxy, at least beginning in 2004. John Kerry’s race had this idea that there was a good Iraq War and a bad Iraq War. Like, we took our eye off the ball. And so opposition to the Iraq War is not embedded within some larger anti-imperialist critique. It’s like a technocratic critique that we did the war on terror wrong.
BRENDAN JAMES

Yeah, exactly. And another thing we should mention is that we do bring up Joe Biden during the show, but we were recording this most of January and February, so it wasn’t quite clear how much of a mainstay in our political landscape he was going to be still at that moment. But Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If anyone in the Democratic Party had the access and the basic position to sniff out what a horrifying crime this was looking to be in early or mid-2002, let alone by go time in March 2003, it would’ve been him.

And Joe Biden was one of the war’s most enthusiastic advocates. He famously called it “not a rush to war, but a march to peace.”
DANIEL DENVIR

Cool. That’s literally Orwellian.
BRENDAN JAMES

Literally. I was cutting the audio to use in the show of a lot of senators. There’s a montage we have in episode three of some of the key figures you’ll recognize today voting for the war, and then some that voted against it, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee being among them. But when I was cutting the audio, I had to hand it to Hillary. She did it in about fifteen minutes. She gave her speech, and then voted for the war and sat down. Biden spoke for like three hours. [Laughs] He wouldn’t shut up about how great the war was going to be, or how there wasn’t even going to be a war because Saddam was just going to surrender or whatever.
DANIEL DENVIR

He gave like a Fidel-level stem-winder making his case for the war. And he not only was a leading supporter of the war, but then in the Obama administration proposed ethnic cleansing!
BRENDAN JAMES

After supporting the war and then being a weasel and running away from that, he wanted to carve it up into three different ethnically cleansed territories.
NOAH KULWIN

When we got to Iraq, Iraqi society was not riven with sectarian conflict naturally, at least not to anything resembling the degree that we unleashed on the country.
DANIEL DENVIR

Intermarriage was super common in Baghdad.
NOAH KULWIN

Yes. I mean, Sunni and Shia lived side by side. It was a fairly diverse society. It’s not to say that there weren’t tensions or that there wasn’t even sectarian violence on some level, but the degree to which things changed from pre-invasion to let’s say 2005 is pretty much impossible to overstate. So part of what I guess makes the Joe Biden solution particularly horrifying is proposing apartheid as a solution to a previously functional system. It was only our intervention that messed it up in the first place, obviously.
BRENDAN JAMES

Or to bring it back to the question about the twentieth-century history we dig into in the first episode, just like the British, he wanted to take out a big red pen and carve into the earth his preferred division of one country into three or four. This stuff doesn’t really change from century to century. Unfortunately, neither does the carnage that comes out of those types of decisions.
DANIEL DENVIR

And it’s a proposed solution that participates in and facilitates this whole process of mass forgetting because it frames Iraq’s problems as not rooted in the US invasion, or more profoundly in the history of Western colonialism and petro-capitalism and all of this stuff, but in these ancient tribal sectarian animosities.
BRENDAN JAMES

I think a lot of normal Americans don’t tend to care about foreign policy at all, be it good or bad. They thought, “Well, these religious psychos in Iraq, they should just calm down. What’s the big deal? We were trying to help you out.” And that was another way in which, as you point out, we could pathologize the country rather than face up to any accountability for what happens when you try to run the world on a hegemonic, British imperial-style system of conquest.
DANIEL DENVIR

And then we see part of the Trump and Trumpism origin story as well, because we have this process of forgetting. We have no strong left-wing movements at the time that can frame the situation in anti-imperialist terms. So Trump and the Right are able to identify the enemy and the source of the problem as Islam and the solutions to xenophobia and this kind of militaristic pseudoisolationism of Trump’s. So Trump’s Muslim ban is the imperialist war on terror coming home to roost as nativist politics.
NOAH KULWIN

