Cracks in Angrael

[imomus]

Sometimes, almost by accident, we create a pithy phrase that sums up a certain way of looking at things, a way that strikes enough people as accurate that it becomes a meme. If events move in the way our meme predicted -- if tomorrow is even better described by the pithy phrase than yesterday was -- then these memes can even make us slightly famous.

Such seems to be the case with a little phrase I first used in 1991, when I spun Warhol's dictum around and predicted that "In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen people." Just yesterday, this phase popped up as the opening sentence in a Christian Science Monitor article about blogging entitled More Creative, Less Political:

"In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 people. When Scottish artist Momus used that phrase back in 1991, he might have had the blogosphere in mind. But even if he didn't, a new report on American bloggers released last Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life shows that he was right on the money."

The article goes on to say that most people are blogging about their cat for their family and friends rather than trying to set the world to rights with political analysis, but the history of my "famous-for-fifteen" meme shows that chaos theory really has something: the phrase was first published in an obscure Swedish fanzine called Grimsby Fishmarket in 1992, then picked up two years later by Swedish daily paper Svenske Dagblatt. From there, via my website, which started in 1995, it took over the world. A butterfly really can start a storm.



Speaking of taking over the world, I wonder if, fifteen years hence, the meme I'm best remembered for won't be "Angrael". I first used this phrase right here on Click Opera on March 10th, 2004, in a piece entitled "Anger in Angrael":

"Since the Iraq war I've been lumping Britain, America and Israel together in my mind and calling them Angrael. Angrael is the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance. Angrael is a place I've left, and a place I consider to be 'living wrong', but I'm always fascinated to go back for a glimpse, to guage whether it's changing, and in what ways," I wrote.

The current crisis in the Middle East brings Angrael into even closer focus, as Angrael separates itself ever-more-clearly from world opinion. The situation is described in a leader in today's Guardian entitled "Indulging Folly":

"The conference in Rome yesterday, attended by more than a dozen countries as well the UN, the European Union and the World Bank, offered an opportunity for the diplomats to put together a belated peace package. Predictably, it ended in failure. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, backed by Britain alone, spent 90 minutes deflecting and then blocking demands by all the other participants for a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, the conference ended in fudge, calling for an urgent and sustainable ceasefire, not an immediate one... The US alliance with Israel has been a fact of international life for decades, but seldom has Washington acted so blatantly in support of the country and with such disregard for the rest of the international community."

Attempts in the early stages of the Iraq War to pass Angrael off as a multi-national coalition seem to have given way to a proud isolationism: Angrael against world opinion. Which paraphrases something Noam Chomsky said: "There are now two superpowers on the planet, the U.S. and world opinion. Our hopes should rest in the second superpower."

So will the Angrael meme (currently Google brings up only me using the phrase, and asks "Did you mean angel?") be as big in fifteen years as the 15 minutes one is today? Will the world divide more and more into two camps, Angrael versus everybody else? I certainly hope not.

I hope the whole idea of Angrael becomes an anachronism and gets quietly laid to rest. There are signs that the population of the UK, at least, is getting very sick of being the junior partner in the alliance. An ICM poll this week showed that 63% of the British public think (as I do) that Britain has got too close to the US. With figures like that, Angrael can't last long, can it? We live in a democracy, don't we? Well, let's see.

Comments

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

British public opinion counts for nothing; foreign policy is decided in Washington. I suspect that it has to do with the US having had the foresight to demand some key surrender of sovereignty in return for saving Britain from the Nazis, or at least some foothold that allows them to pull British leaders of all political stripes firmly into line, no matter how unpalatable their constituents find the line.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

You seem to suggest that in the whole post-war period British foreign policy has been decided in Washington, since this goes back to a WW2 debt. That isn't the case at all. Harold Wilson refused to commit UK troops to America's war in Vietnam, for instance, while no doubt remaining as grateful to the US for WW2 as anyone else (although if we count people who died to save us from the Nazis, we should have been more beholden to -- and presumably taking our foreign policy cues from -- the USSR than the US).

[kaipfeiffer.livejournal.com]

in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 euros

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

One of the more unforgiveable of all the many deceptions that Blair indulges in is his refusal to recognise the contribution that anyone that anyone made during WWII apart from America. I'm not naive enough to believe that the Soviet Union stepped in for any reason other than that of self-interest, but their contribution to the final victory was huge. But America only stepped in for the same reason - anyone remember Pearl Harbour?

