vruz: that was a strong reply. and I thought I was being tough. I have to harden up somewhat, I feel like a nancy :-)
And we know that Al-Qaeda is 99.9% pure brand, which would make this whole eternal war-against-terrorism thing hilarious if it weren’t for all the blood & guts.
vruz: the way I see it from afar is that americans aren’t dealing well with it. hyperventilating and losing control is essentially capitulation when dealing with this enemy. it’s exactly what the enemy wants.
I don’t think Gibson means that because terrorism is a branding-based business it’s any less effective, the opposite seems to be true.
Which is exactly the reason why knee-jerk reactions and totalitarian ticks, making the population less free are the exact opposite things of what the U.S. should be doing.
I see how being a prominently individualist society can be a weakness in this context, individuals who believe in individualism too much are too worried to be the lottery winner, as Gibson puts it.
Imagine current day americans living in London during WWII with bombs falling routinely on your neighbourhood, daily, for weeks, and months.
The enemy is really in our heads.
vruz: and we all know where did the puritans go.
vruz: I subscribe to this feeling. I adore the difference of the things that make places and ages authentic, but not so much as to become a collector of nostalgia. it’s not just that nostalgia is attached to something seriously bad, to me it’s that the administrative overhead of managing the overwhelmingly huge past precludes all possibility of administering an optimistic future. the past is fixed on stone. therefore I choose to always prefer the future. the future is always better, because it’s something you can improve, a place where you can create new things that come to life.
vruz: some innocent people are more innocent than others. some criminals are less criminals than others. it all comes down to “us and them”.