Q: I worked on Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, he believes language has a disciplinary effect that through the words goes straight to ideology. So for Stirner, you have to free yourself from this kind of language and have a personal rebellion, not a revolution. This is something different from your language conception that is free and creative. I want to know what you think about that.
NC: I think Stirner is confusing language with the use of language. I mean it is like asking whether you have to free yourself from a hammer because a hammer can be used by a torturer. It is true that a hammer can be used by a torturer but the hammer can be used also to build houses. The use of a hammer is something we must pay attention to, but the language can be used to repress, can be used to liberate, can be used to divert. It is like saying you have to liberate yourself from hands because they can be used to repress people but it's not hands' fault.
MV: Critique of Kantian "Sitte": merely subjective attunement -> "gewoehnung" -> Sittlichkeit as such in friction with morality: emergence of moral subject -> categorical imperative = "Recht des subjektiven Willens" -> formalism -> morality is inserted into a situation of 'sollen' instead of 'wirklichkeit' (FN re: moral man: "das unhistorische Thier") -> CatImp deeply fascist.
stirner reading above weak in my opinion. stirner rejects particular discourse as described by MV above (sollen) and warns that this language will allow christian ethic to survive beyond the superficial rejection of monotheistic fashion. his polemic in the ego and its own is a satirical rejection of a certain type of ideologically tainted language. his method involves the creative usage of language to achieve personal rebellion- w reich's reading: death to super-ego.. turn in tide cannot come from small stalinesque crew- power issue will only be resolved if self-realisation as revolutionary subject spreads
31.8.03
Chomsky on Stirner amongst other things, such as the following:
"Foucault is an interesting case because I'm sure he honestly wants to undermine power but I think with his writings he reinforced it. The only way to understand Foucault is if you are a graduate student or you are attending a university and have been trained in this particular style of discourse. That's a way of guaranteeing, it might not be his purpose, but that's a way of guaranteeing that intellectuals will have power, prestige and influence. If something can be said simply say it simply, so that the carpenter next door can understand you. Anything that is at all well understood about human affairs is pretty simple. I find Foucault really interesting but I remain skeptical of his mode of expression. I find that I have to decode him, and after I have decoded him maybe I'm missing something. I don't get the significance of what I am left with. I have never effectively understood what he was talking about. I mean, when I try to take the big words he uses and put them into words that I can understand and use, it is difficult for me to accomplish this task It all strikes me as overly convoluted and very abstract. But -what happens when you try to skip down to real cases? The trouble with Foucault and with this certain kind of theory arises when it tries to come down to earth. Really, nobody was able to explain to me the importance of his work..."
"Foucault is an interesting case because I'm sure he honestly wants to undermine power but I think with his writings he reinforced it. The only way to understand Foucault is if you are a graduate student or you are attending a university and have been trained in this particular style of discourse. That's a way of guaranteeing, it might not be his purpose, but that's a way of guaranteeing that intellectuals will have power, prestige and influence. If something can be said simply say it simply, so that the carpenter next door can understand you. Anything that is at all well understood about human affairs is pretty simple. I find Foucault really interesting but I remain skeptical of his mode of expression. I find that I have to decode him, and after I have decoded him maybe I'm missing something. I don't get the significance of what I am left with. I have never effectively understood what he was talking about. I mean, when I try to take the big words he uses and put them into words that I can understand and use, it is difficult for me to accomplish this task It all strikes me as overly convoluted and very abstract. But -what happens when you try to skip down to real cases? The trouble with Foucault and with this certain kind of theory arises when it tries to come down to earth. Really, nobody was able to explain to me the importance of his work..."
30.8.03
hofmannsthal:
Manche freilich müssen drunten sterben...
Manche freilich müssen drunten sterben,
Wo die schweren Ruder der Schiffe streifen,
Andre wohnen bei dem Steuer droben,
Kennen Vogelflug und die Länder der Sterne.
Manche liegen immer mit schweren Gliedern
Bei den Wurzeln des verworrenen Lebens,
Andern sind die Stühle gerichtet
Bei den Sibyllen, den Königinnen,
Und da sitzen sie wie zu Hause,
Leichten Hauptes und leichter Hände.
Doch ein Schatten fällt von jenen Leben
In die anderen Leben hinüber,
Und die leichten sind an die schweren
Wie an Luft und Erde gebunden:
Ganz vergessener Völker Müdigkeiten
Kann ich nicht abtun von meinen Lidern,
Noch weghalten von der erschrockenen Seele
Stummes Niederfallen ferner Sterne.
Viele Geschicke weben neben dem meinen,
Durcheinander spielt sie alle das Dasein,
Und mein Teil ist mehr als dieses Lebens
Schlanke Flamme oder schmale Leier.
Manche freilich müssen drunten sterben...
Manche freilich müssen drunten sterben,
Wo die schweren Ruder der Schiffe streifen,
Andre wohnen bei dem Steuer droben,
Kennen Vogelflug und die Länder der Sterne.
Manche liegen immer mit schweren Gliedern
Bei den Wurzeln des verworrenen Lebens,
Andern sind die Stühle gerichtet
Bei den Sibyllen, den Königinnen,
Und da sitzen sie wie zu Hause,
Leichten Hauptes und leichter Hände.
Doch ein Schatten fällt von jenen Leben
In die anderen Leben hinüber,
Und die leichten sind an die schweren
Wie an Luft und Erde gebunden:
Ganz vergessener Völker Müdigkeiten
Kann ich nicht abtun von meinen Lidern,
Noch weghalten von der erschrockenen Seele
Stummes Niederfallen ferner Sterne.
Viele Geschicke weben neben dem meinen,
Durcheinander spielt sie alle das Dasein,
Und mein Teil ist mehr als dieses Lebens
Schlanke Flamme oder schmale Leier.
Situationist Lyrics II
Raoul Vaneigem - The Revolution of Everyday Life
Myth, the unitary absolute in which the contradictions of the world find an illusory resolution, the harmonious and constantly harmonized vision that reflects and reinforces order--this is the sphere of the sacred, the extrahuman zone where an abundance of revelations are manifested but where the revelation of the process of privative appropriation is carefully suppressed. Nietzsche saw this when he wrote "All becoming is a criminal revolt from eternal being and its price is death."
Raoul Vaneigem - The Revolution of Everyday Life
Myth, the unitary absolute in which the contradictions of the world find an illusory resolution, the harmonious and constantly harmonized vision that reflects and reinforces order--this is the sphere of the sacred, the extrahuman zone where an abundance of revelations are manifested but where the revelation of the process of privative appropriation is carefully suppressed. Nietzsche saw this when he wrote "All becoming is a criminal revolt from eternal being and its price is death."
Fostering doubt is a well known public relations tactic. Phil Lesly, author of a handbook on public relations and communications, advises corporations:
'People generally do not favor action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt.
The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut `victory.'...Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary' - Philip Lesly, `Coping with Opposition Groups', Public Relations Review, (1992)
from 'Corporate Hijacking of the Greenhouse Debate', Sharon Beder in 'The Ecologist'
'People generally do not favor action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt.
The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut `victory.'...Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary' - Philip Lesly, `Coping with Opposition Groups', Public Relations Review, (1992)
from 'Corporate Hijacking of the Greenhouse Debate', Sharon Beder in 'The Ecologist'
29.8.03
Debord: The Society of the Spectacle
"Self-proclaimed leader of the Situationist International, Guy Debord was certainly responsible for the longevity and high profile of Situationist ideas, although the equation of the SI with Guy Debord would be misleading. Brilliant but autocratic, Debord helped both unify situationist praxis and destroy its expansion into areas not explicitly in line with his own ideas. His text The Society of the Spectacle remains today one of the great theoretical works on modern-day capital, cultural imperialism, and the role of mediation in social relationships."
"Self-proclaimed leader of the Situationist International, Guy Debord was certainly responsible for the longevity and high profile of Situationist ideas, although the equation of the SI with Guy Debord would be misleading. Brilliant but autocratic, Debord helped both unify situationist praxis and destroy its expansion into areas not explicitly in line with his own ideas. His text The Society of the Spectacle remains today one of the great theoretical works on modern-day capital, cultural imperialism, and the role of mediation in social relationships."
Die Schule des Bellizismus. Kurzer Lehrgang zur Einführung in die neue antideutsche Sachlichkeit
"Ausgehend vom harten Kern um die Zeitschrift Bahamas, wird der Bellizismus redaktionell vertreten in der Wochenzeitung Jungle World, augenzwinkernd goutiert im Monatsmagazin Konkret und redaktionell geduldet oder publizistisch beherbergt in den Zeitschriften Blätter des Informationszentrums 3. Welt (iz3w) sowie Phase 2.
