human being on Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:54:32 +0100 (CET)

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

<nettime> Era of Self-Deception II/II

Mr. David Brooks, 	

There is a need to write once again regarding
your article in the New York Times, which is in
today's local newspaper: entitled: The Era of Distortion

Since you did not or were unable to respond
to my previous invitation to debate your ideas
in a public forum, online, I find it untenable to
leave things where they are: in fact, it is very
irresponsible and unethical, given the tone of
the piece, and its running in a major newspaper
network with such damaging consequences to
civility, foregoing reason and tolerance, instead
to inflame a very delicate balance for no obvious
purpose other than to make an accusation that
those who are not with you, or neoconversatives,
are anti-Semitic in some conspiratorial belief.

Because there is no actual reasoning for these
accusations, it is dependent upon those who
are to reply, to decide how to address this type
of thinking, which in a world of either 'you are
with us or against us' mentality, instantly can
polarize a situation-- enough so to skew the
actual issues into one of Middle-East politics
substituting for an American political debate.
That is, to align the GOP with Jewish heritage,
and those who hate this, apparently, because
they question the neoconservative movement
and its grip on policy. Just writing about such
a thing is a flashpoint, and it is hard to justify
or reason in some common perspective when
the equivalent of an ideological dirty bomb is
set off, for no other apparent reason than some
pressure to account for decisions made to date.

The image that comes to mind is that of some
movie character in one of the Governor of
California's movie's, it may have been, where
someone is going through some checkpoint,
an android who looks like a human being and
their head explodes. Likewise, intellectual self-
deception of such a degree that one's mentality
is infected or affected by such a self-destructive
and culturally destructive narrowing of ideas
into a warped view of things is quite serious,
incredibly scary for what it portends will pass
for news and opinion-editorials of a quality that
has a redeeming value, based in shared reality.

Instead, days after reading your piece its fallout
is still all over, and it is hard to escape what the
consequences from this will be... a continual
and rapid decline into an irrational use of power
and force of more ideological falsities replacing
what used to be valued as a free and fair press.
It would be very easy to take the position that
you are entirely wrong in your perspective, and
many are doing that-- because it is so insulting
as to defy a more complex understanding and
truly, does not deserve serious rebuttal, and an
attempt at this is made only because of what
damage your writing has done to civil discourse,
it needs to be addressed, or will eat away at the
fragile fabric holding things in a peaceful state
here in the 'homeland', that brand of flag you
may be wearing on your suit, representing
some idea that is presumed to be the .US
that is shared. Instead, I would argue, it is
a privatized world view that is represented by
that little lapel pin, red-white-blue and bronze
.US flag, just as with your argument. So this
is going to meet you half-way. You have asked
for such a response so it is attempted to offer
a reason for your position, to move towards
a reasonable center rather than to further
narrow your position. So, if we are to relate...

The particular issue which you attempt to
discredit is, indeed, a legitimate concern of
people who care both about .US policies,
and Israel's continuing stability, (in addition
to Palestinians, yet this will not be discussed).
Therefore, if this can be assumed that, with
due respect to the sovereignty of Israel to
self-determine its own future, and therefore
the internal politics of Israel are off-limits to
a .US citizen, except through governments
relationships, and dual-citizenships, that in
a world with the international organizational
structure of the United Nations, that this is
a way to address such grievances between
peoples of these two places, surely, though
itself the .UN is not actually democratically
representative of the people but instead the
bureaucracies in which ambassadors are
dispatched to. At least, this is a naive and
rough sketch of an approximation of how
the .US and Israel may relate with regard
to the issue of sovereignty. Okay. In your
article you state the following:

	"Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day  
you read that  neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and  move  
into  Syria. Web sites appeared detailing  neocon conspiracies; my  
favorite described a neocon outing organized by Dick Cheney to hunt for  
humans. The Asian press had the most lurid stories; the European press  
the most thorough. Every day, it seemed, Le Monde or some deep-thinking  
German paper would have an exposť on the neocon cabal, complete with  
charts connecting all the conspirators."

