Amidst the anguished cries of the western world following a bomb blast at Manchester’s 21,000 capacity Arena, I feel compelled to unleash some of my own internal noise unto my laptop and perhaps also the internet. I feel the need to disclaim that all sentences be silently prefixed with the phrase ‘In my opinion….’. In times like these we are discouraged by our peers from broadcasting our opinions, they roll their eyes and proclaim that ‘suddenly everyone is an expert’, so we all crawl like hermits back into our shells to protect ourselves from ridicule and humiliation. I didn’t go to University. I’m not mega clever. I have a part-time interest in politics *everyone closes tab*. These are not fully formed ideas. Do we need watertight solutions to massive global issues in order to be granted permission to discuss them? Some people seem to think so, but I disagree. Let’s drop the elitism and allow discussion and the exchange of ideas, please.

It’s difficult to find the end of the metaphorical thread within my minds wild and untethered internal dialogue. Lately, it’s been inhabited BY ‘deep’ thoughts about politics in the wake of the UK snap election. It’s been trying to decipher the nature of the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ wings that make up today’s politics spectrum. What are the fundamental traits that one has to have in order for them to passionately follow the left or, indeed, the right? And what of those that sit somewhere in the middle? And why is there seemingly so few of them? Why are we ‘radicalised’ (a risky word to use but I’m taking it back) into these two separate corners of the ring? I suppose I should offer an answer. But if I were to offer an answer it’d be coming from a human that is already emotionally tied to the ‘left’ and as such, I am unable to offer an objective view. It goes without saying that there are much smarter and more well read social and political historians and scientists that dedicate their lives to deciphering these questions that will offer far more legitimate answers. So maybe reading on is a waste of your time. Or maybe you think I’m clever and have something to say that you could relate to. Who knows. Most of those questions I will try to address, in my own way, another time.

How do I evaluate the fundamentals at the core of the right and left, or, in this case, Labour and Conservatives? From my deluded, artist, utopianist mind, the Conservative party seems to try to sway voters into ticking their box by speaking mainly about the shortfalls and weaknesses of their opposition, to have you fear one another, especially those not from ‘your’ country and to brand its opposition’s ideas and ambitions as unrealistic. Of course, you would have to diminish your opponent’s plans if they benefitted the majority of the electorate otherwise it would be impossible to win. As a result, the only option is to attempt to convince the population that those plans are impossible. The fastest and most effective way to do this is to play on what the people fear.

The fundamentals of Labour, or at least 2017’s Labour, seem to be, in my deluded and utopianist mind, togetherness, empathy and compassion. A philosophy that at its core says that we needn’t live life like it’s every man for itself. Yes, they talk of the oppositions shortfalls too, they’re no angels, the political system excludes angels when they go to sign up, however, the primary focus is on what they intend to achieve. Labour are appealing to young people starting out in life because they know that their policies lend themselves to giving those people a leg up in their fledgeling lives. The Conservatives have not made a single appeal (cue a link to a line somewhere in the small print) to young people to register to vote because they know that their appeal lies with older generations who seek to protect their wealth, because, ya know, it’s every man for himself and maybe we can like thy neighbour but fuck loving them, I hardly know them. And they might be lazy. And be on benefits. And they definitely didn’t go to Eton. OK, that’s too liberal now, Dan, reign it in. What I’m trying to say is, from where I’m sat, Labour participate far less in the politics of fear.