In diesen Medien wird der kapitalistische Weltordnungskrieg unter Führung der letzten Weltmacht USA nicht nur projektiv auf die deutschen ideologischen Verhältnisse reduziert; es wird auch so getan, als stünden hier einsame Rufer in einer deutschen publizistischen Wüste des "Antiamerikanismus". In Wahrheit haben sich Teile der deutschen Medien (ebenso wie große Teile der deutschen Politik und vor allem des Managements) in Treue fest hinter die US-Militärintervention im Irak gestellt, allen voran das Börsenkampfblatt Wirtschaftswoche und das alte antikommunistische Springer-Hetzblatt Die Welt. Die hardcore-bellizistischen Bahamas haben das auch offen anerkannt: "Der Kriegskurs der USA gegen das Regime von Saddam Hussein wurde vorbehaltlos und argumentativ unterstützt...Die Welt hebt sich so entschieden vom Meer der Freunde des falschen Friedens ab..." (Bahamas 41/2003)." etc
"Ausgehend vom harten Kern um die Zeitschrift Bahamas, wird der Bellizismus redaktionell vertreten in der Wochenzeitung Jungle World, augenzwinkernd goutiert im Monatsmagazin Konkret und redaktionell geduldet oder publizistisch beherbergt in den Zeitschriften Blätter des Informationszentrums 3. Welt (iz3w) sowie Phase 2.
In diesen Medien wird der kapitalistische Weltordnungskrieg unter Führung der letzten Weltmacht USA nicht nur projektiv auf die deutschen ideologischen Verhältnisse reduziert; es wird auch so getan, als stünden hier einsame Rufer in einer deutschen publizistischen Wüste des "Antiamerikanismus". In Wahrheit haben sich Teile der deutschen Medien (ebenso wie große Teile der deutschen Politik und vor allem des Managements) in Treue fest hinter die US-Militärintervention im Irak gestellt, allen voran das Börsenkampfblatt Wirtschaftswoche und das alte antikommunistische Springer-Hetzblatt Die Welt. Die hardcore-bellizistischen Bahamas haben das auch offen anerkannt: "Der Kriegskurs der USA gegen das Regime von Saddam Hussein wurde vorbehaltlos und argumentativ unterstützt...Die Welt hebt sich so entschieden vom Meer der Freunde des falschen Friedens ab..." (Bahamas 41/2003)." etc
Manifest II:
"Doch auch um den Preis der Selbstaufgabe sieht die schöne neue Welt der totalitären Marktwirtschaft für die meisten nur noch einen Platz als Schattenmenschen in der Schattenwirtschaft vor. Sie haben sich als Billigstarbeiter und demokratische Sklaven der "Dienstleistungsgesellschaft" den besserverdienenden Globalisierungsgewinnlern demütig anzudienen. Die neuen "arbeitenden Armen" dürfen den restlichen Business-Men der sterbenden Arbeitsgesellschaft die Schuhe putzen, ihnen verseuchte Hamburger verkaufen oder ihre Einkaufszentren bewachen. Wer sein Gehirn an der Garderobe abgegeben hat, kann dabei sogar vom Aufstieg zum Service-Millionär träumen.
In den angelsächsischen Ländern ist diese Horror-Welt für Millionen bereits Realität, in der Dritten Welt und in Osteuropa sowieso; und in Euro-Land zeigt man sich entschlossen, den bestehenden Rückstand zügig aufzuholen. Die einschlägigen Wirtschaftsblätter machen jedenfalls längst kein Geheimnis mehr daraus, wie sie sich die ideale Zukunft der Arbeit vorstellen: Die Kinder der Dritten Welt, die an verpesteten Straßenkreuzungen die Scheiben der Autos putzen, sind das leuchtende Vorbild "unternehmerischer Initiative", an dem sich die Arbeitslosen in der hiesigen "Dienstleistungswüste" gefälligst zu orientieren haben. "Das Leitbild der Zukunft ist das Individuum als Unternehmer seiner Arbeitskraft und Daseinsvorsorge" schreibt die "Kommission für Zukunftsfragen der Freistaaten Bayern und Sachsen". Und: "Die Nachfrage nach einfachen personenbezogenen Diensten ist umso größer, je weniger die Dienste kosten, und das heißt die Dienstleister verdienen." In einer Welt, in der es noch menschliche Selbstachtung gibt, müßte diese Aussage den sozialen Aufstand provozieren. In einer Welt von domestizierten Arbeitstieren wird sie nur ein hilfloses Nicken hervorrufen."
service millionär! giggle!
"Doch auch um den Preis der Selbstaufgabe sieht die schöne neue Welt der totalitären Marktwirtschaft für die meisten nur noch einen Platz als Schattenmenschen in der Schattenwirtschaft vor. Sie haben sich als Billigstarbeiter und demokratische Sklaven der "Dienstleistungsgesellschaft" den besserverdienenden Globalisierungsgewinnlern demütig anzudienen. Die neuen "arbeitenden Armen" dürfen den restlichen Business-Men der sterbenden Arbeitsgesellschaft die Schuhe putzen, ihnen verseuchte Hamburger verkaufen oder ihre Einkaufszentren bewachen. Wer sein Gehirn an der Garderobe abgegeben hat, kann dabei sogar vom Aufstieg zum Service-Millionär träumen.
In den angelsächsischen Ländern ist diese Horror-Welt für Millionen bereits Realität, in der Dritten Welt und in Osteuropa sowieso; und in Euro-Land zeigt man sich entschlossen, den bestehenden Rückstand zügig aufzuholen. Die einschlägigen Wirtschaftsblätter machen jedenfalls längst kein Geheimnis mehr daraus, wie sie sich die ideale Zukunft der Arbeit vorstellen: Die Kinder der Dritten Welt, die an verpesteten Straßenkreuzungen die Scheiben der Autos putzen, sind das leuchtende Vorbild "unternehmerischer Initiative", an dem sich die Arbeitslosen in der hiesigen "Dienstleistungswüste" gefälligst zu orientieren haben. "Das Leitbild der Zukunft ist das Individuum als Unternehmer seiner Arbeitskraft und Daseinsvorsorge" schreibt die "Kommission für Zukunftsfragen der Freistaaten Bayern und Sachsen". Und: "Die Nachfrage nach einfachen personenbezogenen Diensten ist umso größer, je weniger die Dienste kosten, und das heißt die Dienstleister verdienen." In einer Welt, in der es noch menschliche Selbstachtung gibt, müßte diese Aussage den sozialen Aufstand provozieren. In einer Welt von domestizierten Arbeitstieren wird sie nur ein hilfloses Nicken hervorrufen."
service millionär! giggle!
Manifest gegen die Arbeit:
"Eine auf das irrationale Abstraktum Arbeit zentrierte Gesellschaft entwickelt zwangsläufig die Tendenz zur sozialen Apartheid, wenn der erfolgreiche Verkauf der Ware Arbeitskraft von der Regel zur Ausnahme wird. Alle Fraktionen des parteiübergreifenden Arbeits-Lagers haben diese Logik längst klammheimlich akzeptiert und helfen selber kräftig nach. Sie streiten nicht mehr darüber, ob immer größere Teile der Bevölkerung an den Rand gedrängt und von jeder gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe ausgeschlossen werden, sondern nur noch darüber, wie diese Selektion durchgepeitscht werden soll."
"Eine auf das irrationale Abstraktum Arbeit zentrierte Gesellschaft entwickelt zwangsläufig die Tendenz zur sozialen Apartheid, wenn der erfolgreiche Verkauf der Ware Arbeitskraft von der Regel zur Ausnahme wird. Alle Fraktionen des parteiübergreifenden Arbeits-Lagers haben diese Logik längst klammheimlich akzeptiert und helfen selber kräftig nach. Sie streiten nicht mehr darüber, ob immer größere Teile der Bevölkerung an den Rand gedrängt und von jeder gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe ausgeschlossen werden, sondern nur noch darüber, wie diese Selektion durchgepeitscht werden soll."
28.8.03
tony facing hutton inquiry - the transcript
1 What they say is this:
2 "We conclude that the language used in the September
3 dossier was in places more assertive than that
4 traditionally used in intelligence documents. We
5 believe that there is much value in retaining the
6 measured and even cautious tones which have been the
7 hallmark of intelligence assessments and we recommend
8 that this approach be retained."