Jeremy Corbyn had the best response, I think, to this very particular line, and that he formulated very successfully, at least within Britain — this idea of actually framing anything resembling the knife attacks in the UK as a consequence of our own meddling, our own decision-making that we saw with our own eyes in Iraq. There is absolutely a very transparent, obvious, and lucid left-wing case to be made. It’s just that nobody in America, outside of our dear recently departed [Bernie Sanders], has ever seemed to have the courage to make it, at least on a national stage, providing a single coherent answer that everybody can see.
BRENDAN JAMES

And that’s a point there about the Trumpified version of how to process and frame the enemy and the global war on terror. That’s something that we try to touch on as well as far as aftershocks of the Iraq War go. I mean, Trump ran against the Iraq War in 2016. Honestly, there were moments where, I’ll say it completely with and some guilt, no one thought he was going to win. You know, it was kind of awesome when he was on the debate stage with Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, owning them, saying there were no WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], they all lied. And the audience booed him in the first couple of debates, but they switched over once they saw he was the strong man, and said, “Oh, you know what? Yeah, that was probably all a bunch of lies.”
DANIEL DENVIR

Well, he had that important asterisk that we shouldn’t have gone in, but if we did, we should have taken the oil. The perfect Trumpian twist.
BRENDAN JAMES

Yes, it is a xenophobic know-nothing type of rejection of imperial wars, of conquest — not because, as you said, it’s based in any anti-imperialist logic, but because they’re all savages over there and they should just go on chopping their own heads off or whatever the parody is that they picture in their heads, and we should just take their resources while they’re not looking.

It’s not sufficient to let scoundrels like Trump get away with being the only really meaningful antiwar voice in American politics. That’s not to credit right-wing populism or to say they’re starting to come over to our side. But when we look at the way that certain things are mutating right now, how the Right is reconstructing itself, it’s absolutely connected to the massive explosion of trust that fell apart in the Bush administration after the war in Iraq. We don’t need to kid ourselves that they’re on our side, but we need to take that seriously. It’s a very scary thing if the Right mutates into something that has a monopoly on nonintervention in the world.
NOAH KULWIN

And they also thrive because there is no cogent visible left-wing answer or alternative that we have been able to present thus far. Bernie Sanders started to do that and articulate and chart a different vision of what that could look like. But the reality is that if you were to ask: What is the Democratic Party’s position? What is Joe Biden’s position on Iraq or America’s role in the world? I don’t think anybody on his team could even give us a straight answer because they’ve never thought about it.

In its weak, desiccated state, what is the Democratic Party establishment’s response going to be, if they try to formulate one? Because, as Brendan points out, the far right has synthesized an answer to that question. It’s a very ugly and dangerous one. And as it stands right now, there’s not an alternative.
DANIEL DENVIR

And if there’s a total void and no critique, no comment from the establishment Democrats, then we just have this Trumpist critique given free rein. And their critique of Bush’s imperialism is that it was wrong to try to save and do charity for the Muslims, which is how the neocons framed the war as this noble, civilizing mission. One of the craziest stats that I found researching my book is that Republican public approval ratings of Islam and Muslims skyrocket upward after 9/11 because of this neocon framing of the war as a civilizing mission. And then when it cracks, it’s the Trumpists who pick up the pieces and reframe it on their terms.
BRENDAN JAMES

I don’t spend a lot of time on Fox [News] in the podcast because honestly, we know what we think about that side. The ecosystem is clear. It was cheerleading and jingoism. But it was also a paternalistic jingoism, especially those images of that stupid little statue coming down of Saddam and the American flag being put over his face, and us helping these poor little Iraqis who couldn’t do it themselves with a big tank pulling down the statue of the dictator. By the way, that moment was completely stage-managed. Managed by the Marine Corps in particular.

Anyway you hear Fox News anchors, some of whom will go on in the coming years to bemoan Obama for not calling all Muslims radical Islamic jihadists, and they’re saying paternalistically, “In the Arab culture. It’s very important to understand that the shoe-throwing is a sign of disrespect.”
DANIEL DENVIR

In the US it’s a friendly gesture. [Laughs]
NOAH KULWIN

And then immediately like the camera shifts and suddenly you’re asking literally any Muslim in America who lived those years, or any Iraqi who lived those years, and you will find out that that paternalism is entirely a facade, such a transparently flimsy justification for wanting to do all these things.
BRENDAN JAMES

It coexisted with the Bush administration infiltrating mosques, developing the new capacity to spy on and disrupt life in Muslim communities inside of America.
DANIEL DENVIR

So I think another thing that we should talk about in terms of the present-day impacts is just that it really did impact the Democratic primary. And we need to think about this mass forgetting as one reason that Joe Biden defeated, or is in the process of defeating, Bernie Sanders. Because Bernie’s attacks on Biden over his support for the Iraq War, he made a bunch of them, and they were totally necessary and justified, but I don’t think they really stuck. There was a sense that this was picking on Biden over old news.

While Bernie’s attacks didn’t hurt Biden as much as they should have, and as much as we would’ve liked them to, Bernie raising the issue and attacking Biden for supporting the war is good in and of itself for the same reason that your podcast is — because it re-politicizes this history and makes it newly visible. So on the one hand, I’m disappointed that the attacks didn’t stick and that not enough people considered them relevant. But Bernie, in making those attacks, did more to kind of keep the Iraq history alive and keep it from being erased than any politician I’m aware of in a long time.
NOAH KULWIN

Oh, absolutely. And I guess one thing that I would also note there is that he’s making those attacks now, but it’s also going to be the future of the Democratic Party, those attacks. Like, if it’s not Joe Biden, it’s going to be any of these other stand-in political figures who have the same legacy, the same beliefs, the same attitudes, and they’re going to have to suffer the same kind of scrutiny. Bernie is not going to be the last one to make these critiques within Democratic or left-wing politics. It’s a sign of what’s to come. Because I think that the awareness and the outrage and the frustration is all there.
BRENDAN JAMES

Well, I think it’s unfortunately though a catch-22 for anyone looking to attack, say, their opponent on the Iraq War, as Sanders tried to do with Biden. Because if you really want that attack to mean anything, you have to say a lot of reasons why America is bad and sucks and is evil actually. And you have to maybe say it wasn’t just like this vague war where like things blew up and then it ended.

We designed a forced labor system in Fallujah. That’s kinda like what the Nazis did. People go, “Ugh, shut up. That’s not my country. What, he’s calling us Nazis?” You have to say we killed at least six hundred thousand people, maybe a million. I wonder if it’s possible to effectively make the attack without being dismissed as a caricature of an anti-American leftist. Bernie Sanders, for instance, had to balance criticism with a message of redemption for the country. I’m unsure if this approach can transition to a more effective strategy. Corbyn managed to pull it off in the UK, blaming terrorism on imperialism, but it’s uncertain if the same tactic would resonate with the American public if employed by Sanders. Unfortunately.
DANIEL DENVIR

The story you’re telling is also a media story, a product about other media products. You have the New York Times with Judith Miller, who infamously laundered the Bush administration’s totally false case for war to the public. There were some important exceptions, but it wasn’t just Judith Miller’s active misinformation — there was also this general failure of mainstream media to question the invasion.

So Miller’s kind of an extreme example that obscures the more banal everyday deference that, in part, is this conventional issue with the media that emerges in mass media and capitalist societies — basic manufacturing consent type stuff. But then everything was exacerbated by post-9/11 jingoism that younger people who weren’t sentient at the time won’t recall. That jingoism really softened much of what little critical edge did exist in the mainstream media. Say a little bit about the media’s role.
NOAH KULWIN

Yeah, I think there are several different ways in which the media helped sell the war and manufacture a certain set of stories about the case for war and the war itself. You had people like Judith Miller who were willing launderers of bad or slanted information. Then there’s the pundit class, like Jonathan Alter, for example. In an early episode, Brendan kicks to me a column that he wrote about how after 9/11, we had to start torturing people. This kind of jingoism after 9/11 came very naturally to the armchair pundits, liberals, and conservatives alike, and it would lead them to vociferously declare that we had to go after Saddam.

