DANCE AROUND IN YOUR BONES
Oct. 30th, 2026 11:09 pmYou know what that means.
And yes, I have.
You’re welcome.
Now go scare the pants off someone.
‘Tain’t no sin,
This is dF
It’s been 25 years since 9/11.
And in all that time, I have never once posted anything about my personal experience on that day.
For one thing, there was no such thing as blogging or social media in 2001, children.
Once we had both, it seemed like everyone posted their 9/11 memories on each anniversary – except me. I figured if everyone else was doing it, there was no point in me adding to the noise, especially as I wasn’t in NYC at the time and didn’t know anyone who was killed in the attacks. And besides, I’ve never been one to go for obvious low hanging fruit when looking for stuff to post.
Which is not to say I didn’t post anything on 9/11 anniversaries – just not my personal experience.
Well, I have now on Bluesky, and I’ll post it here too.
Anyway.
I happened to be in Campbell, California that week on a press tour. On 9/11, I was woken up at 6:55am local time by a call from my bride in Hong Kong telling me America was being attacked in multiple cities, and wanted to know if I was okay.
I turned on the cable TV and spent the next 24 hrs being generally stunned and full of dread. The same was true for the other journos and PR people on the same junket. We talked about it a lot, and of course we were shocked, but we all dreaded what would happen next in terms of Bush Jr’s response.
I have three distinct memories of that day:
1. I walked into a Trader Joe's near the hotel to stock up on snacks, since I was going to be staying longer than I thought. I was wandering the aisles listening to Republicans on news radio demonising all Muslims and demanding war. It wasn't hard to see that the Bush II admin was prepared to run with that line, in terms of Islamophobia, war and civil liberties in general. Of course we didn't know how bad it would get, but it's fair to say that everything that's happened since 9/11 is what made the Trump Dynasty possible.
2. I flipped channels a lot (even ESPN and The Weather Channel were covering it), but I mostly watched CNN, because Fox News was noticeably the loud "we'll report any rumour no matter what" option. (Note: I wasn’t familiar with Fox News at the time, and this was before they went full Republican Propaganda Network, though perhaps that’s where it all started.)
3. I was originally supposed to fly back to HK on 9/12. Naturally my flight was cancelled with all the others, and it took me until Saturday (9/15) to rebook a seat. I will say Singapore Airlines handled it pretty well under the circumstances and their comms was quite good.
Anyway, those are the highlights of what I remember.
Why post them now?
I guess partly because of a Bluesky post I came across showing screencaps of a post on X by “Brain Leakage” [@BrainLeakage03] responding to someone on Twitter who said they didn’t get why ppl above a certain age were all “weird and worshipful” about 9/11.
Which raised the point that enough time had passed that there were scores of young ppl online who were born after 9/11, and thus for them it was just another history date, the same way us Gen Xers thought about Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination when we were in our 20s.
Anyway, here’s what “Brain Leakage” wrote in response, which I think gets to the heart of it.
Since you weren't even born yet, I'm going to answer in good faith:
9/11 was America's collective loss of innocence. In the decades prior, we'd won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets. We were the sole remaining superpower, and we were in a period of peace and economic prosperity.
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, we suffered a suicide attack with a higher death toll than Pearl Harbor. It struck a city on the US mainland, the first attack of that scale to hit CONUS since the Civil War.
In a violent flash, and on live television, our collective illusions of safety, security, and peace disappeared. For most Americans, it was the first time we ever had to contend with that scale of horror, and what it implied about the fragility of our way of life.
It was simultaneously sobering and terrifying. The American response was to launch two wars, and to restructure domestic life around the Government's presumed duty to spy on everyone, so nothing like it could ever happen again.
I am not being hyperbolic when I say the America we grew up in-imagined or not-vanished on 9/11.
What you're calling a "worshipful attitude" is a mix of reverence for the dead, and mourning for the loss of what existed before.
Never forget,
This is dF
The Road to Sinharat by Leigh Brackett
Three John Silence Stories by Algernon Blackwood
Tanner's Virgin by Lawrence BlockSince 1990, one of the perennial Hong Kong traditions was a candlelight vigil in Victoria Park on the evening of June 4th to memorialise the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, and to continue their call for democracy in China.
On Friday, Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan – both former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the organisation that held the vigils, which was forced to disband in 2021) were convicted on the charge of inciting subversion. They both face up to ten years in jail. A third defendant, Albert Ho, already pled guilty to the same charge in hopes of a shorter sentence.
The “evidence” (such as it was) was that one of HK Alliance’s slogans was to “end one party rule in China” – which all attendees understood to mean that they wanted the CCP to change the system from a totalitarian dictatorship to a multi-party democracy.
GovHK – and the judges it handpicked to preside over the trial to ensure a conviction – decided it actually meant “violently overthrow the CCP”.
As someone who attended a number of those vigils, I have thoughts.
1. There was never any doubt of the outcome, as GovHK has gone out of its way to ensure that it cannot lose NSL cases. They get to handpick the judges, for goodness’ sake.