The reason the role of Israel's Prime Minister
Sharon and Likud-like politics in the .US is
mentioned is because of your reference in
which you equate 'pushing plans' of NeoCon
design, which is a fact though you have the
LexisNexis access so I assume you can get
the best documents related to this news. Of
these issues of the War in Iraq, there is an
issue of not knowing fully of such plans and
the first mention I myself as a .US citizen had
of the .US battle plans and the order of battle
were, actually, voiced by Mr. Sharon during
the building and battle to the war in Iraq. In
no ambiguous terms the Prime Minister of
another country, of a right-wing government
of the Likud party, which apparently has a
supporters inside the current administration
of the .US, represented by President Bush.
This may or may not be unusual, I do not
know the extent to which these things are
normal, except for what the news shares
about such things. And, the news which is,
again, likely accessible in LexisNexis (it
was difficult to find sources in Googlenews,
so I do not have any URLs though this is
incontestable as part of the media record).

Maybe this is all normal, yet from the media
age to listen to a Prime Minister of another
country saying what the .US is about to be
doing next, as foreign policy is, it is hoped,
of concern when the .US government was in
a mode of opaque information secrecy in all
reasoning for its motives, which I believe is
much more complex and yet could not be
reasoned given where language is at, and
thus there is a boundary to what is able to
be communicated about this situation-- it is
possible that, if sovereignty and peaceful
transition can be achieved in Iraq, that the
loss of lives can be redeemed by the birth
of another world, and this is only a result of
receding from neoconservative plans for
an empire-building scheme that, apparently,
was unhinged enough so as to not-work,
such planning needed to be abandoned
due to the fact that it failed, and also was
driven by internal forces in government, in
such a manner that to consider it conspiracy
in the realm of forged yellowcake documents,
the outing of a CIA officer, the WMD, Nuclear
and other claims, the imminency of threats,
and the apparent obtuseness to the 'war on
terror' and actual threats of bin Laden have
has left a lot of people with questions, while
even documents to 9/11 have been sealed,
Enron documents, their relation to commerce
secretary Don Evans, maps of oilfields given
by James Baker prior to this for Energy Task
Force planning in the .US, these records also
being sealed, and then a war declared under
false pretenses-- it would not seem brazen for
a citizen to have concerns about the motives
driving decision making when information is
being held captive by courts, judges, private
industry, and lobbyists, in a realm as serious
as the core stability of the .US government.

In any case, it was from Mr. Sharon's own
government that indications of who the .US
would be attacking next came to press. It was
not said by Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair. It was said
by the Israeli government, what .US military
plans would involve, as more power built up
from the 'superpower' that is a bit humbler,
hopefully much more realistic today. As Mr.
Sharon is related to Likud party politics in
Israel, and is apparently informed of what
is .US policy when .US citizens were not--
well, it raises this question, first, of what is
going on?. And second, of sovereignty of
the .US government in its foreign policy,
its reasoning, its engagement. Strategy.
With due deference to history, this is and
will remain a serious issue until it is clear
who is steering the ship of state in the .US
as, by all accounts, it has been going well
off course, and who is really at the helm?*

I thought it was VP Dick Cheney myself.
That is, until you wrote your piece, as it
was a strange and surrealistic logic you
were using, and at first it seemed simply
absurd until I could not stop considering
your point of view, trying to understand
how you could be reasoning from this
strange position as being in any way
accurate. And, in its most immediate
effect, it makes the .US polarized in a
similar way to Middle-East ideologies,
by your own pen, bringing the right-
wing Likud-like politics into discourse
in the .US, and Israel into .US policy
for going to war, or some relation to it,
which does relate to neoconservative
ideologies from what has been written.

Again, Mr. Cheney is most associated
with neocon ideology in the Whitehouse,
and Mr. Wolfowitz is a cabinet member,
now said to be leaving the post-war Iraq
Pentagon amidst a cloud of questions
over what really is going on, and what
the actual reasoned basis for this war
was, in terms of .US policy goals and if
the neocon order of battle was to be that
as Prime Minister Sharon indicated, it
was going to include the .US invading
more countries, for 'democratic' regime
change in Syria and Iran it seemed to be,
under whatever pretense would be used.
Nuclear has been a consistent argument.