9 Do you agree with that comment?
10 A. I think that we described the intelligence in a way that
11 was perfectly justified and I would simply make this
12 point: although obviously people look back now on the
13 September dossier in a quite different way, if I make
14 these two points: the first is that the dossier, at the
15 time, was not received as being particularly incautious
16 in tone. On the contrary, a lot of people said that it
17 was done in a fairly prosaic way. So the commentary at
18 the time was not actually that it seemed to be, you
19 know, advancing the case in an adventurous way, if I can
20 put it like that, at all. The commentary was rather to
21 the opposite effect.
22 Secondly, the 45 minute claim, as I think I say in
23 my witness statement, just a point to make, I mentioned
24 it in the foreword, I mention it in my statement.
25 I think after then I do not think I mention it again in
17
1 Parliament. Indeed, on the 18th March debate, which was
2 the crucial debate, where Parliament decided that it was
3 going to opt for conflict, I do not think it came up at
4 all, and I think there is a sense in which it is
5 important to recognise that the September dossier was
6 not making the case for war, it was making the case for
7 the issue to be dealt with; and our preferred
8 alternative was indeed to deal with it through the
9 United Nations route.
etc
1 What they say is this:
2 "We conclude that the language used in the September
3 dossier was in places more assertive than that
4 traditionally used in intelligence documents. We
5 believe that there is much value in retaining the
6 measured and even cautious tones which have been the
7 hallmark of intelligence assessments and we recommend
8 that this approach be retained."
9 Do you agree with that comment?
10 A. I think that we described the intelligence in a way that
11 was perfectly justified and I would simply make this
12 point: although obviously people look back now on the
13 September dossier in a quite different way, if I make
14 these two points: the first is that the dossier, at the
15 time, was not received as being particularly incautious
16 in tone. On the contrary, a lot of people said that it
17 was done in a fairly prosaic way. So the commentary at
18 the time was not actually that it seemed to be, you
19 know, advancing the case in an adventurous way, if I can
20 put it like that, at all. The commentary was rather to
21 the opposite effect.
22 Secondly, the 45 minute claim, as I think I say in
23 my witness statement, just a point to make, I mentioned
24 it in the foreword, I mention it in my statement.
25 I think after then I do not think I mention it again in
17
1 Parliament. Indeed, on the 18th March debate, which was
2 the crucial debate, where Parliament decided that it was
3 going to opt for conflict, I do not think it came up at
4 all, and I think there is a sense in which it is
5 important to recognise that the September dossier was
6 not making the case for war, it was making the case for
7 the issue to be dealt with; and our preferred
8 alternative was indeed to deal with it through the
9 United Nations route.
etc
25.8.03
Kleines Solo
Einsam bist du sehr alleine.
Aus der Wanduhr tropft die Zeit.
Stehst am Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Träumst von Liebe. Glaubst an keine.
Kennst das Leben. Weißt Bescheid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
Wünsche gehen auf die Freite.
Glück ist ein verhexter Ort.
Kommt dir nahe. Weicht zur Seite.
Sucht vor Suchenden das Weite.
Ist nie hier. Ist immer dort.
Stehst am Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Sehnsucht krallt sich in dein Kleid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
Schenkst dich hin. Mit Haut und Haaren.
Magst nicht bleiben, wer du bist.
Liebe treibt die Welt zu Paaren.
Wirst getrieben. Mußt erfahren,
daß es nicht die Liebe ist ...
Bist sogar im Kuß alleine.
Aus der Wanduhr tropft die Zeit.
Gehst ans Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Brauchtest Liebe. Findest keine.
Träumst vom Glück. Und lebst im Leid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine.
Aus der Wanduhr tropft die Zeit.
Stehst am Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Träumst von Liebe. Glaubst an keine.
Kennst das Leben. Weißt Bescheid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
Wünsche gehen auf die Freite.
Glück ist ein verhexter Ort.
Kommt dir nahe. Weicht zur Seite.
Sucht vor Suchenden das Weite.
Ist nie hier. Ist immer dort.
Stehst am Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Sehnsucht krallt sich in dein Kleid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
Schenkst dich hin. Mit Haut und Haaren.
Magst nicht bleiben, wer du bist.
Liebe treibt die Welt zu Paaren.
Wirst getrieben. Mußt erfahren,
daß es nicht die Liebe ist ...
Bist sogar im Kuß alleine.
Aus der Wanduhr tropft die Zeit.
Gehst ans Fenster. Starrst auf Steine.
Brauchtest Liebe. Findest keine.
Träumst vom Glück. Und lebst im Leid.
Einsam bist du sehr alleine -
und am schlimmsten ist die Einsamkeit zu zweit.
24.8.03
23.8.03
I don’t feel good
therefore I am bad
therefore no one loves me.
I feel good
therefore I am good
therefore everyone loves me.
I am good
You do not love me
therefore you are bad. So I do not love you.
I am good
You love me
therefore you are good. So I love you.
I am bad
You love me
therefore you are bad.
The patterns delineated here have not yet been classified by a Linnaeus of human bondage:
r d laing's knots
"The specifically human feature of human groupings can be exploited to turn them into the semblance of non-human systems. ....All those people who seek to control the behaviour of large numbers of other people work on the experiences of those other people. Once people can be induced to experience a situation in a similar way, they can be expected to behave in similar ways. Induce people all to want the same thing, hate the same things, feel the same threat, then their behaviour is already captive - you have acquired your consumers or your cannon-fodder. Induce a common perception of Negroes as subhuman, or the Whites as vicious and effete, and behaviour can be concerted accordingly.....
The inertia of human groups, however, which appear as the very negation of praxis, is in fact the product of praxis and nothing else. This group inertia can only be an instrument of mystification if it is taken to be part of the ‘natural order of things’. The ideological abuse of such an idea is obvious. It so clearly serves the interests of those whose interest it is to have people believe that the status quo is of the ‘natural order’, ordained Divinely or by ‘natural’ laws. ...The group becomes a machine - and it is forgotten that it is a man-made machine in which the machine is the very men who make it. It is quite unlike a machine made by men, which can have an existence of its own. The group is men themselves arranging themselves in patterns, strata, assuming and assigning different powers, functions, roles, rights, obligations and so on."
Ronnie Laing - The Politics of Experience [1967]
therefore I am bad
therefore no one loves me.
I feel good
therefore I am good
therefore everyone loves me.
I am good
You do not love me
therefore you are bad. So I do not love you.
I am good
You love me
therefore you are good. So I love you.
I am bad
You love me
therefore you are bad.
The patterns delineated here have not yet been classified by a Linnaeus of human bondage:
r d laing's knots
"The specifically human feature of human groupings can be exploited to turn them into the semblance of non-human systems. ....All those people who seek to control the behaviour of large numbers of other people work on the experiences of those other people. Once people can be induced to experience a situation in a similar way, they can be expected to behave in similar ways. Induce people all to want the same thing, hate the same things, feel the same threat, then their behaviour is already captive - you have acquired your consumers or your cannon-fodder. Induce a common perception of Negroes as subhuman, or the Whites as vicious and effete, and behaviour can be concerted accordingly.....
The inertia of human groups, however, which appear as the very negation of praxis, is in fact the product of praxis and nothing else. This group inertia can only be an instrument of mystification if it is taken to be part of the ‘natural order of things’. The ideological abuse of such an idea is obvious. It so clearly serves the interests of those whose interest it is to have people believe that the status quo is of the ‘natural order’, ordained Divinely or by ‘natural’ laws. ...The group becomes a machine - and it is forgotten that it is a man-made machine in which the machine is the very men who make it. It is quite unlike a machine made by men, which can have an existence of its own. The group is men themselves arranging themselves in patterns, strata, assuming and assigning different powers, functions, roles, rights, obligations and so on."
Ronnie Laing - The Politics of Experience [1967]
22.8.03
20.8.03
"I think Stalin has finished the job he has started"
On this day in 1940 the Russian revolutionary Trotsky was murdered in Mexico City. This is how The Guardian reported events.
via alan international
On this day in 1940 the Russian revolutionary Trotsky was murdered in Mexico City. This is how The Guardian reported events.
via alan international
Again,
but very sexily put, representing all that needs to be said about the UN bombing:
"No organisation has claimed responsibility for the bombing. It has been immediately seized upon by the Bush administration to justify further indiscriminate reprisals and repression against the Iraqi people. At the same time, the attack underscores the depth of hostility, anger and despair felt by wide sections of the population in Iraq and throughout the Middle East towards Washington's criminal occupation of the country. Political responsibility for the bomb blast rests with the US and its accomplices, who have created nothing short of a nightmare for the Iraqi people.
