www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Divine Corruption and Networked Democracy
human being on Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:15:55 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Divine Corruption and Networked Democracy



  Questions circulating in the brain's circuit for a
  good ten hours, is one at liberty to say what they
  truly think, how does one calculate what is safe to
  say, regarding larger theses about what is going on?
  Risk assessment of thresholds, significant maybe only
  to the paranoid, walking the line even if it is invisible.

  Here's a sketch of an idea, without many details...

  What does one do when hearing 'alarms' from the
  .US Administration about defectors, imminent threats,
  nuclear programs, when for Iraq these are the very
  same arguments now discredited by political agendas?
  Identical is the pattern with stories out of North Korea,
  and Iran, from the Bush Administration, even Syria it
  is guessed, though that report has been held back.
  What if basic information cannot be trusted even at
  the level of government decision making, and that
  there is no accountability within a bureaucracy that
  has the capability to both engage in nuclear warfare?
  And, in addition, to note that nuclear threats are real,
  not simply fictions but that it is a leveraging tool that
  may need to be addressed, yet this may no longer be
  possible given internal corruption of basic processes?

  The reason Russia and China are relevant for nuclear
  standoff crises now underway is, one is to imagine, they
  have connections with communist histories and also
  special relationships and their own internal leverages,
  such that should a smaller country throw the world out
  of balance even further, it would damage larger systems
  of which these countries are a part, and would in effect
  damage their stability, thus best interest may be shared
  to not have rogue nuclear exchanges as a new politic.
  What good would making the Korean Peninsula into a
  nuclear wasteland be, for China, the USA, North Korea?

  If one considers what happened with SARs and the
  technology industry, related or not, imagine what would
  happen to many industries, (steel, salvage of materials,
  semiconductors, technology, light-manufacturing, food,
  investment) if parts of the Asia were to be 'smoked-out'
  as Bush might say in his parlance? For instance, if the
  North Korean leader were to strike at Japan, (or even
  to Australia, additionally, without considering striking
  the US even), much of the technology industry would
  be placed into a curious relationship, the US' lack of
  strategic position would exacerbate nuclear options
  (no troops to send), and what is going on today with
  3.5G Cellphones and robots and management ideas
  and other innovations, in manufacturing, in industrial
  design, in cultural awakening to many aspects merging
  in the daily experience, these could go up in a flash,
  and for what? Catapulting North Korea to dominance?

  If one considers the value of the US' and Japan's and
  Australia's promise, much of it might lie in integrating
  patterns of change, but having some control. If China
  were to put its tentacles deep into the Korean Nuclear
  Issues, in addition to Russia, because surely they have
  more relations than most countries in 'the West' (openly,
  it is guessed, such as with energy, politics, investment)
  it could enable a place of transition, transformation of
  the different systems, from without and within. So too,
  if China and Russia were to take the world stage in a
  way that is not militaristic (like the .US right now) and,
  were to peacefully bring assurances, their standing
  would, it seems, be critical to holding chaos at bay.

  This is not to say it is to only help the .US, but if the
  idea of self-interest is included it is clearly in their
  own interest to not lose the value of their region due
  to not acting beyond the confines of the Cold War, or
  at least to keep the boundaries of nuclear use within
  a highly-bureaucratic checks-and-balances and not
  on the trigger-switch of unbalanced decision makers.
  The .US is in a mirror-image situation and thus this
  raises the stakes immensely, if something happens.
  Germany and the EU are important too, of course, but
  possibly moreso to performing similar functions for a
  .US depolarization of the world situation, by requiring
  a submission to world pressure to conform to United
  Nations laws, rules, and regulations, and then to be
  engaged in this manner. This is not to say that this
  will happen, unless somehow Colin Powell actually
  somehow got into the driver's seat. Though until the
  Bush Administration is likewise put into checkmate
  with unrestricted movements, it is equally dangerous
  to a nuclear North Korea for the stability of the world.

  Concerned about treason, about sedition and such,
  the reason I write this, and am writing as carefully as
  is possible (for my own limited skills) is that there is
  a premise that this is based on, that there are rogue
  elements in the decision making process, which have
  shut out the democratic process, or this is a condition,
  and there are people driving decisions which are not
  connected with any representation or even checks or
  balances on basic sanity. That is to say, how could
  such a situation, if it really were to exist, be dealt with?