Okay, can we agree that we are not now
invading Iran? That Syria, maybe with a
bit of diplomatic good luck and good will
from surrounding countries, may be in a
mode of considering its positioning with
relation to issues of world threat, though
that this still does not vindicate reasons
for invading Iraq, on the grounds given
thus far? That is, finding WMDs, nuclear
facilities, etc? And, instead of invading
Iran, after conquering Iraq, the .US is
now behaving in relation to the larger
force of the world public in a context in
which Iraq's sovereignty would be more
than that of any neoconservative plan
about, say, privatizing their economy
and controlling contracts by the .US?

These were all central tenets, one by
one, knocked off of the neocon agenda
and thus there is a policy failure here--
it is very unambiguous, except to say
that things may have a chance at some
peace that may not have otherwise been
possible, in a twist of fate, which may
have a lot more to do with the .UN and
diplomacy, and Security Council hand-
shakes (possibly averting world war III),
and this is good, but it does not include
empire-building, nor regime change, it
instead is requiring responsibility for the
actions taken thus far, the lives lost in
this decision making, and the lack of
transparency in understanding by the
public of the public interest in such a
pre-emptive policy without sufficient
public review, debate, or basic facts.
This, again, is no longer a question
but a historical event that many lives
are now perpetually tied-to as a result
of the actions taken, though where is
the thought in relation to such actions?

In your own words-- it is conspiracy. It
is Middle-East political polarization. And
in an era of terrorism, where everyone is
on the same side, it is the only way to be
able to address issues of shared concern
while also protecting sovereignty of other
nations, including our own here in the .US
and in relation to the .UN, working with
other governments for peaceful change
and transition, hopefully to have war as
a last resort, yet in this case it was never
in the realm of questioning it seems. Odd.

In any case, my analysis of your position
is as such: you are connected with events
in the news, the rapid cycling of details
and information and need to make quick
judgments at times, and over time your
world view has been defined by this, as
a perspective or point of view. When I
read your column, at first I was reading
it in 'public' or 'human' terms (that thing
Dick Cheney apparently is hunting now,
as you say unnamed sources tell you.).
Well, in a world of shadows and of slim
shadies, there is probably a wide range
of cultural influences to be decided upon
to the point one may close in on some
type of identifiable position (say, as you
do, 'neoconservative') and then, in turn,
be called on to defend that position at
the same time, in a public way, outside
of just private reasoning. That is, if one
is to take a position in their mind, and
to try to translate it into the wider field
of human endeavors, to find relation.

This is a hypothesis for your perspective
in your piece, about anti-semitic thought,
in relation to positions close to your own
network of relations. And, to put it into
a context, it would be to say that this
position of yours may be reflecting a
private vantage of these events, that
may seem absurd to those of us out-
side of this worldview, at the same time
it is supposed to represent something
in-between the range of experience,
in the sense of information or truth or
facts-- and that trying to bridge these,
a private, not public, logic is used in
which intimate terms are employed as
a common denominator when they are
not this, and instead they further narrow
your position and isolate what may be
otherwise valid views to argue with.

Though, when you write the following...

	'In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative"  
and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and  
don't actually have much contact with one another.'

...It is very difficult if not impossible to
accept 'truth' which is an obvious lie,
meaning that neo is short for "Jewish."
It may be this, in very private terms and
in conversations in your network of
contacts, friends, organizations, as a
way of relating though it may have now
been mixed up with a public perspective
(False. the prefix 'neo', etymologically, is
most certainly not short for "Jewish", if it
is taken in public terms of public record,
dictionaries are a resource to reference.)
Psychologically, and culturally, the logic
you are using could be said to be your
own private language, and the point you
are trying to make is one that may not be
able to be made in the scale or the larger
'public' network of human reasoning. This
is to say, your private views do not reflect,
realistically, the public view of what is
going on, and in a very real way are of
serious danger if to bring discourses of
Sharon's Middle-East into .US politics,
in the extreme right-wing position. Can
you relate to the issue of sovereignty of
the public position of a .US citizen, that
the .US is not Israel? Nor a Jewish State?
I am sure you can and do not believe you
are insinuating this-- yet it is what is so
dangerous about your untimely article,
in that it is very likely to snowball into a
Anti-Semitic vs. Semitic cultural fiasco in
the .US, again, non-representative of the
issues the .US is facing with these policies
of neoconservatives, who are aligned, it
would seem, much more with the extreme
Christian Right, or so it would seem to be.
In any cased, the further devolution into
these private religious invocations and of
clashing cultures is basically a type of
martyrdom mission of last resort for an
ideology that has run out of ideas, and
I am sorry to be one of the many who has
to inform you of this in front of 3,000 people
who may be less forgiving than this, due
to the dishonesty and hatred used to try
to discredit valid public inquiry into .US
policies, by citizens of the .US, and by
the world community, including the .UN,
all of which need clear-headed thinking,
reasonable positions, in order to move
onward to a world working toward peace.

