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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net