The support of the countries of the Commonwealth has been forgotten by Tony's and his cronies, their loyalty and generosity conflicting with his vision of the world.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

The USSR fought mostly on its own behalf, having its own front to fight on. AFAIK, the Soviets didn't send troops or supplies specifically to defend Britain. The Americans did, in return for concessions which are well known (the Empire's entire cash reserves and the promised liquidation of the Empire).

[(Anonymous)]

A friend of mine who works for a market research company recently worked on a poll about The Middle East Question for a large un-named U.S. based client (presumed by all concerned to be the U.S. Government).

He gave me a copy of the script. It contained the following...

Q.42 As you may know, Iran recently barred inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspecting it's nuclear facilities, please tell me whether you support or oppose the following actions...

Ban all international sales to Iran.

The international community placing economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran.

The UK placing economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran.

Targeted military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States.

Targeted military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities by NATO.

Targeted military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States and it's allies.

Targeted military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

What I'm saying is that this "debt" to the US seems to get bigger with time, not smaller. It affects Blair more than it did Harold Wilson. And in the same time period, both De Gaulle and Chirac rejected American demands that they fall into line with its wars. And look at the Suez crisis, also in that post-war period, where you had an alliance between France, the UK and Israel effectively broken up by the US. I suggest to you that World War II is not the determinant factor in Angrael as an alliance.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Rather, that WW2 is invoked occasionally, as "selective memory", a revisionist justification for a modern alliance which has other reasons for existing. We need to look at the contemporary reasons for Angrael, rather than "creative accounting" in the past to make it look inevitable.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

You know, if this war is planned as a lead-up to targeted strikes by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities, you'd hardly think they'd prepare for it by sending missiles into UN positions in Lebanon, would you? It seems shockingly incompetent, as surgical strikes go. It takes "let them hate, so long as they fear" to new levels of recklessness.

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

Whilst in reality it is a very minor thing the termerity of the current foreign secretary in making a protest to the USA on this (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1831242,00.html) is being presented in the British media as an example of at least some of the current administration re-discovering their spines. Blair's stated and defeatist position is that disagreeing with the current US administration gains you nothing, the trouble is that agreeing only encourgages them.

Would you care to speculate as to the "other reasons for existing"?

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I first read that "famous for fifteen people" variation in the NME in the late seventies, '78 or '79. It was even the title of the article, about independent labels, if I remember correctly. I'm guessing that variation on Warhol has been independently "invented" several times.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't surprise me... but it would be nice to have a specific reference. It must be archived somewhere.

Who knows, perhaps Warhol himself said the "fifteen people" line. He liked to confuse journalists by changing it every time he said it: "In the future 15 people will be famous" and "In 15 minutes everybody will be famous".

Anyway, I seem to be, until someone pulls out an actual reference to an earlier usage, the only verified source for the "15 people" meme.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

...And Kai got in here first with "In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen euros"!

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Prestwick is the hometown of my father's family. I'm pretty infuriated that the US uses it as a relay point for sending precision missiles to Israel -- completely illegally. It really does show what a "might makes right" world we live in. Aldous Huxley was very prescient when he called Britain "Airstrip One".

Might, however, does not make legitimate, and this is a real problem for Angrael. As I often say, you cannot run an empire without legitimacy, no matter how much destructive power you have. You need ordinance as well as ordnance, and Angrael currently lacks the power to construct.

As for the reasons for Angrael existing, I actually have no idea. Perhaps other people can give me some suggestions. All I notice is that Angrael is the most right-wing bloc in the world today, and also widely seen as the most dangerous source of global instability (as regular "biggest threat to peace" polls show). Also, I think there's a certain -- and misguided -- tough-mindedness to Angrael. There's a feeling that you can achieve things by "hate as long as you fear" measures, by "strike relentlessly and massively" measures. There's this attitude that "they" (the opponents of Angrael) only understand massive violence. There's the ultra-paranoid mentality of a security state, the kind of state surrounded by high walls (Israel), surveyed by millions of cameras (the UK), or in which millions of internal enemies are perpetually in prison (the US). There are also things like torture being seen as acceptable. I think, above all, it's the erosion of legitimacy, combined with this "security paranoia", which alienates me most from Angrael. I'm a firm believer that paranoia actually produces the scenarios it fears.