US President Bush briefly interrupted a game of golf to make a banal statement to the media condemning the UN bombing. “Every sign of progress in Iraq adds to the desperation of these terrorists and the remnants of Saddam’s brutal regime. The civilised world will not be intimidated,” he declared. “The Iraqi people have been liberated from a dictator. Iraq is on an irreversible course toward self-government and peace.”
His comments stand reality on its head. Washington has not liberated Iraq but replaced a brutal dictatorship, which it helped create, with a neo-colonial regime headed by Paul Bremer III, a proconsul with absolute powers. The Iraqi people are no freer under Bremer than they were under Saddam Hussein. Under the pretext of hunting down “Baathist remnants,” US troops routinely search people, vehicles and houses, killing or incarcerating anyone suspected of opposition. Thousands of people are being held, and in some cases tortured, in US-run jails and detention centres in flagrant breach of their basic democratic rights.
The purpose of the US-led invasion was not to bring “self-government and peace” but to loot the economy, particularly the country’s huge oil reserves. Much of the limited and decaying physical and social infrastructure that existed under the previous regime has been destroyed, leaving masses of people without jobs, basic services and essentials such as electricity, water and adequate food."
but very sexily put, representing all that needs to be said about the UN bombing:
"No organisation has claimed responsibility for the bombing. It has been immediately seized upon by the Bush administration to justify further indiscriminate reprisals and repression against the Iraqi people. At the same time, the attack underscores the depth of hostility, anger and despair felt by wide sections of the population in Iraq and throughout the Middle East towards Washington's criminal occupation of the country. Political responsibility for the bomb blast rests with the US and its accomplices, who have created nothing short of a nightmare for the Iraqi people.
US President Bush briefly interrupted a game of golf to make a banal statement to the media condemning the UN bombing. “Every sign of progress in Iraq adds to the desperation of these terrorists and the remnants of Saddam’s brutal regime. The civilised world will not be intimidated,” he declared. “The Iraqi people have been liberated from a dictator. Iraq is on an irreversible course toward self-government and peace.”
His comments stand reality on its head. Washington has not liberated Iraq but replaced a brutal dictatorship, which it helped create, with a neo-colonial regime headed by Paul Bremer III, a proconsul with absolute powers. The Iraqi people are no freer under Bremer than they were under Saddam Hussein. Under the pretext of hunting down “Baathist remnants,” US troops routinely search people, vehicles and houses, killing or incarcerating anyone suspected of opposition. Thousands of people are being held, and in some cases tortured, in US-run jails and detention centres in flagrant breach of their basic democratic rights.
The purpose of the US-led invasion was not to bring “self-government and peace” but to loot the economy, particularly the country’s huge oil reserves. Much of the limited and decaying physical and social infrastructure that existed under the previous regime has been destroyed, leaving masses of people without jobs, basic services and essentials such as electricity, water and adequate food."
Paternalism - stuck in the pseudoconcrete, opportune ego-massage for people who lost their selves in the system. Or as Justin Podur puts it:
"As youth, you have probably had to listen to all kinds of paternalism from the older generation. They pat us on the head and tell us how wonderful it is that we are idealistic now, but that we'll grow out of it. They say that because it has been their own experience.
When older people tell us that we will become more realistic when we get older, they are actually saying that as we get older, our investment in the system grows. We will need to earn a living somehow; we will have less time to dedicate to political life; and, on an uglier note, we may receive privileges-fruits of inequality-that we become so attached to that we are willing to forsake our ideals in order to avoid confronting that the system is an unjust one."
"As youth, you have probably had to listen to all kinds of paternalism from the older generation. They pat us on the head and tell us how wonderful it is that we are idealistic now, but that we'll grow out of it. They say that because it has been their own experience.
When older people tell us that we will become more realistic when we get older, they are actually saying that as we get older, our investment in the system grows. We will need to earn a living somehow; we will have less time to dedicate to political life; and, on an uglier note, we may receive privileges-fruits of inequality-that we become so attached to that we are willing to forsake our ideals in order to avoid confronting that the system is an unjust one."
19.8.03
To the Victors Go the Spoils of War
more on EO 13303, and oil in post-war Iraq, from CorpWatch.org:
"In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US. Anything that has happened before with oil companies around the world -- a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; or lawsuits by Iraq's current creditors or the next true Iraqi government demanding compensation -- anything at all, is immune from judicial accountability..."
- Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC
of course, this is not the first time mechanisms for human rights have been systematically undermined in the name of oil profits, the on going controversy with BP's publicly funded Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline has similar clause arrangements that affect the company’s culpability in the law courts...
more on EO 13303, and oil in post-war Iraq, from CorpWatch.org:
"In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US. Anything that has happened before with oil companies around the world -- a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; or lawsuits by Iraq's current creditors or the next true Iraqi government demanding compensation -- anything at all, is immune from judicial accountability..."
- Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC
of course, this is not the first time mechanisms for human rights have been systematically undermined in the name of oil profits, the on going controversy with BP's publicly funded Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline has similar clause arrangements that affect the company’s culpability in the law courts...
"I owe my throne to God, my people, my army and to you!" - Iran 50 years ago
50 years ago today, the CIA installed the Shah after overthrowing Mossadegh. The following revolution arguably led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east, in turn leading to events such as 9/11. But as this guy notes, the practice of regime change continues in the usual form of long, disastrous entanglements in asymmetric scenarios:
"In less than two years the United States has occupied two Muslim countries with a combined population of more than 50 million. Afghanistan "remains a failed or nonexistent state" where "the government's writ does not extend much beyond Kabul" and "local warlords, deep into the heroin trade, wield the real power." In Iraq, where a U.S. general says the current condition is "war, however you describe it," there are 161,000 occupying troops, of which 148,000 are American. The largest contingent of the other 13,000 are British and the other 18 participating nations have sent on average a few hundred."
"Bring 'em on!" (G W Bush)
50 years ago today, the CIA installed the Shah after overthrowing Mossadegh. The following revolution arguably led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east, in turn leading to events such as 9/11. But as this guy notes, the practice of regime change continues in the usual form of long, disastrous entanglements in asymmetric scenarios:
"In less than two years the United States has occupied two Muslim countries with a combined population of more than 50 million. Afghanistan "remains a failed or nonexistent state" where "the government's writ does not extend much beyond Kabul" and "local warlords, deep into the heroin trade, wield the real power." In Iraq, where a U.S. general says the current condition is "war, however you describe it," there are 161,000 occupying troops, of which 148,000 are American. The largest contingent of the other 13,000 are British and the other 18 participating nations have sent on average a few hundred."
"Bring 'em on!" (G W Bush)
Bush releases outrageous executive order, “a licence for corporations to loot Iraq and its citizens” 
This order, obviously not reported at all by the corporate media, is completely streamlined to protect oil corporations by giving full impunity for any oil-related action. Not complying with human rights or environmental regulations would be unsanctionable.
wsws.org: "EO 13303 begins with a declaration that the possibility of future legal claims on Iraq’s oil wealth constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It goes on to state that “any ... judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void” with regard to the Development Fund for Iraq, as well as for any commercial operation conducted by US corporations involved in the Iraqi oil industry."
EO 13303 (pdf)
This order, obviously not reported at all by the corporate media, is completely streamlined to protect oil corporations by giving full impunity for any oil-related action. Not complying with human rights or environmental regulations would be unsanctionable.
wsws.org: "EO 13303 begins with a declaration that the possibility of future legal claims on Iraq’s oil wealth constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It goes on to state that “any ... judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void” with regard to the Development Fund for Iraq, as well as for any commercial operation conducted by US corporations involved in the Iraqi oil industry."
EO 13303 (pdf)
18.8.03
Iran-Contra - resurrection of old ties?
"The specter of the Iran-Contra affair is haunting Washington. Some of the people and countries are the same, and so are the methods – particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy.
Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an "off-the-books" operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. The picture being painted by various insider sources in the media suggests a similar but far more ambitious scheme at work.
Taken collectively, what these officials describe and what is already on the public record suggests the existence of a disciplined network of zealous, like-minded individuals. Centered in Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's office and around Richard Perle in the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon, this exclusive group of officials operates under the aegis of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
[...]
Iran-Contra alumnus and close Perle associate Michael Ledeen has renewed ties with his old acquaintance, Manichur Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms merchant who became the key link between the NSC's Oliver North, the operational head of Iran-Contra, and the so-called "moderates" in the Islamic Republic. But to what end?
