Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> on new states of affairs
human being on Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:10:32 +0100 (CET)

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

<nettime> on new states of affairs

  could be a very unpopular viewpoint. sending anyway...

  not sure where others are at with current events, though
  wanted to share a limited hypothesis that in the buildup
  to the Iraq War was done with so much dealmaking of
  forgoing diplomatic stop-gaps (terrorists from freedom-
  fighters), and spending (bribes, others have called them)
  that when issues in Iraq seemed to be going off the cliff
  and James Baker of Florida election fame, amongst other
  connections, may have indicated a certain inevitability of
  foreign policy by oil gamblers, betting against the house:
  see: Gambler's Ruin for more information on the end-game:

  In any case, saw this essay on neoCONism from cursor.org
  think it was, which provides one backtrack worth reading,
  of which others could be added:  Twilight of the Neocons?

  There are several approaches or questions and also
  conclusions that could be drawn from current events,
  though it would seem of the obvious is that there has
  been shift in international cooperation, however so,
  that has China, Russia, and the United States among
  many others (Libya, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan)
  suddenly sounding in chorus about what is said to
  be global terrorism of nuclear, biological, chemical,
  radiological and other dangers to the state of worlds.
  That is, however one perceives the scale of events,
  if it is through a political party or well beyond this. of
  nettimers there are probably hundreds who know a
  lot about the intricacies of all of these dynamics so it
  is not intended to do anything more than introduce an
  idea which is to follow, a general hypothesis on .US
  state of affairs in relation to the world. it could be very
  wrong or inaccurate, and speculation is cut very short.

  - if the rise of the current political manifestation had
  its core origins some 30-40 years ago with Bush I,
  the Nixon Whitehouse, maybe even in relation to
  issues such as JFK's and other national tragedies,
  deep throat, etc. - it would seem that from article #1
  above (twilight of neocons) that the 'root cause' may
  have been an approach to the cold war that is still
  being fought within the NeoCON establishment, in
  that to hear Cheney come out of his hole is to hear
  psycho-babble which I hope a Navy doctor will be
  checking out rather soon, as it is out of touch with
  the reality of everyday lived experience, to say at
  the time 'we are winning the war on terrorism' etc.
  what if, say, that buried deep within government,
  enough so to plan its takeover, a disconnect from
  checks and balances came about, which in turn
  increased danger to world stability, delusional in
  the way that the VP would send x-mas cards with
  a quote from Ben Franklin about 'EMPIRE', that
  keyword readily passed online as assumed to be
  inherent in American's and America's pre-war
  ideological truth-system, omnipotence, prior to
  the overreaching and subsequent consequences.
  and what if this is not being addressed, accurately,
  the failure of the ideology (the VP just spoke in a
  total denial that this is not an accurate worldview)?
  it may mean that these 'cold warriors' may threaten
  world peace and safety and may only be able to
  make war, though never having themselves been
  warfighters, nor peacemakers. and with nuclear
  weapons. remember, Kissinger said once that the
  Soviet Union could not be defeated, it would have
  to be ultimately be dealt with, and today we have
  the NeoCons and a vast foreign policy failure of
  the establishment mindset. the .US lost the war
  of ideas against the Soviet Union, it is proposed,
  yet, finally, it may have ended in a draw through
  the destruction of the power (of money, deals) to
  bring .US hegemonic power back into relation in
  terms of the world- to balance, and also answer
  for itself on others terms, and shared terms, too.
  in effect, the .US has been humbled by the world.
  yet there are many questions as to how/why it is
  so, or if it is even acknowledged that everything
  has now changed- and the sooner it is realized
  that relations have changed orders, scales, the
  sooner the values and democratic institutions
  can be questioned, to shore up what has been
  left after the implosion of cold war bureaucracy.