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

I agree with much of this. The alliance is, at least on the Blair side (and I deliberately distinguish between the enthusiasm of our Prime Minister and the ruling party as a whole), an ideological one rather than being in our long-term, or even short-term, interests. This, I think, is a result of Blair being by far the most ideologically driven of our Prime Ministers, certainly since Thatcher (though she had a degree of pragmatism that Blair in his misty-eyed visions for the future doesn't share). As for the current American administration, I think their involvement is based far more on self-interest (even though that self-interest is often of a short-term and/or self-defeating nature as alluded to in your comments above).

In addition to this I think Blair and Bush are deeply authoritarian by nature. Might is most definitely right and, when it blows up in their faces, more might seems to them the only solution.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you could go up to Humanities 2 in the British Library and leaf through old NMEs...

Looking on the Net, the quote is also attributed to writers David Weinberger and Steve Dembo and no doubt many others. Perhaps they all got it from you, though.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I do seem to be the de facto source of "famous for fifteen people", though. All the references to the phrase on the first page of Google hits for it credit my 1991 use.

As for the NME usage, it's the kind of thing you'd think rock historian Simon Reynolds would remember. And yet he, too, credits (http://members.aol.com/blissout/over98.htm) the 15 people line to me.

Anyway, I don't cite this as evidence of the meme's success. To be really successful, a meme needs to become public property, not private.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

Weirdly, Labour goverments have, on the whole, been closer to the USA than Tory ones. Possibly because the Tories still imagine Britain at the head of an empire.

Thatcher criticised Reagan in public over Grenada, and Major did the same to Clinton over Yugoslavia. The US refused to support Eden in Suez. The US were funding the IRA during the Heath administration. There were more US military planes than RAF ones in Britain during the Wilson/Callaghan years.

[kaipfeiffer.livejournal.com]

"In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen euros"

which could either mean:
pay fifteen euros to become famous (for example, pay for a livejournal account)
or:
earn fifteen euros on the whole with all your fame.
possibly both ...

[hulegu.livejournal.com]

To a point, Lord Momus. I think the term 'Angrael' has about as much validity as 'Eurabia' i.e. not much. It's lazy shorthand for people who don't understand the complexities of global politics or culture and who can only think in terms of monolithic states, transnational organisations or grand alliances. It also encourages a herdlike manichaean interpretation of the world that ill-serves anyone - and frankly, I dislike such simplistic worldviews.

It's not that I've spent sitting so long on a fence that the iron has entered my soul, but I prefer to think of life as being like those parliaments where the delegates are arranged in a horseshoe, which recognise the manifold shades of difference bwtewwen left and right, rather than the British-style parliamentary seating arrangement which merely encourages an 'us vs them' bearpit mentality.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Although I don't quite agree with this (it doesn't explain Wilson keeping Britain out of Vietnam), it could be a result of the dreaded "doves more hawish than hawks" syndrome. I've heard it said if Ariel Sharon were still around this wouldn't be happening. It's happening because Olmert is the first Israeli PM not to be a war hero. Therefore he needs to be ultra-hawkish just to survive.

Needless to say, in a world in which doves need to be more hawish than hawks, there are no doves.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Hawish? I meant "hawkish". Both times.

[kaipfeiffer.livejournal.com]

50 years from now i get interviewd:

q: so, this whole "In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen euros" meme started out in a "weblog"?
a: oh yes, weblogs! that was a fancy thing we had back in the olde days!
q: ... a "blog" by a guy called "momus"? who was that again?
a: oh, there are at least fifteen people who should know ...

[imomus.livejournal.com]

So for you yesterday's performance at the Rome conference, in which Britain alone backed the US and refused to call for an immediate ceasefire, was some kind of freak event? I'd love you to be right, and me to be wrong. Let's wait and watch for all the wonderfully various ways Israel, the UK and the US go in future, shall we? Lots of shades of grey on the way! (Perhaps.)

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Just stay clear of "famous for $1000". I invented (http://www.imomus.com/starsforever.html) that.