It appears that certain elements in the Pentagon leadership, specifically Douglas Feith, are trying to sabotage sensitive talks between Teheran and the State Department to promote cooperation over al-Qaeda and other pressing issues affecting Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon clique thinks Ledeen's old friend Ghorbanifar can help, according to Newsday, which reported Friday that two of Feith's senior aides – without notice to the other agencies – have held several meetings with the Iranian, whom the CIA has long considered "an intelligence fabricator and nuisance.""
via gordon.coale
"The specter of the Iran-Contra affair is haunting Washington. Some of the people and countries are the same, and so are the methods – particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy.
Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an "off-the-books" operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. The picture being painted by various insider sources in the media suggests a similar but far more ambitious scheme at work.
Taken collectively, what these officials describe and what is already on the public record suggests the existence of a disciplined network of zealous, like-minded individuals. Centered in Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's office and around Richard Perle in the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon, this exclusive group of officials operates under the aegis of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
[...]
Iran-Contra alumnus and close Perle associate Michael Ledeen has renewed ties with his old acquaintance, Manichur Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms merchant who became the key link between the NSC's Oliver North, the operational head of Iran-Contra, and the so-called "moderates" in the Islamic Republic. But to what end?
It appears that certain elements in the Pentagon leadership, specifically Douglas Feith, are trying to sabotage sensitive talks between Teheran and the State Department to promote cooperation over al-Qaeda and other pressing issues affecting Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon clique thinks Ledeen's old friend Ghorbanifar can help, according to Newsday, which reported Friday that two of Feith's senior aides – without notice to the other agencies – have held several meetings with the Iranian, whom the CIA has long considered "an intelligence fabricator and nuisance.""
via gordon.coale
Semantics of Mass Deception
The Hutton inquiry has revealed a series of telling last-minute changes to the infamous, amateurishly plagiarised piece of mediocrity released by the British government during the pre-war build-up.
"Right up until the publication of the final draft, and as late as 19 September, the document was entitled "Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction". But on 24 September, when the Government published the finished version, it left out the words "programme for"."
Excluding "programme for" extinguishes any flame of doubt that there aren't any WMD, inherently assuming their existence under false pretenses such as the 45-minute claim. Here we're looking at consent being manufactured, also known as lying.
The Hutton inquiry has revealed a series of telling last-minute changes to the infamous, amateurishly plagiarised piece of mediocrity released by the British government during the pre-war build-up.
"Right up until the publication of the final draft, and as late as 19 September, the document was entitled "Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction". But on 24 September, when the Government published the finished version, it left out the words "programme for"."
Excluding "programme for" extinguishes any flame of doubt that there aren't any WMD, inherently assuming their existence under false pretenses such as the 45-minute claim. Here we're looking at consent being manufactured, also known as lying.
17.8.03
The manufacturing of consent; nothing new for regular visitors of this blog, but nice to see these ideas in more 'mainstream' media. From today's Obsever, by Brian Eno:
'In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest triumph is that we generally don't notice it - or laugh at the notion it even exists. We watch the democratic process taking place - heated debates in which we feel we could have a voice - and think that, because we have 'free' media, it would be hard for the Government to get away with anything very devious without someone calling them on it.
[...]
'Throughout all this, the hired-gun PR companies were busy, preconditioning the emotional landscape. Their marketing talents were particularly useful in the large-scale manipulation of language that the campaign entailed. The Bushites realised, as all ideologues do, that words create realities, and that the right words can over whelm any chance of balanced discussion. Guided by the overtly imperial vision of the Project for a New American Century (whose members now form the core of the American administration), the PR companies helped finesse the language to create an atmosphere of simmering panic where American imperialism would come to seem not only acceptable but right, obvious, inevitable and even somehow kind.'
and some neo-con translations:
'Aside from the incessant 'weapons of mass destruction', there were 'regime change' (military invasion), 'pre-emptive defence' (attacking a country that is not attacking you), 'critical regions' (countries we want to control), the 'axis of evil' (countries we want to attack), 'shock and awe' (massive obliteration) and 'the war on terror' (a hold-all excuse for projecting American military force anywhere). '
'In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest triumph is that we generally don't notice it - or laugh at the notion it even exists. We watch the democratic process taking place - heated debates in which we feel we could have a voice - and think that, because we have 'free' media, it would be hard for the Government to get away with anything very devious without someone calling them on it.
[...]
'Throughout all this, the hired-gun PR companies were busy, preconditioning the emotional landscape. Their marketing talents were particularly useful in the large-scale manipulation of language that the campaign entailed. The Bushites realised, as all ideologues do, that words create realities, and that the right words can over whelm any chance of balanced discussion. Guided by the overtly imperial vision of the Project for a New American Century (whose members now form the core of the American administration), the PR companies helped finesse the language to create an atmosphere of simmering panic where American imperialism would come to seem not only acceptable but right, obvious, inevitable and even somehow kind.'
and some neo-con translations:
'Aside from the incessant 'weapons of mass destruction', there were 'regime change' (military invasion), 'pre-emptive defence' (attacking a country that is not attacking you), 'critical regions' (countries we want to control), the 'axis of evil' (countries we want to attack), 'shock and awe' (massive obliteration) and 'the war on terror' (a hold-all excuse for projecting American military force anywhere). '
13.8.03
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
[....]
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
[....]
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
11.8.03
Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime' - by Noam Chomsky
"September 2002 was marked by three events of considerable importance, closely related. The United States, the most powerful state in history, announced a new national security strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently. Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilise the population for an invasion of Iraq. And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda. more
"September 2002 was marked by three events of considerable importance, closely related. The United States, the most powerful state in history, announced a new national security strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently. Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilise the population for an invasion of Iraq. And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda. more
from alan international:
"Much of interest here, the conformity theme etc, analysis non-existent but implict thinking telling;"
“Oh, I think that's very much true. One shouldn't forget, as I suggest in the book, that there are really two streams that converged in Kaczynski's psyche to turn him into the Unabomber. One was the psychological stream—his personal anger. Another was the ideological stream, which allowed him to rationalize his anger and make him feel that it was legitimate and that therefore he could act it out without feeling guilty about it. Here's a fellow who knows he's very very bright and yet he can't hold a job. He finds every job beneath him. He feels insulted by his employers when they ask him to do things, so he doesn't do them or he doesn't do them well and he gets fired. That makes him all the more angry. And he's angry at his parents for emphasizing his studies too much and turning him into a socially isolated mathematician. And he's angry at Professor Murray and all the Professor Murrays of the world for helping the state to develop psychological techniques for controlling populations. All of these things converged and fueled his anger so that when he finally was able to summon up his courage to be bad, as he put it in effect, and actually bomb people, he felt great relief. For once he didn't feel ineffectual, and finally there were people out there who were paying attention to him. But this relief was temporary. He was like an addict who needed another fix. One successful bombing wasn't enough—after a while, he would need to do it again. That's why I believe that if he had not been caught, he would have continued to bomb in spite of his promise to The New York Times and The Washington Post not to do so.”
"Much of interest here, the conformity theme etc, analysis non-existent but implict thinking telling;"
“Oh, I think that's very much true. One shouldn't forget, as I suggest in the book, that there are really two streams that converged in Kaczynski's psyche to turn him into the Unabomber. One was the psychological stream—his personal anger. Another was the ideological stream, which allowed him to rationalize his anger and make him feel that it was legitimate and that therefore he could act it out without feeling guilty about it. Here's a fellow who knows he's very very bright and yet he can't hold a job. He finds every job beneath him. He feels insulted by his employers when they ask him to do things, so he doesn't do them or he doesn't do them well and he gets fired. That makes him all the more angry. And he's angry at his parents for emphasizing his studies too much and turning him into a socially isolated mathematician. And he's angry at Professor Murray and all the Professor Murrays of the world for helping the state to develop psychological techniques for controlling populations. All of these things converged and fueled his anger so that when he finally was able to summon up his courage to be bad, as he put it in effect, and actually bomb people, he felt great relief. For once he didn't feel ineffectual, and finally there were people out there who were paying attention to him. But this relief was temporary. He was like an addict who needed another fix. One successful bombing wasn't enough—after a while, he would need to do it again. That's why I believe that if he had not been caught, he would have continued to bomb in spite of his promise to The New York Times and The Washington Post not to do so.”