Though because of the involvement of
Mr. Sharon into the sovereign realm of
.US policy, or the appearance thereof,
it is questionable when recent efforts
made by Palestine and Egypt to move
towards peace was met by resistence
in the Sharon Government, a violence
that almost seems inevitable no matter
what happens, as if there is some kind
of holding pattern going on, to hold out
for a better deal, and diplomatic talks to
happen do not, and-- importantly, the
.US is silent throughout this whole affair.
That is, if we are actually to deal with the
issues of the Middle-East, and terrorism,
certainty then it is in the best interests of
every country to find a real and legitimate
peace between Palestine and Israel, yet
also between these same forces through-
out the world, if anything has even the
most remote chance to improve. That is
to say-- it is in everyone's best interest,
in an era of Terrorism, especially so, to
make changes, achieve a fundamental
peace, and strengthen the social and
cultural orders through institutions like
the .UN, and the .US and others like the
.EU, .CN, and .RU amongst other nations
who are members of the world diplomatic
body. Then, why is the .US silent on these
positive developments, letting them pass
by, while in Palestine a public voice is
made of this breaking down, and at the
same time, hair-trigger alerts and pre-
emptive attacks while a new wall is to
be built, and, as is common enough of
knowledge, a satellite launch during this
period likely related to serious escalation
and the seriousness of this event. And--
the .US is silent, Israel is on the offense,
and peace talks break down-- at the same
time relations are totally changing with
respect to Libya, Iran, even North Korea
but on, again, these same private missions
that .US and other officials are conducting
outside of the 'official' diplomatic missions,
as it is not a neoconservative position and
persons like Mr. John Bolten and others
actively work to discredit any work towards
peace, as it does not reflect previous plansf
or positions, it is ideologically set, and as
such is unable to adapt to changing and
changed circumstances. The world turns.

The above questions of course relate to
stability, peace, and preparing for a type
of active approach to collaboration and
to address and work towards relations
based on some public commonality. Yet
in your article, the position argued is one
that is basically of a Likud-like politics, or
so for the naive observer who is not out
to demonize, yet finds it curious how the
failure of neoconservative policies are
being reframed in terms of Middle-East
politics, it works as a smokescreen, to
keep questions away from the reasons
for war, the realities post-war in Iraq and
in the world, and the absolute failure of
the neoconservative ideology to suit .US
interests in the Middle-East or elsewhere,
in realistic terms. Idealistically, maybe as
an experiment this type of planning is of
the norm, done all the time. Yet to enact
such a plan hatched in the quarter's that
it was (private think tanks) and make this
public policy is, well, reminiscent of other
as-of-yet correlated events, such as Enron,
the .US energy task force, even the past
election and the decision by the Supreme
Court, and of course the most basic of
questions about 9/11 and related papers.
We're not even talking about oil here, yet,
and it seems there is quite a bit to ponder.

Oh, and about that 9/11 thing, there was
word from an anonymous source that the
.US government and the .US administration
was given warning of Enron energy issues
at some time during the first two weeks at
a Canadian consulate. The person said it
was necessary to talk their way in, so as to
demand to be heard, to share concerns of
pre-Enron indications of a conspiracy, yet
these were not the terms used, they said.
In addition, during that video and audio-
taped interview, they gave an impression
of some vague sense that something was
not right in the United States, to the effect
they compared it to a sense of an event,
'like a plane crash, only bigger' that was
shared by others, apparently. This person
also said that twice, two times, the worker
at the consulate asked "What do you know
about an airplane--?" "What did you say
about an airplane? What do you know...".