I’ve spent the last couple of hours following the fallout from the bomb blast in Manchester. Todays ‘instant’ news phenomena that social media has lent us is a double edged sword. Because capitalism fills every vacuum it can find, news outlets have always, and still do, have to bend to some degree in order to shout the loudest and achieve the highest ratings that it can. Where there is no capital at stake we find that ego and its desire for validation come into play – how many likes can this post get, how many retweets or replies can this tweet yield (for instance the bizarre phenomenon of creating fake missing person posts on twitter to reap thousands of likes). After a ‘terror attack’, we become fiercely protective of our own and vehemently hateful toward the perpetrators. As such, news outlets tend to obtain maximum impact by tapping into our most primitive state of being – fear. Round up to the maximum deaths and injuries, speculate on the worst-case scenarios, compromise on the legitimacy of the source. Some will say that this is a cynical view whilst others will see its blatant logic. Terrible statistics have people instinctively hitting to retweet even if they’re unconfirmed figures. Speculation of a gunman from an, understandably, panicked eye witness spreads like wildfire throughout the world wide web and terror grips us all that little bit harder, only to find out later that there was no gunman (thank you Daily Express). Rhetoric is chosen to maximise the yield of fear. Not necessarily in the ‘fuck the Illuminati’ way that some may suspect, but because it returns the best ratings, the most likes, and the most retweets. it sounds so horrendously cynical but I think sometimes the human ego is that tasteless. No doubt as print media sales dwindle its methods for optimising sales would stoop lower and lower just to survive, so you have to ask, how authentic is the information that we assimilate?

Even as I type I’ve fallen foul of this very game. Intermittently rubbernecking my way through Twitter for the latest update, the latest story, each one more horrific than the last. Each story swelling the feeling of vitriol one step further. That urge for revenge is undeniable. The simple distinction is not enough to exclude us from being sucked into the hurricane. Everyone knows rational decisions aren’t made in the heat of the moment, and yet that we seem to have a habit of fanning the flames in these instances and then executing the plan before giving it a clear-headed review.

It could sound like I’m advocating for the very draconian internet monitoring and control that the Tories advocate for in their latest manifesto but this is absolutely not the case. The freedom for information to flow has pros that far outweigh the cons. Perhaps what we need is a better understanding of how humans interface with these new technologies and what behaviours of ours are modulated in the face of such emotionally provocative events.

Even as someone currently sat on the other side of the planet to Manchester, the reliability of what has occurred hits straight into the pit of my stomach, just as 2015’s Paris attack at the Bataclan venue did. Clearly current trends in these attacks are designed to give us a feeling of permanent unease in our everyday lives. No longer safe at gigs, or football matches, or on the train, or on the bus, or on a plane, or at a mall, or on the beach….I’ve no doubt that this is by design. Maximum fear inflicted with the least effort expended. News outlets and social media light up like wildfire and we all spend x amount of time now looking over our shoulders, on red alert, waiting for the monsters to come and get us too.

20 young people losing their lives is a travesty. I don’t mean to come over cold or inhuman following such a terrible event. Even as someone who lost their twin brother only 9 months ago, I struggle to comprehend what the families of those individuals are experiencing. I think that our minds refuse to fully delve into what that experience is like, even if we possess an accurate reference, to protect us. Empathy seems to only stretch so far as to protect us from a life of constant grief and sadness. Nonetheless, you’d have to have lost your soul to not at least taste a morsel of the misery that those families are now living in. You often see people discouraged from engaging in these types of conversations shortly after people have lost their lives. Many people ask that we wait for the dust to settle in respect to those that have lost their lives before we begin to politicise event, and on one hand on do agree with this sentiment, however on the other I feel that those that are less emotionally battered have a duty to start asking questions and holding poise amongst all the chaos. In some ways, perhaps it is the best time to take a good look at the world that we live in.

I’ve been repeatedly reminded lately that we (unbelievably) live in the most peaceful time in human history. Not that this pardons us from the horrors of today’s global events. One has to feel that we must do better in 2017. How do I (emphasis on the italic and the disclaimer mentioned at the beginning of this piece) think that we can do better? Well, it’s not going to be a popular view. In fact, I might even get so much abuse for saying this that I will collapse in on myself and delete this post altogether…..

Surely what we must have learnt by now is that the current tactics employed to mitigate the movement of ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ don’t work particularly well. Of course, it’s hard to say for sure, we don’t have a control group and this isn’t an experiment, it is, sadly, real life. I’m reliably informed by ‘experts’ (sorry for putting quotation marks on everything, it’s a way to exonerate myself) that the military intervention in the Middle East only served to create a vacuum that ultimately exacerbated the issue and actually spawned even more dangerous and radicalised ‘terrorist cells’. You can probably tell just from that that I’m not an expert. I’m not going to pretend to be but I think it’s a crying shame that our feelings of ignorance make us feel precluded from having an opinion on issues that potentially bring threat into our everyday lives.