  It is strange, as the mass media is like a tide, it will
  take a story and finally open it up and carry it to a
  place where it gains some publicness, and then by
  some force of gravity from some distant (political)
  mass of influence, this story will recede and then it
  will be beyond recovery, except as leftover detritus.
  The political spin on the '16 words' in the WMD part
  of the National Intelligence Estimate and the State
  of the Union speech are focused on. VP Cheney's
  role in all of this has been fingered. But still in most
  all analyses, these are unconnected from prior, and
  unreported and undocumented by the mass media,
  events such as 9/11, Enron, .US Energy Task Force.

  There is a clear arc of connection now visible between
  the aims of Enron and US energy policies, even with
  plans for global energy markets, today with war plans
  eluded to in Energy Task Force documents* and all
  of these same traits, like the defectors, imminent-
  threats, are held in common across vast areas all of
  which involve Vice President Cheney at the helm of
  the decision making, if it is the Iraq War, if it is the
  Weapons of Mass Destruction and Uranium and
  Nuclear claims-- Cheney is always at the center of
  the puzzle, or there is plenty that suggests this, such
  as Iraq's oil being a focus of the Energy Task Force
  in early 2001 and the refusal to release any of the
  information about these private meetings (with Ken
  Lay of Enron, invovled, it is speculated)-- for if they
  did release this information instead of going to the
  absolutely extraordinary lengths to cover up their
  strategic planning, it may have indicated plans for
  Iraq and the Middle Eastern oil revenues as part of
  a business plan, not unrelated to other devices that
  helped such thinking, such as a populist chorus of
  'Empire' singers, media pundits who took on the role
  which had another curious arc through Italy, as with
  the Niger documents. So too, with Israel's Sharon
  knowing .US battle planning before the .US itself,
  it may be similar to that 'ancient Chistrian artifact'
  that 'just appeared' in Israel, related to one of the
  apostles at an opportune time for mysticism to work
  its magic on what has been portrayed as an infallible
  .US President. It turns out that artifact was fake, after
  the fact, it cracked in transit and was a forgery. Sound
  familiar? In any case, it brings up an issue of control.

  What if, in some strange twist of fate, there was an
  actual rogue element which took over control of the
  .US government, and it spread its power base over
  the nation and world, with operatives in every city,
  in major organizations, in industries, public offices.
  How would someone, individuals alone or together,
  ever be able to deal with an entrenched takeover of
  their democratic power structure by an authoritarian
  and dangerous element, which hijacked the state?

  Of Course-- THIS IS NOT THE CASE, most certainly.
  But what if it were possible, and indeed did happen?

  To speak or act out, numbers matter, but even more,
  information is key to controlling the situation and this
  is why controlling access and publication and 'safety'
  via these modes of communication can act like points
  of pressure, to maintain control over interpretation and
  perception of the realities of what is underway/going on.
  Say someone wants to write something very specific,
  about people in town, about types of vehicles they are
  seeing, about experiences they have had or noticed.
  If they say something too far out of line with others, it
  may risk their position and actual safety. Whereas if
  more are talking, it is generally safer to discuss what is
  going on in common, to raise issue with today's events.

  First assumption is possibly that no one can be trusted
  in any static sense, only partially, if at all. That is, to be
  in an organized resistance or any type of movement, or
  to purport an ideological position which is a threat in a
  way of political power, through the massiveness of the
  group, that it is likely anything done is already known
  in advance, compromised, and even used to box-in
  any initiatives or people, to shape or even use these
  systems for their dual-purpose as cover, to exacerbate
  the current conditions by feeding the illusions of change
  through bureaucracy, thereby neutralizing the threat.
  This would lead to the assumption that to work against
  such a takeover of the democratic process would also
  require the actions of diverse individuals, working in
  groups and alone, in many ways, but not a bureaucracy.