This anonymous source who said this is
what occurred one month prior to 9/11 is
proof-positive, they said, that Mr. Bush
knew of this interview which the person
confided they did out of concern for the
impacts of corruption in the .US energy
sector, and had no foreknowledge of any
actual events. And yet, having to do with
Enron at which time, a month or so later,
collapsed in total ruin, and having the
.US president using what seemed to be
references to this interview in public
speeches, makes this person convinced
of knowledge of this vague canary-in-a-
coalmine concern. Twice, again, they
said they mentioned in the same interview
as Enron, the issue of airplanes and in
turn, were uncharacteristically queried.
The person requires anonymity because
papers related to 9/11 have not yet been
released, nor has Enron been prosecuted,
a war has just been conducted and any
contesting of this is said to be a conspiracy.
And, since Mr. Cheney is human hunting,
it may not be a good time to go 'public' with
such a claim. Though they believe that as
a result of the disintegration of political
discourse that they may be in danger if
such raw forces be unleashed in the .US,
and so they chose now to talk share this.
That is, they have concern should 2004
go further into this private ideology, as it
would mean they may not be around long
after election time, given the givens today.
With a great amount of credit due to you.

In any case, please send my private best
regards to Mr. Cheney, a neoconservative
representative in the Bush administration.
I realize the stuff about microwaves is silly
stuff indeed, and probably has no relation
whatsoever to the much valued metronome
he must have around for his exquisite timing
in relation to all the issues discussed above.
And surely he is not shielding himself from
public view or access because of it. Though
if you happen to see him out on one of his
human hunting trips, as you say, please
send him regards from the .US public and
the .US citizenry willing to die for this country.

Your response to any of this is appreciated.
I hope this enables a public discussion of
the issues raised and their importance.


Brian Thomas Carroll

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

* IMF Researchers: US Budget Gaps Endanger Global Economy
By Joseph Rebello, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES // energy tax.

	'The White House has said it expects the budget deficit to expand to a  
record $ 475 billion in fiscal 2004, exceeding 4% of the gross domestic  
product. U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow on Wednesday described that  
level as "entirely manageable," and said the Bush administration  
expects the deficit to shrink to 2% of GDP ( news -web sites ) within  
five years.' .. 'But the IMF researchers said that won't be enough to  
address the government's long-term fiscal problems - including  
financing the Social Security ( news -web sites ) and Medicare programs  
over the next 75 years. In their report, they said the government faces  
a $47 trillion shortfall in its ability to pay for those and all other  
long-term obligations. Closing that gap would require "an immediate and  
permanent" federal tax increase of 60% or a 50% cut in Social Security  
and Medicare benefits.' ... 'Congress and the White House can avert  
those dangers by acting immediately to balance the budgets, the  
researchers estimated. Allowing the recent tax cuts to expire by 2013  
would reduce the budget shortfall by nearly half. The researchers also  
said Congress should consider a tax on energy consumption, arguing that  
it would "help meet the administration's environmental objectives while  
also providing substantial support for fiscal consolidation." Such tax  
increases, they calculated, would have a minimal effect on U.S.  
economic growth.'

Report: Ex-Enron CFO negotiating plea // .US Energy Task Force pioneer

	'Andrew Fastow, 42, is charged with 98 counts of fraud, money  
laundering, insider trading and other charges for allegedly  
masterminding a web of schemes that hid Enron's debt, inflated profits  
and allowed him to skim millions of dollars for himself, his family and  
selected friends and colleagues. He has pleaded innocent and is free on  
$5 million bond. He has asked the court to move his trial, scheduled  
for April, out of Houston - preferably out of the state.' ... 'Lea  
Fastow, 42, was formerly assistant treasurer at Enron. She is charged  
with six criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud,  
money laundering and four counts of making false tax returns. She has  
previously pleaded innocent on all counts.'

#  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: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: