by elpuma » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:35 pm
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Interesting post at <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/08/11/decoding-airplane-terrorism/">Pop Occulture Blog</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>By now, everyone has heard about the latest airline bombing threat which was “stopped” by the British government. If you’ve never considered the importance of threats to airplanes, you might do well to consider the recent line of questioning from a Cryptogon post:<br><br> We always hear about how smart, how cunning, “the terrorists” are. After all, according to legend, “the terrorists” are so smart and so cunning that they hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings, and all the rest of that bullsh*t…<br><br> Yet, for some reason, “the terrorists” don’t seem interested in attacking the undefended support infrastructure of the U.S. National Security Agency?! “The terrorists” are, likewise, uninterested in taking out the undefended data infrastructures that undergird U.S. mega corporations.<br><br> If “the terrorists” hate the U.S. so much, why haven’t they attacked the undefended electrical and data infrastructures that animate the Great Satan? Why do “the terrorists” only carry out symbolic pinprick attacks that are MUCH more difficult to execute than strategic, decapitation strikes? Why not deliver a blow to the U.S. that would actually take it down?<br><br>Whatever you take away from that, you’ve got to admit that he asks some compelling questions. And the rest of that post is also well worth reading. The key point I take away from that post is that, clearly, attacking airlines (or threatening to do so) is a purely symbolic act. Attacking one airplane is bad and tragic, but it’s not - militarily speaking - as awful as it would be if they managed to take out an entire airport, power plant, factory, bridge, major highway, railroad hub, port area, etc. You know: real military targets, in other words. Things that are of clear strategic importance because they cripple infrastructure and inhibit your opponent’s ability to fight back. Putting a bomb on an airplane does not do this. It does one thing and one thing only.<br><br>It makes people afraid to travel.<br><br>The thing is though, that’s not where it ends. Getting somebody afraid of traveling is itself a much more loaded and interesting trick. Fear of travel decodes into increased provincialism and a reversion to local tribalism. Americans, increasingly so, are world travelers - at least the people who can afford to be. And the people who can afford to be are, by and large, also reasonably well educated. People who have money enough to be mobile and a decent education are thus able to be exposed to multiple viewpoints and perspectives by traveling. In short, they become more cosmopolitan.<br><br>An attack on an airplane then, is an attack on the rising cosmopolitanism and freedom of the middle class who can afford to travel by plane. It’s designed, even if you don’t fly, to make you subconsciously think that other nations and other nationalities are inherently dangerous. They are out to get you and it’s best not to “go there” mentally.<br><br>After all, in Western esotericism, the element of “air” tends to correspond with the intellect and with mental matters. A plane could be said to symbolize our ability to concretize our ideas and send them out as messengers all over the world. By association, if planes and air travel become dangerous, thoughts become dangerous, and letting your thoughts carry you to far off worlds becomes doubly dangerous. On the elemental note, it’s also interesting to look at the latest inane symbolic prohibition that airline passengers are now being forced to submit to:<br><br> Airline passengers around the country stood in line for hours and airport trash bins bulged with everything from mouthwash and shaving cream to maple syrup and fine wine Thursday in a security crackdown prompted by the discovery of a terror plot in Britain.<br><br> U.S. authorities banned the carrying of liquids onto flights after the arrest of 24 people in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes using explosives disguised as drinks and other common products.<br><br>In tarot symbology, liquids or water stand for the emotions, which people are now being asked to symbolically empty out:<br><br> Represents the emotions. Best known for representing the Querent’s love life, but it also stands for emotional extremes, such as elation, depression or bliss, and the negatives that come with such emotions, like over-indulgence in food, drink, drugs. Likewise the positives like poetry or music. Also, psychic powers, visions, illusions. These are feelings that you surrender to, that you flow or sink into.<br><br>If you look also at the list of items people are being forced to dump, every single one of them is an item associated with personal comfort, with luxury. Mouthwash, shaving cream, wine, maple syrup. None of those are really essential at all (except for baby formula and medicine, which are both still allowed on). They are symbolic. People are asked to shed a very visceral level of personal comfort in exchange for being allowed the now restricted luxury of mental (air element) travel. But they are warned against getting emotionally too involved (water/liquids) in it, lest they explode (fire element - passion, energy) and fall back to earth (yet another element). So the thinking goes then, that it’s best just to stay tied into the earthly, physical realm and not stray too far away.<br><br>On a more technocratic note, reading through the quotes attributed to airline passengers in news articles comes across now as the most ridiculous kind of justifications. I believe it is a tactic similar to what I described in my letters to the editor article: where you get people to explicitly say in their own words what your message is, so that you don’t have to. Check these snippets out, in case you’re still wondering what they want you to think about these new security measures:<br><br> “That’s part of the price you pay for traveling during a time like this,” … “It’s better alive than dead,” … “It’s inconvenient, but we’ll make it.” … “Everyone was really calm,” said passenger Jim McConnell of Charlottesville, Va. “I think people have grown to accept the state of the world.” … “It’s better to feel safe. We thought it was going to be a lot worse,” … “It’s a slight inconvenience,” … “It’s a pain, but I still think getting across the country in six hours is pretty amazing. I don’t mind waiting an extra 15 minutes to check my luggage.” <br><br>Yeah, boy, he’s right. Getting across the country in six hours IS pretty amazing! If only that were all that was at stake here…<br> <p></p><i></i>