The Washington Post had reams of reporting making the case for war, and it was actually quite easy to find a lot of those stories about how shaky the case for war was. But they were just buried. They weren’t actually presented on the front page. You have to look at all these different pieces and how they fit together. While the Judith Millers surely deserve a lot of the blame, there’s also a series of institutional failures ranging from the New Yorker to the Washington Post to obviously cable television, where they simply weren’t interested in asking any of those questions. Even when they did ask, and they knew, and they had the information about how sketchy what al-Libi was saying, when they had the information about how [Lewis] Libby’s sourcing was total bunk, they too chose to ignore it. So it wasn’t that they were just totally misled or lied to. I think some of the failures of the media that at least we discussed reveal that they were actually quite comfortable dismissing the information that was made available to them.
BRENDAN JAMES

There were more critical stories coming out in the Times or in the Post. But you can push those to another page. In a medium like cable news, where it’s pretty much right in front of your face, you can’t marginalize information like that as much. Phil Donahue on MSNBC was crying bloody murder about the war being a horrible and bad idea, and they just fired him. He obviously was a staple of most people’s understanding of daytime American talk shows, and they canned him because he wasn’t getting with the program. So you had that going on, and the journalism proper from the New York Times and the Washington Post and a bunch of other papers. Then you had the pundit side, the philosopher kings Thomas Friedman and David Brooks.
NOAH KULWIN

One thing I would note is that in this pundit space, there was a cottage industry of experts, especially liberals like Kenneth Pollack who wrote a book called The Threatening Storm, which was supposed to be the liberal intellectuals’ case for war. I remember going into good liberal family friends’ homes at this time and seeing that book on the shelf, and it had a lot of influence. There were a wide range of experts from Stephen Hayes on the Right to someone like Kenneth Pollack or Paul Berman ostensibly on the Left, who were creating material that would then get tossed around on cable news as a justification for buying into all of this cooked intelligence.
DANIEL DENVIR

Or Christopher Hitchens, who was never on TV that I recall when he was a Nation writer. And then he becomes the big hawk who breaks up with the Left over the Iraq War, and he is everywhere. His celebrity explodes.
NOAH KULWIN

He’s rewarded when he gets US citizenship. And who is it that swears him in? It’s a secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff.
DANIEL DENVIR

Speaking of apologists for war, we also see the rehabilitation of Jennifer Rubin and Bill Kristol, who are now giving daily advice to liberals on the internet.
BRENDAN JAMES

Yeah. The “Resistance” is truly a big tent.
NOAH KULWIN

David Frum is probably the most offensive example to me personally.
BRENDAN JAMES

Also, he did not come up with that phrase. According to Bob Woodward, he did not come up with “Axis of Evil,” which is his claim to fame as a Bush speechwriter. He had something way shittier, like the “Axis of Ignitability” or something. The actual speechwriter to Bush was like “Let’s tune that up a little bit.”
NOAH KULWIN

The guy who was the actual speechwriter to Bush, Michael Gerson, was a much funnier and more interesting person than David Frum ever was. When Gerson was getting hopped up to write a Bush State of the Union, he gave himself a heart attack in his fervor of trying to write this up. And when he went to his doctor, his doctor told him that he was stressing himself out by thinking about and fantasizing too much about Bush in Iraq.
BRENDAN JAMES

He was too horny for the war. Probably getting those dick implants from our ambassador to the ayatollah in Baghdad.
DANIEL DENVIR

For all that we’ve just said about the press, you do make a point of citing mainstream sources, which I like a lot, and I think it’s a left approach to mass media that I agree with. Because like we were talking about earlier, although there are outright fabrications like what Judith Miller did, there are still lots of valuable facts turned up by mainstream reporters. And then there are some exceptionally good ones, like the people who were doing the work at McClatchy Washington Bureau that was contradicting.

