The world is currently burning; it’s the opening of a decade or more of conflict which will see the USA and its allies pitted against Russia and most likely China. A number of complex interlocking factors are beginning to come into play which makes this dynamic inevitable. But the question of why this is occurring is not a discussion I want to raise at present, rather, what I would like to explore is the response of the European populations of the sheltered west to the ever increasing cycles of carnage being afflicted on the greater world.
While Paris is beset by Zionists and Muslim populations rioting and London is brought to a standstill by Pakistani Muslims, it is my personal observation that the response from the European populations encompasses four major strands.
a) Engagement in moral outrage at the plight of the Gazans
b) Active ignorance of the situation with robotic reflexive lip service made to liberal piety when pushed
c) Complete obliviousness, combined with robotic reflexive lip service made to liberal piety when pushed
d) Partisan support of Israel
The responses cover the spectrum between extreme hyper Protestantism (or liberal progressivism to give it its accepted name) and either aggressive neutrality, or genuine neutrality based on ignorance, (if either can be called neutrality); and finally the accepted conservative position of supporting Israel. The results can be quite eerie at times.
Recently looking on my Facebook feed for the first time for some months gave me an example of this eeriness. Every fourth post or so, interspersed with the usual selfies of people with comments like “it’s hot” or “like a boss”, instagrammed plates of food, or recorded images of out of shape women in dark night clubs, were graphic images of bombed buildings, children covered with blood and mock up images of the houses of parliament being attacked with missiles.
Another example of this eeriness is that of the current violence in the Ukraine when juxtaposed with the 2012 UEFA European championship being hosted in Lviv, Kiev, Kharkiv and Donetsk. Only two years separate the presence of the English and French Soccer teams in Donetsk, and the shooting down of a passenger plane in the midst of civil war.
Other notable examples include the Libyan crisis which rose to prominence and disappeared again. A country went from existing, to not existing, and the new normal was established without many questions really being asked. More recently Iraq and Syria have slipped into anarchy in the same pattern.
The violence is spreading from countries which previously were stable and peaceful with greater velocity, and is coming closer to home each time, yet there is no real sense of foreboding in the general public, despite the best efforts of the media to rile up emotions either in support of side A, or side B in any particular conflict dependent on ideological tilt or geopolitical necessity. It seems the vast majority fall into the category of aggressive neutrality interspersed with lip service piety towards peace; they really don’t want to be bothered, or rather, they don’t think they need to be bothered. As such, the selfies carry on, the debauchery is continued and the aggressive happiness is maintained. Reality is therefore subsumed to perception and opinion.
Of course, it not merely the general public which partakes in this mechanism of belief being more important than reality, political thought in general tends to do so as well, for example, see the placement of political commentary under “opinion” or described as opinion under a “comment” section in most publications. This is very instructive, as it is a tacit acceptance that it is not rational understanding of events which is of primary importance.
This mechanism is the case for those on the right and the left; it is the perception and opinions of those who hold the respective views which is of concern, and not the actual reality to which the views ostensibly refer to. It is a basic assumption that reality is subjective, and that our perception and beliefs regarding reality matter above all else. No one is concerned if their opinion can be confirmed, and as an interesting aside we may inadvertently extrapolate from this the ultimate fate of science in democracy. Democracy cannot abide objectivity at its core, it doesn’t fit on a deep level, the plight of climate science and human genetic differences correspond to this dynamic. Science must adhere to the vote, it must be open to opinion and perception, the only escape is ultimately to be out of the gaze of democracy. The general public has no opinion on the finer points of maths for example, so maths may continue.
So, bringing this back to the topic of this article, the average Europeans’ understanding of the surrounding violence in other countries is not of concern, but their perceptions of them are. Holding the correct perception therefore becomes key. It’s narcissism in extremis, most aptly symbolised in this instance by the virulent spread of hashtag activism and protest marches. My opinion and perception is strong enough to alter realty, ergo if I ignore A, or have positive thoughts about B, then all else matters not. So called reality is played out through the media and public opinion, be that mass media or social media.
It is within this framework that the aggressive neutrality of the average person can be firmly understood. My opinions dictate policy, which dictates reality. So if I ignore the issue, it does not matter. Alternatively, if I assert my moral opinion and perception of how the world should be, then the world will become a better place. The mechanism between action and outcome no longer corresponds to any real consequences, but to a synthetic reality which can be corrected through media selectivity and political correctness, and thus we see the true power of the media.