Habermas am Ende
Auf den ersten Blick ist die Sache einfach. Ein illegaler Krieg bleibt ein völkerrechtswidriger Akt, auch wenn er zu Erfolgen führt, die normativ erwünscht sind. Aber ist das die ganze Geschichte? Schlechte Konsequenzen können eine gute Absicht delegitimieren. Können gute Konsequenzen nicht doch eine nachträglich legitimierende Kraft entfalten? Die Massengräber, die unterirdischen Verliese und die Berichte der Gefolterten lassen über die kriminelle Natur des Regimes keinen Zweifel; und die Befreiung einer gequälten Bevölkerung von einem barbarischen Regime ist ein hohes Gut, das höchste unter den politisch erstrebenswerten Gütern. Insofern fällen auch die Iraker, ob sie nun jubeln, plündern, apathisch verharren oder gegen die Besatzer demonstrieren, ein Urteil über die moralische Natur des Krieges.
möge sein verstand in frieden ruhen- falls dies denn nicht schon der fall sein sollte...
Auf den ersten Blick ist die Sache einfach. Ein illegaler Krieg bleibt ein völkerrechtswidriger Akt, auch wenn er zu Erfolgen führt, die normativ erwünscht sind. Aber ist das die ganze Geschichte? Schlechte Konsequenzen können eine gute Absicht delegitimieren. Können gute Konsequenzen nicht doch eine nachträglich legitimierende Kraft entfalten? Die Massengräber, die unterirdischen Verliese und die Berichte der Gefolterten lassen über die kriminelle Natur des Regimes keinen Zweifel; und die Befreiung einer gequälten Bevölkerung von einem barbarischen Regime ist ein hohes Gut, das höchste unter den politisch erstrebenswerten Gütern. Insofern fällen auch die Iraker, ob sie nun jubeln, plündern, apathisch verharren oder gegen die Besatzer demonstrieren, ein Urteil über die moralische Natur des Krieges.
möge sein verstand in frieden ruhen- falls dies denn nicht schon der fall sein sollte...
DU
* "The office of the US Army Surgeon General informed the media July 31 that teams of medical specialists have been dispatched to both Iraq and the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany to investigate why a pneumonia-like condition is striking down American military personnel who took part in the invasion of Iraq. At least 100 soldiers have been hospitalized with severe respiratory problems since March 1. Fifteen have been so ill they have required ventilator support to stay alive. Two have died, while three reportedly remain under close supervision at Landstuhl."
DU @ Gulf War II? Probably (obviously).
* "The Pentagon and United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks in Iraq in March and April -- far more than the estimated 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.
...
In June, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer conducted tests at six sites from Basra to Baghdad, and found elevated levels of radiation at all of them. One destroyed tank near Baghdad was 1,500 times more radioactive than normal background radiation. Another was 1,400 times more radioactive than background."
* newscientist.com: 'Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed
"Now Liquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance from penetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten."
* "The office of the US Army Surgeon General informed the media July 31 that teams of medical specialists have been dispatched to both Iraq and the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany to investigate why a pneumonia-like condition is striking down American military personnel who took part in the invasion of Iraq. At least 100 soldiers have been hospitalized with severe respiratory problems since March 1. Fifteen have been so ill they have required ventilator support to stay alive. Two have died, while three reportedly remain under close supervision at Landstuhl."
DU @ Gulf War II? Probably (obviously).
* "The Pentagon and United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks in Iraq in March and April -- far more than the estimated 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War.
...
In June, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer conducted tests at six sites from Basra to Baghdad, and found elevated levels of radiation at all of them. One destroyed tank near Baghdad was 1,500 times more radioactive than normal background radiation. Another was 1,400 times more radioactive than background."
* newscientist.com: 'Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed
"Now Liquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance from penetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten."
10.8.03
In "Supremacy by Stealth," his cover story for the July/August Atlantic, Robert D. Kaplan states simply that we have gotten ourselves into the business of empire. (He leaves it to others to debate the necessity or morality of such a move.) Concentrating on empire's practical side, he asks, How do we manage this world?
In order to answer that question, Kaplan has spent much of his time over the past several years traveling with the U.S. military, observing the implementation of American power on a day to day basis by Special Forces troops who work on the ground in countries around the globe. Based partly on these extensive travels, Kaplan has come up with a list of "Rules for Managing the World"
etc
In order to answer that question, Kaplan has spent much of his time over the past several years traveling with the U.S. military, observing the implementation of American power on a day to day basis by Special Forces troops who work on the ground in countries around the globe. Based partly on these extensive travels, Kaplan has come up with a list of "Rules for Managing the World"
etc
Found this in the lounge inbox, IP compare of email and sitemeter shows that he's a regular visitor to this site:
"Inspired by the loss of his TV show to an angry outburst at a caller, here's my attempt last night to provoke Michael Savage off the radio.
(Rough Transcript)
"MS: Okay, I wanna hear from you callers out there, the ones who were raised by leftist parents... all you red-diaper doper babies out there. I wanna hear if you liked them, if they screwed you up, whatever. Our first call's from Justin in Los Angeles. Justin, welcome to the Savage Nation.
Justin (S.P.): Hi Michael. I'm definitely one of those kids-of-leftists you're talking about. My father was very big into civil rights and poverty issues back in the sixties. I hate to disappoint you though: he wasn't really a hippie or anything like that, he was more a nerdy kind of activist, you know, the kind with short hair...
MS: Uh-huh.
Justin: And I guess, 'cuz he spent a lot of time trying to help out other people and causes and the like, he wasn't really home all that much, or not as much as he could've been, and I know it must've had some impact on the family, but y'know what?
MS: What?
Justin: You aren't fit to lick his boots.
MS: (enraged) What?! What the hell do you know about me? What the hell do you know about anything? You don't know anything about me, about what I've done... about my work in nutrition, in conservation... anything! How would you know anything about me?
Justin: Well, I hear what you say on the radio...
MS: You don't know anything! You're just stupid, like the rest of them, what do you know?
Justin: I've heard your mother still cries when you try to seduce her...
MS: WHAT! YOU BASTARD! You FILTHY FILTHY BASTARD! You just come here and say that! You just come down to the studio... any time any place, I swear to god you filthy, filthy miserable leftist commie son of a bitch... (etc. etc. for another minute or two...)"
Since the show's on a seven second delay I'm sure they cut my last line off the air, but there was no question he heard it. Damn near had an aneurysm. Maybe next time.
I highly suggest you try this sometime: call into the Michael Savage show, talk your way past the screener and just say something intensely cruel to him. You wouldn't believe how satisfying it is. -SP"
"Inspired by the loss of his TV show to an angry outburst at a caller, here's my attempt last night to provoke Michael Savage off the radio.
(Rough Transcript)
"MS: Okay, I wanna hear from you callers out there, the ones who were raised by leftist parents... all you red-diaper doper babies out there. I wanna hear if you liked them, if they screwed you up, whatever. Our first call's from Justin in Los Angeles. Justin, welcome to the Savage Nation.
Justin (S.P.): Hi Michael. I'm definitely one of those kids-of-leftists you're talking about. My father was very big into civil rights and poverty issues back in the sixties. I hate to disappoint you though: he wasn't really a hippie or anything like that, he was more a nerdy kind of activist, you know, the kind with short hair...
MS: Uh-huh.
Justin: And I guess, 'cuz he spent a lot of time trying to help out other people and causes and the like, he wasn't really home all that much, or not as much as he could've been, and I know it must've had some impact on the family, but y'know what?
MS: What?
Justin: You aren't fit to lick his boots.
MS: (enraged) What?! What the hell do you know about me? What the hell do you know about anything? You don't know anything about me, about what I've done... about my work in nutrition, in conservation... anything! How would you know anything about me?
Justin: Well, I hear what you say on the radio...
MS: You don't know anything! You're just stupid, like the rest of them, what do you know?
Justin: I've heard your mother still cries when you try to seduce her...
MS: WHAT! YOU BASTARD! You FILTHY FILTHY BASTARD! You just come here and say that! You just come down to the studio... any time any place, I swear to god you filthy, filthy miserable leftist commie son of a bitch... (etc. etc. for another minute or two...)"
Since the show's on a seven second delay I'm sure they cut my last line off the air, but there was no question he heard it. Damn near had an aneurysm. Maybe next time.