That was getting syndicated in all kinds of medium-sized papers, but I wasn’t seeing it reading the New York Times at the time, for example. I think what your approach is premised on is the correct idea that the pernicious distortion is, sure, sometimes the Judith Miller–style outright fabrications, but is most often to be found in this more basic framing of stories in particular and of the news in general. What’s on the front page, what’s buried on page sixteen — the story isn’t so much censored or suppressed in the US. It’s more obscured.
BRENDAN JAMES

Yeah. I think that’s the old construal of American-style management of the press versus a more authoritarian idea.
NOAH KULWIN

The UK is a good example. They just censor there. The press just does not have the same rights that it does here.
BRENDAN JAMES

Sure. But ultimately, these are all liberal bourgeois constructs. These are illusory freedoms that you don’t need to have as heavy a hand, because in many ways the American press is all too happy to deliver the official narrative and the narrative preferred by, certainly in the case of the Iraq War, the Bush administration. And so there’s no need to crack down on them. You’ll spoil a good relationship. And there’s that old poem about how there’s no need to bribe a British journalist, considering what he’ll do unbribed. So the same goes for America.

But that’s not to say we didn’t censor and do totalitarian-style media management in Iraq. Paul Bremer shut down Mukhtar al-Sadr, the Shia cleric that became the face of resistance for the underclass of Shia in Iraq and in Baghdad. He had a newspaper, and the newspaper had accused Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, of becoming the new Saddam. So Bremer promptly shut down the newspaper operating in Mukhtar’s neighborhood and imprisoned one of his lieutenants in a move to prove he was not the new authoritarian.
DANIEL DENVIR

This is kind of taking things in a new direction to end on, but do you think that the COVID crisis posing these sorts of, at least temporarily, biological limits or contradictions to US empire provides an opportunity to rethink the politics of American imperialism — to re-politicize them at a time when everything is up for debate, but people are very distracted with ensuring their emotional, physical, and economic survival?
BRENDAN JAMES

I think that an obvious reference point here would be the sanctions imposed on Iran while they undergo an even more serious crisis than America, which is a pretty high bar, and how it is directly resulting in untold suffering that will scar that country for decades to come. It’s a war crime. One of the arguments of our show is that, for example, the Iraqi sanctions in the ’90s were as big of a crime and certainly created almost as much violence as the invasion and conventional war itself that exploded after 2003. Similarly, I would say what we’re doing to Iran, what we’ve been doing to Iran for a long time, is one of the many war crimes taking place that coronavirus certainly puts in full view. Unfortunately, I have to offer the pessimistic answer right now.

I think unlike the Iraq War, where Americans were encouraged to consume more and take pride in overseas actions, this crisis directly affects everyday Americans. It’s uncertain whether this will broaden our compassion or drive us to be more introverted and dismissive of others’ suffering. However, if any good can come from this crisis, ending the sanctions on Iran would be a crucial step. Like the Iraqi sanctions, they are not only inhumane during this devastating plague, but also priming the pump for us to make war on them in the future, whether it be a year from now, five years from now, or a little bit longer.
NOAH KULWIN

Yes, one thing I would emphasize is that our show, and where the title comes from, “blowback,” suggests that events of mass destruction are often by design, serving private interests rather than the public good. While the coronavirus itself serves no master, we must be wary of how decisions in response to it may serve the interests of those seeking to eliminate social safety nets altogether.
BRENDAN JAMES

The Naomi Klein thesis.
DANIEL DENVIR

Could you call it… the “shock doctrine”?
BRENDAN JAMES

[Laughs] Yeah, disaster capitalism. But whether there’s a disaster imperialism or a disaster anti-imperialism, it really does remain to be seen. Stuff could get really weird within the next couple years in a good way —
DANIEL DENVIR

Or in a nightmares way.
BRENDAN JAMES

But I think that the circumstances could give rise to something more constructive. I mean, the wheels of history are turning. I don’t know whether or not capital can fully recover from this. I think it’s possible that it can, but it’s probably as panicked as anybody else.

As the Naomi Klein thesis goes, this would be a great time for a lot of looting and a lot of pillaging and a lot of sneaky maneuvers to take place, just as they did in the catastrophe in Iraq, in which Exxon and Halliburton and Blackwater got to wet their beaks while a slow-moving genocide occurred over about five years in that country. So we need to be paying attention for that very approach going forward.
NOAH KULWIN

What I would hope is that we do at least now have something resembling a toolkit and the beginnings of what looked like mass movement politics.
BRENDAN JAMES

As long as things don’t go back to normal. Because that’s the worst outcome.