  it would also seem that, while G.W. Bush is both
  the target and shield for policies, that questions
  of leadership are illegitimate, given policies of
  which they have so far been based. That is, to
  fight Bush II is to miss Cheney, Bush I, others
  who have deep structure to the issues of today
  whose policies may have necessitated actions
  by any president. This is not to say Bush II is a
  good president or an informed leader, but he is
  certainly not making the policies, he is just so
  good at beating his opponents in his strong will
  and quick decisive actions that it makes it hard
  to beat him at his own game. Well, the world is
  now doing that, instead. And, well, Wolfowitz
  may be leaving and some may think this is an
  act of regularity. It may instead provide some
  indication of the defeat of .US cold war policy,
  which ultimately will make the world safer as
  'all of the sudden' countries all over are back
  on an international diplomatic track, including
  the .US (possibly directed by Bush, outside of
  Cheneypoliticals) at the same time domestic
  issues such as monetary policy, immigration,
  oil and environment issues are either in the
  realm of questioning or actual change, if not
  on the federal level, then on the strong state
  model of rising up against horrible federal
  domestic policies to take a different approach.

  Bush, if considering the context, may also be
  able to reason outside the NeoCON agenda,
  if, that is, he is able to get outside their control.
  Stupid to believe this, people may say. Yet, it
  is also this aspect which people trust and also
  believe in Bush, that his intentions are good,
  that he is strong in decision making, no matter
  if the whole world ends up hating him and the
  .US- there may have been reasons that after
  a change in diplomacy in Iraq, that Baker is
  en route to making huge concessions, also,
  that the Chinese leadership is in the United
  States, that Russia has a strong statement of
  leadership while telling it like it is in relation
  to the international abuse of power and need
  of international laws) -- gambler's ruin may
  have officially ended the cold war, instead of
  one winner, the world won, if it is to stop the
  war machine, transforming it into forces for
  an attempt at peace, in some way. Else, on
  the track traveled, it would be nuclear war-
  driven by .US ideologues. that Cheney and
  others are so self-assured while delusional
  is not good for anyone. how power is more
  important than constitutional democracy or
  the rule of law. things await dealing with in
  the .US now. there is little doubt that these
  players were played, or unleashed, yet at a
  point of the resolution, it ended in a draw...

  Colin Powell and Dr. Rice seem clueless,
  that they too like G.W. Bush may be screens
  or fronts for an older agenda. Consider if,
  in a state of (state) emergency, that things
  could be happening out of necessity to get
  to the next step (florida elections, say), to
  keep the game being played out... the cold
  war, the way Op-Editorials lambaste world-
  wide while the .US currently sinks deeper
  and deeper, increasing and compounding
  the ill-will, it is of great interest as to who is
  helped by this, if anyone, this hubris, sense
  of power that is illusion, moreso delusional.

  If indeed the .US has a chance at changing
  itself, which scenarios currently indicate that
  there is a remote chance of peaceful transition
  from horror and the horrible, to peace and the
  peaceful, international and local- all of which
  needs to be defined, refined, transformed in
  a more realistic, possibly even idealistic, way
  of relation between states (of individuals and
  peoples, places, events)- that it will need the
  help of everyone in that there is only one-side
  of the coin, the other is the self in the mirror.

  If there is an actual 'transition' between what
  has been the .US deep strategy which is now
  a total failure in being able to deal with what
  is now faced, it is wondered how this is going
  to be translated into something on the water's
  surface, such as Bush versus Dean in 2004/5.
  That is, what if the ideal is so unreal, that to
  now approach the issues, regardless of what
  is rotten to the core and will be dealt with in
  the ways, by those who are best equipped to
  bring justice in such a situation, -- what is to
  happen post civilian world war- to unite the
  forces, if the unwise leader suddenly 'gets it?'.
  That is, there is a chance to make a transition,
  else to descend further into a chaos that no
  one would desire, in opposition, as it is war.

  The only combination of forces that seems it
  may be able to bring together these relations
  is, at least symbolically, the model of Texas'
  state government, where there was a mixture
  of democratic lieutenant governor and then
  a republican governor. If today were the date
  of the elections, it is believed a Bush/Dean
  ticket is the only way out of current scenarios.
  Which would be transitional and lead to the
  full review of the .US constitution, to issues
  of free speech where right wing zealots can
  call citizens terrorists and say they should be
  shot which is tantamount to seditious behavior
  even organized, and citizens should have a
  basic protection from this and its prosecution.
  it is less than democratic, annihilating freedom.