  In this sense, there is no 'here' there, but it is temporary,
  a network of connections. There is no host for such a
  parasite to take over, unless it is the person, who goes
  into the realm of trust or no trust. Some people may be
  especially targeted for control, it would seem, those who
  are nodes in various networks, and to find out what is
  going on in larger networks would only require breaking
  into the human-routers and even futzing with internal
  wiring to see if they can do the bidding of the powers
  that be. This means, there is no direct communication
  but there is recognition that certain principles are being
  shared by a group of people who may begin to work
  together at various times, such as with the WMD issue
  in relation to its other issues, though this is not as clear
  as it should be to the general public because networks
  of shared interests have yet to self-configure and realize
  that when information is controlled, so is their agenda
  to retake democracy, reestablish accountability, and
  reinstitute public checks and balances. People already
  exist in all the organizations, those who know enough
  to be able to choose positions, but need not voice it in
  the open, but instead to understand where others stand
  in relation to them, who is closest to the perpetrators of
  this negligence, to remember, and to consider options.

  There are many more who are around who believe in
  basic ideals of the many, than those who may hijack
  democratic processes for the few. Or, this is another
  of the assumptions, that people exist in every sector
  who are ready and willing to take back the initiative of
  guiding the .US to its best realizable state, of necessity.
  If one imagines that even the spooks and spies and
  military brass have major conflicts with the takeover
  of the democratic system, and these people too are
  speaking out, acting out, dissenting en masse from
  very diverse sectors, it indicates a widespread and
  uncontained disillusion which might be happening if
  a rogue element has indeed taken control of things.

  For instance, let's imagine that someone is going to
  go out on a limb and start talking about a hypothesis
  of this rogue element, not connected to WMD and a
  Uranium Claim in the .US Administration's very own
  highly-controlled rhetoric, but in a network of insipid
  information which brings reason to bear on decisions
  well preceding this, such as with the role of Enron in
  the Presidential Elections, the California Power Crisis,
  the Energy Task Force, its connection to both nuclear
  industries, an Iraqi oil-grab, and false-nuclear claims,
  and negligence on 9/11 to the present day to better
  prepare the defense of the .US and its improvement
  while protecting the core of constitutional governance?

  Let's say the rogue elements may get devious. Let's
  also imagine that with all the dissenters, there are a
  few if not several diverse, very deep and old networks
  which act like personal countermeasures in times like
  these, where any action not only has reactions, but can
  be played 'outside the box' of the residing authoritarian
  power-structure, and thus can shape any actions to in
  effect change their outcome. Meaning, if some rogue
  element were going to do something dubious within
  or outside of the government, but through bureaucracy
  that by now, the government (public and private) has
  most likely panoptically begun surveilling itself, like
  a reality-show-of-the-state. By being in an organized,
  highly confined setting, and working with power it can
  try to do devious things to various people, but it is also
  in a realm that can be closely watched by others with
  possibly more democratic intentions, protecting core
  functioning in a period of criminal internal pillage.

  In short, everyone becomes an eye, in some way, for
  various networks they interact in. Not that this is true
  literally, but that should there be a rogue government
  that people would be needed to understand this and
  who better than those nearest it? And, evidence exists
  to suggest that this is indeed a possibility for countering
  grievances that cannot be currently dealt with by an
  ineffectual representation due to its political corruption.
  In that sense, it is a civil war, internal but also, civilian,
  it is to know who is supporting the rogues and how the
  elements function together, as one world-class system.
  They have chunks of the intelligence community, parts
  of private sectors, whole classes of tax-fundamentalists,
  certain religious and other ideological organizations.
  They are centered around a charismatic leader, named
  The President, let us say, for sake of needing an example.
  Not George W. Bush, of course, as this is hypothetical.

  The President would then need to have some level of
  protection from critics, and also provide political cover
  for a rogue agenda. By design, religion can perform a
  lot of things for a lot of people without the need for a
  public reasoning, and can also lift believers into areas
  that do not accept fallibility in their leadership. Thus, the
  defense of such an organization may be to have a leader
  who is infallible, who is unquestioning in their judgment
  and also who is in total control of their image, word, and
  presentation of their self-representation (mirror image
  of the self, as it would like to be seen by others looking).
  Let's say this is not the actual power structure, that it is
  instead political cover for an agenda run by, say, the
  Vice President, say, like Dick Cheney's position in the
  current .US administration. If that were the case, one of
  the strongest defenses would be to control information
  both about the agenda, and to push this agenda in
  various media, through the implicit assumption that
  to not do so is to be a sitting duck in a competitive and
  reward-punishment model for relations with the rogue
  elements. Countering anything that is official script is
  basically sacrilege against the great leader, and it is
  uncomfortable for any policy agendas undertaken. If
  the rogue organization can contain the information,
  and control it, that is, to be able to manage it, it can
  limit any interpretations beyond those of its choosing.

  Those who believe in democracy and the right to self-
  determination by the public, even if it is not currently
  being represented by the powers that be, can still use
  the truth as a weapon. If they are a small number they
  can, though, be picked off, one by one, or harassed
  or intimidated, it is guessed. Though if they were to
  work in networks, spontaneous, no communication
  other than working on shared goals and the effects
  of these common efforts realized, then it may be a
  possibility to affect the control of information by the
  opening of arguments and reasoning outside or
  larger than that previously allowed by the control
  of interpretation by these rogue elements. And to
  hear others chime in with more information that is
  contradictory to claims made by the infallible leader
  would force a resolution of the idealism with realism
  or fantasy with a straight-jacket and a locked room.

  Let's say, just from writing something stupid, there
  is some organized element on the local and also
  the national and international level that would now
  try to do something about such threats. Say, threaten
  or try to manipulate the situation to their advantage.
  Like a honeypot used to lure unsuspecting villains,
  if the power structure were in a rogue constitution,
  they may make themselves known. And in doing so
  they may also blow their operational cover and their
  network, providing a map back to those in power, in
  addition to the route that such decisions are made by.

  By overloading this system with information contrary
  and also reasonably argued but for the reasons of
  truth, and respect not abuse of power, then the use
  of infallibility would be stretched to a breaking point,
  at which point the web of lies would become its own
  trap. Which may be happening, oddly enough, with
  certain aspects of the current .US administration. It
  is akin to a mosquito bug bite on the arm. One can
  get one mosquito, smack it with one's hand and to
  kill it before it bites into the skin to suck blood for it
  to live. The great infallible leader can do the same
  with information, as long as it is manageable. If the
  leader were overwhelmed by mosquitos, it may be
  swatting at one, while ten others are landing on the
  skin to bite, and may hit another and another, but
  would need to retreat in order to be safe. Yet this
  would still require a position of susceptibility and
  fallibility to such questions or contrary information
  which may cause welts on skin and discomfort.

  If this were compared to the Iraq War and WMD,
  the forged Niger Uranium documents are one
  bug. It is flying around the .US administration
  and G.W. Bush has given it his best to swat at
  it, while keeping a self-perception of infallibility.
  This little mosquito is flying all over the place and
  has a lot of people trying to swat at it. Now, media
  tides have receded, so there are less mosquitos,
  as there is an uncomfortable realm where it is not
  clear how to proceed. So other mosquitos are now
  popping up out of nowhere, if they are intelligence
  people, if they are organizations, individuals, if
  they are retired military, active duty soldiers, if
  they are various countries representatives, if it
  is the mother of a soldier killed months after the
  war has ended- these are all questions that are
  emanating from one event: Iraq. But, there are
  other mosquitos, other truths, which are also to
  be connected with the patterns of deception that
  have come to the surface, which are in actuality
  directly connected with these same techniques
  used by what might be considered a corrupted
  and subverted government: they include 9/11,
  Enron, The Energy Task Force, and they all
  have a focus on Vice President Dick Cheney.

  If the .US Energy Task Force has any relation
  to war in Iraq, which information seems to now
  indicate it does, and also is tied into Ken Lay,
  the number one supporter of Bush's campaign,
  in addition to the California power crisis, and
  the Enronomics which gamed stock markets in
  much the same way as the government is now
  being gamed--- then it may be that should these
  mosquitos start to bite, in unison, on this infallible
  leadership, that the connections, and networks
  of people who can aid in this revealing of truth
  and the unraveling of undemocratic despotic
  power, could bite the charismatic leader too
  many times that the strategy of control is to be
  overwhelmed by chaos, of information, non-
  violent but a constant and intense questioning
  of the relations between events, facts, deeds.
  That is, between .US policy and dead people.

  If there is a fear, it is that the media reneges on
  its new found responsibility to support democracy
  and inquiry into matters of the state, however far
  privatized and corrupted it may become, that it
  has a responsibility to cover these connections.
  To do so, networks of people can help provide
  content to keep issues in the news, and even to
  take the fall. The more people involved in taking
  back the controls, the more likely it will happen.

  If some goon-squad were to be sent out beyond
  what already exists, there is an assumption that
  within any such rogue elements, or organizations
  that there are others who exist to protect the core
  elements and will fight to protect the citizenry in
  their defiance of totalitarian control of the people.
  That is, not only a spook for a spook, but legions
  of spooks, lawyers, bankers, economists, artists,
  thinkers, activists, for every rogue element in the
  organization, a balance of two-thirds that can be
  a majority force at any given moment, without any
  need to organize beyond constitutional connection.
  That is, one is within their right to be a .US citizen.

  Thus, as Bush said 'Bring 'em on' and begged for
  pot-shots at battle-worn and fatigued troops, so too
  people may say 'bring it on' for the rogue elements
  to try to find such an information network that does
  not exist anywhere, but in the spirit of democracy.
  That is, it cannot be contained, snuffed out, it is the
  part that remains and can be reactivated in worst-
  case and worst-of-times scenarios, to get back on
  track. And either you are 'with this' or 'against this'.
  And, the Bush Administration is either with .US or
  against .US by each decision it makes, and how it
  deals with these mosquitos, freedoms of thought,
  representation, checks-and-balances of power,
  and respect for the value of truth in governance.

  Until such issues are addressed, in full, that is,
  the Enron connections, the Energy Task Force
  connections, these to the Iraqi Oil and the Iraq
  War, and the role of Vice President Cheney in
  relation to these issues and the forged Uranium
  documents and false-statements about Nuclear
  programs in Iraq, the Bush Administration stands
  discredited and is a destabilizing force which is
  threatening the ability of the .US to survive intact.

  North Korea, Iran, Syria cannot be dealt with if
  there is no basis for truth or trust within the .US
  administration as it is configured. This is thus a
  crisis situation, and it is not possible to support
  a government which lies to its own people and
  has to deal with nuclear issues while not allowing
  external review of information to check the facts
  and decision making over things as serious as
  global nuclear war, and the death of millions.

  It is time for networks of individuals to work to
  right the ship of state, through information, non-
  violently, but with reason, truth, and yes, justice.
  Until accountability is reconstituted, and current
  policies directions are radically changed, there
  is little likelihood of any significant transformation
  in the time needed. If Russia and China would
  help with the nuclear issues in Iran and N.Korea
  that might give the US and Europe leverage to
  work on internal crises between power and truth.

  There are enough who are now speaking up to
  make possible changes on the scales needed.
  VP Cheney, without the political cover of an
  infallible charismatic leader, awaits coverage.

  When the black helicopter lands at the end of
  the block to take me away, I won't e-mail you...
  bc

--------
A White House Smear // .US Admin outs CIA agent?
<http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823>

Cheney task force had eyes on Iraq oil. By H. Josef Hebert
<http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/07/18/cheney/>

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail
Oilfield & Gas Projects, Contracts & Exploration
Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml>

[and] MAPS AND CHARTS OF OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE

1. Iraq Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf>

2. Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.2.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf>

3. Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.1.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf>

4. UAE Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilMap.pdf>

5. UAE Oil Proj.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilProj.pdf>

6. SA Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilMap.pdf>

7. SAOilProj.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilProj.pdf>

White House energy task force papers reveal Iraqi oil maps. Judicial
Watch lawsuit also uncovers list of 'foreign suitors' for contracts
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642>

	"Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of 
corporate and other private task force members who met with 
administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton 
Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a 
half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq." ... 'The unclassified 
map of Iraq turned over by the Commerce Department, a government member 
of the task force, shows the location of "supergiant" oil fields, oil 
pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. Commerce Secretary Don 
Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil 
company before joining the administration.' .. 'Though the papers came 
from Commerce, Judicial Watch says they were responsive to its request 
for task-force papers.' .. '"These are task-force documents," Fitton 
asserted.' ... 'The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in 
early April 2001, recommended considering a "military" option in 
dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a 
"weapon," by turning its spigot on and off to "manipulate oil markets," 
WorldNetDaily has learned.'

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net