The depraved heroes of 24 are the Himmlers of Hollywood

[Briar]

The depraved heroes of 24 are the Himmlers of Hollywood

The message of the TV series, that torturers can retain their human dignity if the cause is right, is a profound lie

Slavoj Zizek

...

24 should not be seen as a simple popular depiction of the sort of problematic methods the US resorts to in its "war on terror". Much more is at stake. Recall the lesson of Apocalypse Now. The figure of Kurtz is not a remnant of some barbaric past. He was the perfect soldier but, through his over-identification with the military, he turned into the embodiment of the system's excess and threatened the system itself.

The problem for those in power is how to get people do the dirty work without turning them into monsters. This was Heinrich Himmler's dilemma. When confronted with the task of killing the Jews of Europe, the SS chief adopted the attitude of "somebody has to do the dirty job". In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.

There was a further "ethical problem" for Himmler: how to make sure that the executioners, while performing these terrible acts, remained human and dignified. His answer was Krishna's message to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita (Himmler always had in his pocket a leather-bound edition): act with inner distance; do not get fully involved.

Therein also resides the lie of 24: that it is not only possible to retain human dignity in performing acts of terror, but that if an honest person performs such an act as a grave duty, it confers on him a tragic-ethical grandeur. The parallel between the agents' and the terrorists' behaviour serves this lie.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1682760,00.html

[leveymg]

1. Oppenheimer quoted the Gita: "Behold, for I am the destroyer of worlds"

upon witnessing the "catastrophic success" of the first test of the atomic bomb.

"These warriors of the mortal world are entering Your blazing mouths as many torrents of the rivers enter into the ocean. (11.28)

All these people are rapidly rushing into Your mouths for de­struction as moths rush with great speed into the blazing flame for destruction. (11.29)

You are licking up all the worlds with Your flaming mouths, swallow­ing them from all sides. Your powerful radiance is filling the entire universe with effulgence and burning it, O Krishna. (11.30)

Tell me, who are You in such a fierce form? My salutations to You, O best of all celestial rulers. Be merciful! I wish to understand You, O primal Being, because I do not know Your mission. (11.31)

Lord Krishna said: I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world. I have come here to destroy all these people. Even without your participation in the war, all the warriors stand­ing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist." (11.32)



The Bhagavad-Gita seems to be a useful text for those who are willing to do inhumane things in the name of what they see as some overarching Good. Also, for those who might understand warriors in order to prevent war.

[Briar]

2. Unfortunately

we have very few narratives in which war is successfully prevented, nor do we tend to regard as heroes those who try to prevent it. "Appeaser", "coward", "traitor", "hypocrit" or "naive idiot" - those are more likely terms used in our culture to describe peacemakers. Popular culture would rather glorify the warrior than them - though of course there will be sensitive moments where the noble "hero" feels distaste for his or her bloody mission before going on to successfully accomplish it. And that moment of indecision where they choose war over peace will be held, naturally, to have vindidated our portrayal of them as heroes.

No wonder we fail to prevent wars. Our most popular stories and heroes are complicit in justifying them.

[leveymg]

3. An inability to make war may have been forced on us by the collapse

of our overstretched empire. That is a faint promise for a future, but it's a future.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=184343&mesg_id=184429

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe this is because, people cannot see peace,

we only notice the absent of peace when we are at war, which is much more visible. When we are at peace and prosperous, we seem to become absorbed with petty things, there always has to be something to separate and divide us. I believe this is related to the human condition of obtaining power, when there are no enemies without someone has to find them within.

[IrateCitizen]

6. US prosperity is not the same as peace

MLK described peace not as the absence of war, but the presence of justice. By that definition, there aren't too many times (if any) in US history at which we have really been "at peace". The absence of war simply means that we are kept in a state of unawareness of the suffering that is required to maintain a hegemonic, tributary state. War is simply the unmasking of the oppression required to keep the status quo intact.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I agree, prosperity is not the same as peace.

I believe we are close to saying the same thing.

[PSPS]

5. Bartcop gushes over this program because it reinforces his torture fetish