Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • RERUN–The Perfect Enemy

    Posted by David Foster on May 26th, 2013 (All posts by )

    (Originally posted in February 2009. I was reminded of it by recent events in London and Sweden)

    Suppose you wanted to create a perfect enemy. An enemy so vile that its evil would be recognized by almost everyone. An enemy that would inspire people to come together in order to ensure its defeat.

    To be more specific: suppose you were a screenwriter with the assignment of creating a suitable villain-organization for a major motion picture. The marketing plan for this movie suggests that it will be marketed primarily to a certain demographic and that, hence, your villain-organization should be particularly appalling to members of that demographic. The demographic in question consists of people who are affluent, highly educated (college with at least some postgraduate education), not particularly religious, and who consider themselves politically liberal or “progressive.” The plot of the movie demands that the audience must see the necessity for Americans–of many beliefs, occupations, and social backgrounds–to come together in order to defeat the enemy.

    Oh, and one other thing. The year in which you are given this assignment is 1999.

    You will clearly want your enemy to share many of the characteristics of the Nazis–disrespect for human life, wanton cruelty, a love of apocalyptic violence. But to make the enemy particuarly awful from the standpoint of your target demographic, you will want to emphasize certain aspects of its belief system.

    Members of your demographic usually have strong beliefs about women’s rights. So, your enemy must have a particularly disrespectful belief set, and a violent behavior pattern, towards women. Similarly, your demographic is generally favorable toward gay rights…so the enemy must advocate and practice the suppression, torture, and killing of gays. Your demographic is generally nonreligious and often hostile toward religion…so, make sure the enemy includes a large element of religious fanaticism. Members of your demographic talk a lot about “the children”–so make sure your enemy uses children in particularly cruel ways.

    Had you created such an enemy for your screenplay in 1999, you would have surely felt justified in assuming that it would achieve its intended reaction with your target demographic.

    It didn’t work out that way, though.


    The enemy I’ve described is, of course, the one that we currently face in the form of radical Islamic terrorists and their associated rogue states such as Iran. In real life, not in the movies.

    But the members of the demographic I specified have been strangely reluctant to engage in wholehearted condemnation of this enemy (observe, for example, the endless excuse-making, for and even glamorization of, Palestinian terrorism), and even more reluctant to join with their fellow Americans for its defeat. Indeed, it seems that many journalists, entertainers, writers, and college professors have such strong feelings of fear and/or contempt for the majority of their fellow Americans that these greatly overshadow any concerns about terrorist fanatics and terrorist states with nuclear weapons.

    In Poul Anderson’s 1972 SF story A Chapter of Revelation, God stops the movement of the sun across the sky. (Technically, He does this by slowing earth’s rotation period to a value identical with Earth’s year.) The reason for the miracle is to demonstrate His existence to the world, thereby encouraging people to prevent the nuclear war which is about to occur.

    Anderson describes the intital reaction to the miracle: The pilgramages by torch to the Ganges, by canclelight to the Western Wall and the Mosque of Omar, by furnacelike sunlight to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were not frantic in any true sense of that word. They were awesome: men, women, children by the millions flowing together and becoming a natural force.

    A theology student, in conversation with a scientist, offers the view that “…today we’re so far gone into spiritual savagery that nothing except the most primitive, public sort of demonstration could touch us”…to which the scientist replies “As if we’d flunked quantum mechanics and been sent back to roll balls down inclined planes?”

    Very soon, people begin to use the miracle to justify whatever belief systems they already hold. A Russian scientist (remember, this was written in 1972) suggests that “The requirement of minimum hypothesis practically forces us to assume that what happened resulted from the application of a technology centuries beyond ours. I find it easy to believe that an advanced civilization, capable of interstellar travel, sent a team to save mankind from the carnage threatened by an imperialism which that society outgrew long ago.” The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party suggests that it was all about the intersection of Marxism and ESP: “The mind of man may have tremendous abilities, once liberated from the blinkers of the past. More than a third of the contemporary human race is guided by Marxism; more than half this number has for more than a generation been under the tutelage of wholly correct principles. Thus, the massed concentration of the peace-loving peoples may well have triggered cosmic energies to produce those events which have halted the imperialists in their bloody track and thrown them wallowing back into the basest superstitions.”

    In the U.S., extreme right-wing evangelists use the miracle to prove that their vision is the correct one. Radical Black Power advocates do the same: “‘What He really stopped was this rich man’s war that was getting started when the bombs of white Amerika’…he formed the K with his fingers, a gesture that had become his trademark–’struck our Chinese brothers. The rich man’s war on the poor, the white man’s war on the black, the brown, the yellow, the red.’” Moralists assert that the miracle was a warning about moral degeneration: “Satan’s agents continue to gnaw like rats at the heart of faith, morality, and society. These atheists, evolutionists, free-love swine, boozers, tobacco smokers, dope fiends still try to hide from us the plain truth of God’s word as revealed in the Holy Bible.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff propose a preemptive attack on China–”I keep thinking of Jehovah the Thunderer,” says their spokesman, “–the Crusades–Don John at Lepanto, saving Christendom with sword and cannon..”

    Basically, just about everyone responds to the miracle by reinforcing whatever belief systems they already had, and the world slides into further chaos, with riots, coups d’etat, and cross-border military attacks. The story is a beautiful description of confirmation bias on a very large scale.

    The attacks on 9/11 were a “primitive, public” demonstration like the stopping of sun in Anderson’s story, albeit a demonstration which was intentionally brutal rather than benign. But even with an enemy that seems custom-designed to be appalling to “progressives,” and with the most primitive and public demonstration imaginable, confirmation bias has, for many proved far stronger than evidence.




    9 Responses to “RERUN–The Perfect Enemy”

    1. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Confirmation bias does exist. However to the demographic the movie is being marketed to:

      The marketing plan for this movie suggests that it will be marketed primarily to a certain demographic and that, hence, your villain-organization should be particularly appalling to members of that demographic. The demographic in question consists of people who are affluent, highly educated (college with at least some postgraduate education), not particularly religious, and who consider themselves politically liberal or “progressive.” The plot of the movie demands that the audience must see the necessity for Americans–of many beliefs, occupations, and social backgrounds–to come together in order to defeat the enemy.

      Their confirmation bias could not conceive of a third world people who hate the Judeo-Christian faith and civilization as a villain. They are as close to saints as that demographic can imagine.

      Based on their previously established core beliefs; the villains have to be people of Judeo-Christian faith, people who resist the Progressive’s faith in the “Inevitable Forward March of History”, people who have beliefs different from the ruling elites on matters such as self-reliance, self-confidence, wanting to be left alone, etc.

      To that demographic, which matches our current ruling elites, the real villains are the American people. And they have actually been at war with them since before the 1972 Anderson story.

      Subotai Bahadur

    2. David Foster Says:

      See new post by Bookworm.

      Although when she says “The Victorian equivalent of piano legs,” I think it should have been “The modern equivalent of Victorian piano legs.”

    3. VXXC Says:

      Subotai nails it.

      They’re in love with the Jihadis. Like the 70s.

      Head over heels.

      KSM and his magnificent beard, held illegally in GITMO.

      However this isn’t news. Dog bites man.

      When will the man bite back?

    4. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Richard Fernandez has written several essays on how the left always worships the hard men who will commit the violent acts that they are incapable of.

      Exhibit A — Che Guevara

    5. 1389AD Says:

      Instead, in 1999, it was the Christian Serbs who were being demonized.

    6. Alcibiades Says:

      Because the Serbs were massacring people…

      Of course, Croats and other groups had been massacring Serbs and each other previously (and by previously, I include WWII and the thousand or so years before it). That’s Nationalism for you. Whether you’re white, black, Serb, Croat, Japanese, Arab, Turk, Kurdish, German, Russian, or whatnot, Nationalism means murdering your historical enemies either for revenge or just because.

    7. Melissa Says:

      Nationalism served the U.K., Canada, Australia and the U.S. very well in WW II.

    8. Michael Kennedy Says:

      To understand the Serbs and their neighbors, it is useful to read Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, by Rebecca West. It was written in 1937 but explains the Balkan wars very well When the Ottoman Turks conquered that area, the Serbs lost the battle and were oppressed by the Muslim Turks. The Bosnians are the same genetic people as the Serbs but chose to convert to Islam, usually because they were town dwellers and had economic motives. The Croats and the Slovenes were sheltered by the Austrians from the Turks and remained Catholic.

      The Serbs hate the Bosnians because they converted to Islam and hate the Croats and Slovenes because they are Roman Catholic. The Serbs remained Greek (or Russian) Orthodox and were persecuted by the Turks. They call Bosnians and residents of Kosovo, “Turks.”

      It’s all very complicated and mostly about religion.

      Michael Totten almost got into serious trouble when he was driving a rental car through Kosovo a couple of years ago. He finally realized the car had Serbian license plates. The Kosovars had been fingering their guns and Molotov cocktails until he explained.

    9. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Michael: I am sorry to disagree, but the West book is not a source of factual information. West was a Communist sent off to the Balkans to write pro-Serb propaganda. It is farcical. The thesis advanced by her Serb informants: “We lost a battle to the Turks at a place in Kosovo, 700 years ago, therefore Kosovo belongs to us” is prima facie gibberish. The rest of her historical judgments are equally bad.

      A far better and shorter book about Kosovo is:

      “Kosovo: A Short History” by Noel Malcolm

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.