I highly suggest you try this sometime: call into the Michael Savage show, talk your way past the screener and just say something intensely cruel to him. You wouldn't believe how satisfying it is. -SP"
US admits to using napalm in Iraq
"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
via blog left
"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
via blog left
Went on hunt in sphere to see what's around and found:
* Possibly the most enjoyable blog-read I ever had, (content!!):
"The more I read of Hegel the more I moved away from this British Marxism because of its conception of Marxism as a universal science of history; it being analytic philosophy; the hostility to romanticism; and the antagonism to poststructuralism based on lack of understanding and knowledge of continental philosophy. My shift away from this analytic Marxism took place between Literature of Revolution: Essays on Marxism, (London: Verso 1986) and Discourses of Extremity: Radical Ethics and Post-Marxist Extravagances, (London: Verso 1990.) I read it as a growing conservatism that was exemplied by Christopher Norris around about this time. There was much more meat in Adorno who started from the crisis of Enlightenment's scientific reason and was able to think and write dialectically. That is enough to put one off side with analytic Marxism."
* Douglas Kellner, an F'school scholar by the looks of it, has own blog.
* Also interesting is this. See for self.
* Possibly the most enjoyable blog-read I ever had, (content!!):
"The more I read of Hegel the more I moved away from this British Marxism because of its conception of Marxism as a universal science of history; it being analytic philosophy; the hostility to romanticism; and the antagonism to poststructuralism based on lack of understanding and knowledge of continental philosophy. My shift away from this analytic Marxism took place between Literature of Revolution: Essays on Marxism, (London: Verso 1986) and Discourses of Extremity: Radical Ethics and Post-Marxist Extravagances, (London: Verso 1990.) I read it as a growing conservatism that was exemplied by Christopher Norris around about this time. There was much more meat in Adorno who started from the crisis of Enlightenment's scientific reason and was able to think and write dialectically. That is enough to put one off side with analytic Marxism."
* Douglas Kellner, an F'school scholar by the looks of it, has own blog.
* Also interesting is this. See for self.
Hobsbawm:
"The sudden emergence of an extraordinary, ruthless, antagonistic flaunting of US power is hard to understand, all the more so since it fits neither with long-tested imperial policies developed during the cold war, nor the interests of the US economy. The policies that have recently prevailed in Washington seem to all outsiders so mad that it is difficult to understand what is really intended. But patently a public assertion of global supremacy by military force is what is in the minds of the people who are at present dominating, or at least half-dominating, the policy-making in Washington. Its purpose remains unclear."
"The sudden emergence of an extraordinary, ruthless, antagonistic flaunting of US power is hard to understand, all the more so since it fits neither with long-tested imperial policies developed during the cold war, nor the interests of the US economy. The policies that have recently prevailed in Washington seem to all outsiders so mad that it is difficult to understand what is really intended. But patently a public assertion of global supremacy by military force is what is in the minds of the people who are at present dominating, or at least half-dominating, the policy-making in Washington. Its purpose remains unclear."
This actually seems to be happening - Americans opposed to US interventionism in Iraq are facing arrests, job losses, threats
"After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war last fall, he lost his job as President George W. Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months.
"I've been told I will never be used by the White House again."
Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war. The American Civil Liberties Union has documented more than 300 allegations of wrongful arrest and police brutality from demonstrators at anti-war rallies in Washington and New York."
...
"Internet chat rooms have spouted "tons and tons of vitriol aimed at us," says McArdle, a former network TV executive.
"Things like, `Tell me where Tim Robbins lives and I'll go bash out his brains,'" she says.
"Or, `If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iraq? Why don't you move to Canada?'
"The real backlash comes from the right wing, from America's talk radio guys — when their ratings are down — not from the industry," McArdle says. "We get the `You're either with us or agin' us.'"
Comes with the territory, she adds.
"We're a nation of dissenters."
...
"Peace scholar Stephen Zunes — so-named for winning a Peace and Justice Studies Association award for leadership in promoting such scholarship — says he was recently "uninvited" to speak to the Arizona state bar association despite a six-month-old commitment."
"After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war last fall, he lost his job as President George W. Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months.
"I've been told I will never be used by the White House again."
Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war. The American Civil Liberties Union has documented more than 300 allegations of wrongful arrest and police brutality from demonstrators at anti-war rallies in Washington and New York."
...
"Internet chat rooms have spouted "tons and tons of vitriol aimed at us," says McArdle, a former network TV executive.
"Things like, `Tell me where Tim Robbins lives and I'll go bash out his brains,'" she says.
"Or, `If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iraq? Why don't you move to Canada?'
"The real backlash comes from the right wing, from America's talk radio guys — when their ratings are down — not from the industry," McArdle says. "We get the `You're either with us or agin' us.'"
Comes with the territory, she adds.
"We're a nation of dissenters."
...
"Peace scholar Stephen Zunes — so-named for winning a Peace and Justice Studies Association award for leadership in promoting such scholarship — says he was recently "uninvited" to speak to the Arizona state bar association despite a six-month-old commitment."
8.8.03
Have come across this sort of pro-US argumentation several times: "it's always the big bad USA, however nobody thinks about how much America spends on foreign aid". No wonder.
"The three best foreign aid providers in 2002, measured by the aid percentage of their gross domestic products, were Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79). The worst was the US (0.10%) followed by the UK (0.23%)."
Might be the largest figure out there, but actually relative peanuts.
"The three best foreign aid providers in 2002, measured by the aid percentage of their gross domestic products, were Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79). The worst was the US (0.10%) followed by the UK (0.23%)."
Might be the largest figure out there, but actually relative peanuts.
'Only freedom can inspire men to great things and bring about intellectual and social transformations. The art of ruling men has never been the art of educating and inspiring them to a new shaping of their lives. Dreary compulsion has at its command only lifeless drill, which smothers any vital initiative at its birth and brings forth only subjects, not free men*. Freedom is the very essence of life, the impelling force in all intellectual and social development, the creator of every new outlook for the future of mankind. The liberation of man from economic exploitation and from intellectual, social and political oppression, which finds its highest expression in the philosophy of Anarchism, is the first prerequisite for the evolution of a higher social culture and a new humanity' - Rudolf Rocker
*'A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body'
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
...more on education; an interesting essay on the birth of state-controlled education, despite perennial 'lordy lordy' currents: growth of modern absolutism and death of church/aristocracy attributed to the rise of the 'absolute state' and the inauguration of 'schooling' as a social tool- criticism spot on for state, but fails to apply similar approach to the inherent manipulation and indoctrination similarly exercised through religious edu./institutions, nonetheless…
*'A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body'
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
...more on education; an interesting essay on the birth of state-controlled education, despite perennial 'lordy lordy' currents: growth of modern absolutism and death of church/aristocracy attributed to the rise of the 'absolute state' and the inauguration of 'schooling' as a social tool- criticism spot on for state, but fails to apply similar approach to the inherent manipulation and indoctrination similarly exercised through religious edu./institutions, nonetheless…
7.8.03
"Social cohesion is the other argument for a maximum wage. Crime and unhappiness stalk unequal societies. In the UK the bottom 50% of the population now owns only 1% of the wealth: in 1976 they owned 12%. Our economic system's incentive structure, instead of "trickle-down", is causing a "flood-up" of resources from the poor to the rich. Inequality leads to instability, the last thing the country or world needs right now."
On the Topicality of Selected Aspects of Herbert Marcuse's Works
Revolutionary Subject
"Concerning fundamental social change, the question about the difference between the inside and the outside is very important. The question is whether forces that negate existing society can sublate it from the inside or from the outside. Marcuse (1966a) discussed this question and I am following his view in this respect. He argues that there are forces that negate bourgeois society which stand outside the system and try to work against the latter. He sees the outside in the sense of social forces that represent needs and goals which are suppressed in the existing antagonistic totality and can not unfold themselves in this system (1966a: 198).
Here he speaks of humans as the potential main productive force of revolution who can put their consciousness and practice outside of the system, they can transcend the existing false totality and work towards its sublation. The “Keimform” (germ) of a new society does not so much cover social structures for Marcuse, but emancipatory human consciousness which unfortunately seems to be absorbed more and more into the inside of the system in the advanced industrial society."
...
"Emancipatory subjects with class consciousness are necessary. It is not determined whether such a consciousness can be developed today and to which outcome struggles that result from it will lead. Marcuse says that the material and intellectual productive forces that are entangled into the existing antagonisms are ready to enter a higher type of social existence by conscious struggles with the existing forces. The outcome depends on the conditions and possibilities of these struggles and on consciousness that develops from it. A necessary stipulation would be that the subjects become conscious of their slavery and the reasons of it, that they see liberation as something necessary and that they try to find ways towards it (Marcuse 1996c)."
Revolutionary Subject
"Concerning fundamental social change, the question about the difference between the inside and the outside is very important. The question is whether forces that negate existing society can sublate it from the inside or from the outside. Marcuse (1966a) discussed this question and I am following his view in this respect. He argues that there are forces that negate bourgeois society which stand outside the system and try to work against the latter. He sees the outside in the sense of social forces that represent needs and goals which are suppressed in the existing antagonistic totality and can not unfold themselves in this system (1966a: 198).