  There are a lot of questions, what happened
  with 9/11? what is with the energy task force?
  Why is watergate occupying the whitehouse?
  It may need to be repainted, Mark Twain style,
  in black paint for the time of national recovery.
  recovery of the government, of a governance
  by citizens, for citizens, locally, and globally.
  all the critiques are due, against the .US, yet
  also when change is attempted, please help
  by supporting the regeneration of a better .US
  as that is the only way change will be able to
  occur. If things are anywhere near this basic
  approximation of events, it would indicate that
  there is an internal review of ultimate serious
  consequences for the decisions made, in the
  best interests of the survival of the country. It
  is a question of how things will proceed from
  here, if these forces will try to take down the
  .US government and system once again, or
  if they will, so to speak, find their places in
  history as the .US changes onto a new course.

  That would leave many questions and also
  many situations and responsibilities for a new
  order that otherwise is totally unprepared for in
  terms of though, psychology, relating. maybe it
  is delusional to attempt to make sense out of it,
  yet it is also the hope of finding relation in a new
  scale, and it is where the .UN and state (country)
  governments and policies are deadly important.
  That differentiation between freedom fighters and
  terrorism, which was tossed out in the big gamble,
  needs to be reconsidered diplomatically, ethically
  dealing with the full field of concerns of what is
  public, what is private. If there is to be a future of
  the .US, it is to be a partnership in the world, not
  as its oppressor or misguided leader. it is to be
  reflective, with friends in every nation, yet also
  with a long interaction that has been negative.
  If Empire, then Cheney, Bush I, Nixon, assassins,
  now terrorists that may also be freedom fighters:
  'everyone's a terrorist' ready to destroy the state.

  What is the state? the individual state, nation-
  state, global-state of affairs. The scale of the
  question of the state, if to be of peace, and to
  route around the .UN in relation, would seem
  to indicate that the resurgence in diplomacy
  would demonstrate the .UN is in the fight now.
  and is also holding things in check, balance.
  yet, inside the .US, it is up to the citizens to now
  take back their/our government, from the failed
  cold warriors who finally, did lose to the .USSR
  which no longer exists. thank goodness for that
  this epic game of chess ended in a draw, as now
  success is dependent on everyone's success,
  not just on the exploitation of one by the other.

  This is a question, if this is approximately so. it
  may not be, yet things are so far from this type
  of analysis that it is hard to communicate even
  the most basic relation about such a context,
  that goes beyond discrete events, into larger,
  longer, pathways. maybe everyone knows of
  these connections and just does not write as
  it is, well, maybe not a smart thing to be doing.
  Yet it is the time, place, and space to right the
  ship of state, and to do so, an attempt at what
  is going on, is attempted to be put into writing.

  Also, if this is in any way accurate, given news,
  it may indicate that the .US is also in a position
  that enables its introspection afforded by other
  democratic and-or international governments.
  Actions are being taken on a world scale, it is
  to seem, to change course, more acutely and
  more accurately. This is not either-or, nor is it
  both-and, it is in suspension, depending on
  the actions one takes to make the new future.
  That is why education may be one model for
  keeping things in the realm of reason while a
  large scale transformation is underway. That
  is, if the educators are to change with the times.
  The professions. The approaches. This is not
  to say global hegemony as a goal, rather to
  say, how might relations be achieved if world
  relations were now at a draw, and change is
  the question, and what is to be done now, next?

  Of course, the disclaimer being this is a guess.
  And a hope, for if cold war politics have finally
  found resolution for 'all sides', then, impossibly,
  the best option may be the result. That is, there
  is no reason for others to use abuse of the .US
  power to legitimate their own actions, in realms
  of nuclear war and weapons, as a rogue state
  outside of international law. Things leveled out?
  And if the Bush II cabinet remains, it shouldn't.
  Yet to put Bush II as the cognizant head of state
  during such a long story is to possibly miss the
  other things, which surely the government isn't--
  at least, if its allegiance is to the .US citizenry.

  What happens next, day by day, will probably
  say a lot more one way or the other, of which
  forces will be in control of the future in the .US.
  citizens who turn away from this responsibility
  only want a dictatorship of the status quo, which
  is where things are at today. as more people do
  what is necessary to regain control of the public
  realm, in terms of its necessary dimension to the
  idea of a state, then maybe democracy is alive...

  brian (peace on earth)

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism

#  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