2. As with previous NSL cases, the defendants were convicted not by what they actually said, but by what GovHK actively chose to believe they said. We all know “end to one-party rule” meant that CCP should change China’s govt from a totalitarian dictatorship to a multi-party democracy. GovHK chose to pretend it was a call for a violent coup de tat, and made sure the judges interpreted it the way GovHK wants it interpreted.
3. Beyond the obvious, there are several implications here.
If the Tiananmen vigils were in fact deliberate acts of subversion as the court has now ruled:
· Why did GovHK allow them to take place for 22 years (1997-2019) before deciding to take action?
· They clearly came nowhere close to overthrowing the CCP after 22 years (or really 30 years, counting the pre-Handover era), so why bother shutting it down at all? How dangerous could it really be?
· The verdict strongly implies that there are at least 200,000 subversives living in Hong Kong – likely more, given the amount of ppl who supported the vigils but didn’t personally attend every year. In which case, no wonder GovHK is so paranoid.
(NOTE: The police used to lowball vigil attendance estimates to downplay their popularity, but maybe now they’ll use the larger organizer numbers to make it look like a bigger threat to national security. Maybe not. Who knows?)
4. Of course, the above questions are more or less rhetorical. We know that the Tiananmen vigils were 100% legal, until suddenly they weren’t. And we know why – after 2019, Beijing lost patience, GovHK freaked, and both decided it was time to clean house and crack down.
(It’s not lost on me that GovHK is labeling the HK Alliance as a scapegoat by claiming that they spent 30 years sowing hatred of China that eventually contributed to the 2019 “colour revolution” – which it wasn’t, but Big Lies are big.)
5. One very annoying aspect of this is that for years – certainly before 2019 but most definitely afterwards – GovHK leaders were asked by the media, “So is the vigil officially banned or not?” And every time, GovHK dodged the question. Every time. They didn’t have to. But they did.
They never gave a straight answer, and the first year they banned the vigil, they used COVID as an excuse rather than admit it was banned. They shut down a June 4th museum, arranged for some “patriots” to take over Victoria Park every June 4th in perpetuity, and put out extra patrols every June 4th to arrest anyone who looks like they might be engaged in soft resistance (whatever that means), and STILL wouldn’t outright admit that the Tiananmen vigil – or any mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre – was illegal.
Why?
My guess is that they needed a court case to say it for them – perhaps so they could maintain the fiction that HK does everything by rule of law and still has free speech and doesn’t jail ppl for criticizing the govt, etc.
“We didn’t ban it – the court found them guilty of crimes! There’s a difference!” Like that.
Anyway, they can say it now. Only now their basis for saying it is that the HK Alliance was guilty of intentionally committing subversion for 30 years, and that it had the support of hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers (if not millions) who attended those vigils over the years – all of whom have just been labeled subversives.
Assuming GovHK realizes this (and it might not have occurred to them), what will they do about it? Whatever it is, it’s likely to be neither good nor sensible.
6. In conclusion, I am in no way saying anyone should do this, but as a thought experiment:
What would happen if – on June 4, 2027 – every single person who ever supported the Tiananmen vigils at any time in their lives went to Causeway Bay. Around 8pm, say.
No candles, no flowers, no performance art, no phone torches, no t-shirt slogans, no speeches – just show up and hang around for awhile, do window shopping or whatever. Just be present.
Assuming everyone who ever attended a vigil agreed to do this, how many people would show up?
Again, I’m not saying people should do this.
But what if they did, what would happen, do you think?
Anyway.
“No empire intoxicated with the red wine of power and the plunder of weaker races has yet lived long in this world.”
Mahatma Gandhi said that. He was right.
Be kind to each other. Hydrate. Be water. Keep the faith. Live in truth. Outlive them all.
Burn the flame,
This is dF
Faith and Violence: Christian Teaching and Christian Practice by Thomas Merton
Memoirs Found in a Bathtub by Stanisław Lem
A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch
Terror Out Of Space by Leigh Brackett
Tanner's Tiger by Lawrence Block
This Crowded Earth by Robert BlochITEM: Rolling Stone has published a listicle of the Top 100 Punk Albums of all time. Inevitably, a lot of people online are sneering at it. Which is so punk rock!
Well, look, all online lists are basically meant to drive clicks and "engagement", and we can always argue over "is this punk rock" etc.
On the other hand, Paramore?
The weird thing (apart from it being heavily skewed towards the US – I'm sure a Mojo list would skew the other way) is that while I don’t object to the majority of the entries, they’re also so obvious that it feels like they’re ticking boxes.
I guess the real drama is in the rankings, but again, I think we all knew what No.1 was going to be before we started scrolling.
But, again, stuff like this is for starting arguments, not establishing canon, so I shouldn’t take it too seriously.
Party with me punker,
This is dF
The Four Vision Quests of Jesus by Steven Charleston
The Telling by Ursula K. Le Guin
The Star Mouse by Fredric Brown
Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI by Karen Hao
A Bullet for Cinderella by John D. MacDonald
The Scoreless Thai by Lawrence Block
The Sex Life of The Gods by Michael Knerr
Zone One by Colson Whitehead