So, can we fight fire with fire? It doesn’t seem like it. What happens when we itch a rash? It spreads and gets worse. What is the ultimate plan here? To kill every single human being in the Middle East and then we feel safe? Is that a realistic plan? Is that achievable? And most importantly – is that moral?! You can bet that the emotions that we all experience when an attack is carried out on our home, or the holiday destination that we were at only 3 weeks ago, or, in my case, that venue that we only played a couple of years ago, are mirrored in our brothers and sisters in the Middle East when a bomb is dropped on their heads. Inevitably, more people are radicalised and more attacks will be returned in our direction. It will go on and on and on. Does anyone really see an end in sight by continuing in this manner? I’d reference Einstein’s quip about repetition and insanity if it hadn’t already been quoted in every single article of this ilk since the words passed Albert’s lips.

And yet I do understand why we have been utilising this method. It is the manifestation of our primal instincts. You hit me and I’ll hit you. An eye for an eye. The same behaviour that you observe in playgrounds before an adult who knows better has a chance to break it up. We’re the same barbarians as thousands of years ago but we’re now armed with explosives and drones. We still operate with the same biological hardware. When people who were born near us are hurt or killed we are out for blood, and if politicians don’t want to participate in this mad and barbaric cycle then we shan’t be voting for them. But maybe it’s time that we collectively transcended our instincts? If we all lived purely by our instincts then we would be stuffing our faces full of sugar and fat all day long and we’d never leave the sofa. Although a number of us still participate regularly in those activities, a large percentage of us ignore our urges and we are ourselves to the gym and eat a salad for dinner. We do these things because our longevity – our survival – depends on it, and the same goes for our culture’s attitude on foreign policy.

The global dehumanisation and disassociation with one another will only serve to continue this cycle of bloodshed that we fear so terribly. To make matters worse capitalism has wedged itself within the construct of war and built a cosy, and lucrative, home there. But I’m not going to patronise anyone with that discussion, God knows enough of you have found this condescending enough. “Yeah Dan, we’ve all read 1984”. Actually, I haven’t, I’m a fraud.

Will the Tories use this to justify stricter immigration laws? Yes. Increased surveillance? Yep. Increased military spending? For sure. Will it strengthen their position in the impending election? Undoubtedly. Will it be deemed distasteful to utilise such a terrible thing for political gain? Not really. It’ll be seen as ‘doing the right thing’ to protect our nation. What will change? Essentially nothing. This happened on the Tories watch, there’s no blaming Corbyn for this one. The wheels of the same machine will continue to turn and you can continue to expect more of the same. More attacks.

So maybe the answer is to not respond with more violence. It’s pretty frightening to just let our brothers and sisters die and not respond, isn’t it? It seems counter-intuitive, and in a way, slightly….sick? What’s worse is I have no proof that it would work, because it has never been done (please let me know if it was tried in the past and I’ll just go ahead and delete this entire post). A democratic dialogue between the two parties seems like the only real option to me. A genuine discussion where a compromise between ideologies can be found that resolves in a ceasefire. I know, I know, this is an over simplifaction of the situation, but are there any moves towards this type of resolution? If there is, I’m not privy to them. This will be where most readers will be thinking ‘daft prick’, with my reductionist college politics. I know that there is incredible complexity to this conflict, but what I’m really interested in is a fundamental change in our response to violence. Is it not possible that once we stop rising to these attacks then perhaps they would slowly peter out? I think it is, but I know that it won’t be a popular opinion.

If (when) anyone has any criticism or comments, please leave them and I will amend this piece where necessary. This is a drummers stream of consciousness, not an academics thesis. I don’t pretend to be the all-seeing prophet of world peace in 2017, just a guy who has some thoughts that maybe some people will relate to and as such strengthen the positive beliefs that they already hold somewhere within themselves.

– Dan