Here he speaks of humans as the potential main productive force of revolution who can put their consciousness and practice outside of the system, they can transcend the existing false totality and work towards its sublation. The “Keimform” (germ) of a new society does not so much cover social structures for Marcuse, but emancipatory human consciousness which unfortunately seems to be absorbed more and more into the inside of the system in the advanced industrial society."
...
"Emancipatory subjects with class consciousness are necessary. It is not determined whether such a consciousness can be developed today and to which outcome struggles that result from it will lead. Marcuse says that the material and intellectual productive forces that are entangled into the existing antagonisms are ready to enter a higher type of social existence by conscious struggles with the existing forces. The outcome depends on the conditions and possibilities of these struggles and on consciousness that develops from it. A necessary stipulation would be that the subjects become conscious of their slavery and the reasons of it, that they see liberation as something necessary and that they try to find ways towards it (Marcuse 1996c)."
The political economy of American militarism
"The immediate impetus for the drive to global domination by the US is rooted in the crisis of capitalist accumulation, expressed in the persistent downward pressure on the rate of profit and the failure of the most strenuous efforts over the past 25 years to overcome it. But it is more than this. At the most fundamental level, the eruption of US imperialism represents a desperate attempt to overcome, albeit in a reactionary manner, the central contradiction that has bedeviled the capitalist system for the best part of the last century.
The US came to economic and political ascendancy as World War I exploded. The war, as Trotsky analysed, was rooted in the contradiction between the development of the productive forces on a global scale and the division of the world among competing great powers. Each of these powers sought to resolve the contradiction by establishing its own ascendancy, thereby coming into collision with its rivals."
...
"The US conquest of Iraq must be placed within this historical and political context. The drive for global domination represents the attempt by American imperialism to resolve the central contradiction of world capitalism by creating a kind of global American empire, operating according to the rules of the “free market” interpreted in accordance with the economic needs and interests of US capital, and policed by its military and the military forces of its allies.
This deranged vision of global order was set out by Bush in his address to West Point graduates on June 1, 2002. The US, he said, now had the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to “build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.” Competition between great nations was inevitable, but war was not. That was because “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge thereby making the destabilising arms races of other eras pointless and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”
This proposal to reorganise the world is even more reactionary than when it was first advanced in 1914. The US push for global domination, driven on as it is by the crisis in the very heart of the profit system, cannot bring peace, much less prosperity, but only deepening attacks on the world’s people, enforced by military and dictatorial forms of rule.
What then is the way forward? How to fight the drive for global domination by US imperialism and all the catastrophes that flow from it? That is the problem history has presented us with."
"The immediate impetus for the drive to global domination by the US is rooted in the crisis of capitalist accumulation, expressed in the persistent downward pressure on the rate of profit and the failure of the most strenuous efforts over the past 25 years to overcome it. But it is more than this. At the most fundamental level, the eruption of US imperialism represents a desperate attempt to overcome, albeit in a reactionary manner, the central contradiction that has bedeviled the capitalist system for the best part of the last century.
The US came to economic and political ascendancy as World War I exploded. The war, as Trotsky analysed, was rooted in the contradiction between the development of the productive forces on a global scale and the division of the world among competing great powers. Each of these powers sought to resolve the contradiction by establishing its own ascendancy, thereby coming into collision with its rivals."
...
"The US conquest of Iraq must be placed within this historical and political context. The drive for global domination represents the attempt by American imperialism to resolve the central contradiction of world capitalism by creating a kind of global American empire, operating according to the rules of the “free market” interpreted in accordance with the economic needs and interests of US capital, and policed by its military and the military forces of its allies.
This deranged vision of global order was set out by Bush in his address to West Point graduates on June 1, 2002. The US, he said, now had the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to “build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.” Competition between great nations was inevitable, but war was not. That was because “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge thereby making the destabilising arms races of other eras pointless and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”
This proposal to reorganise the world is even more reactionary than when it was first advanced in 1914. The US push for global domination, driven on as it is by the crisis in the very heart of the profit system, cannot bring peace, much less prosperity, but only deepening attacks on the world’s people, enforced by military and dictatorial forms of rule.
What then is the way forward? How to fight the drive for global domination by US imperialism and all the catastrophes that flow from it? That is the problem history has presented us with."
* oh dear...
"...but the Habermas-Derrida declaration praises the WTO and even the International Monetary Fund as part of Weltinnenpolitik: maddeningly hard to translate, but something like "global domestic policy" or "external internal policy"..."
...
"Habermas is the chief heir of the Frankfurt school, a peculiar but greatly admired Marxist tradition, which included T.W. Adorno (Habermas's teacher). In this article, Habermas does allude in passing to Adorno's own critique of the Enlightenment, which was much less extreme than Derrida's.
In the past few decades, Habermas's politics can hardly be distinguished from those of any other constitutionalist, liberal social-democrat. He is no longer a 1960s radical, and he has taken in major public controversies about German history as the leading voice of conventional, respectable thought.
After all, Marxism is a rationalist or would-be-rational, modernizing ideology, in spite of some murky, interesting origins in the depths of German philosophy." [?]
Some things just seem impossible to express/receive without a tainting skew...
* Habermas-Derrida interview - has been circulated amongst us before...
"...but the Habermas-Derrida declaration praises the WTO and even the International Monetary Fund as part of Weltinnenpolitik: maddeningly hard to translate, but something like "global domestic policy" or "external internal policy"..."
...
"Habermas is the chief heir of the Frankfurt school, a peculiar but greatly admired Marxist tradition, which included T.W. Adorno (Habermas's teacher). In this article, Habermas does allude in passing to Adorno's own critique of the Enlightenment, which was much less extreme than Derrida's.
In the past few decades, Habermas's politics can hardly be distinguished from those of any other constitutionalist, liberal social-democrat. He is no longer a 1960s radical, and he has taken in major public controversies about German history as the leading voice of conventional, respectable thought.
After all, Marxism is a rationalist or would-be-rational, modernizing ideology, in spite of some murky, interesting origins in the depths of German philosophy." [?]
Some things just seem impossible to express/receive without a tainting skew...
* Habermas-Derrida interview - has been circulated amongst us before...
6.8.03
Bertell Ollman
"Capitalism, as such, is virtually invisible in the social sciences. [Don. "To deny reflection is positivism" J.H.]"
...
"So, has capitalism changed a lot since Marx's day? Yes, of course. Is Marx's analysis still relevant? Just because of these changes, it is more relevant now than ever."
"Capitalism, as such, is virtually invisible in the social sciences. [Don. "To deny reflection is positivism" J.H.]"
...
"So, has capitalism changed a lot since Marx's day? Yes, of course. Is Marx's analysis still relevant? Just because of these changes, it is more relevant now than ever."
Funny by nature...
The Guardian: "The Green party's spokesman on drugs has been jailed for six weeks for cultivating cannabis, it was announced today."
The Guardian: "The Green party's spokesman on drugs has been jailed for six weeks for cultivating cannabis, it was announced today."
2002 Think-tank media citation index
"The center-right slant in media citations of think tanks continued in 2002, with conservative groups receiving 47 percent of last year’s citations, centrists 41 percent and progressives 12 percent--the least representation for the left since 1998.
The top 25 think tanks in 2002 received 25,897 citations in major newspapers and broadcast transcripts, according to a search of the Nexis media database. This is an 8 percent decrease from 2001, bucking the trend of increasing think tank citations since the survey began in 1996.
The centrist Brookings Institution maintained the top spot, garnering about one-sixth of the survey’s citations, while another center-oriented group, the Council on Foreign Relations, leapfrogged several think tanks to finish in second place. The Heritage Foundation, in third place, was the highest-ranking conservative think tank, while the ninth-place Economic Policy Institute was the most prominent progressive think tank."
'centrist'... hehe...
"The center-right slant in media citations of think tanks continued in 2002, with conservative groups receiving 47 percent of last year’s citations, centrists 41 percent and progressives 12 percent--the least representation for the left since 1998.
The top 25 think tanks in 2002 received 25,897 citations in major newspapers and broadcast transcripts, according to a search of the Nexis media database. This is an 8 percent decrease from 2001, bucking the trend of increasing think tank citations since the survey began in 1996.
The centrist Brookings Institution maintained the top spot, garnering about one-sixth of the survey’s citations, while another center-oriented group, the Council on Foreign Relations, leapfrogged several think tanks to finish in second place. The Heritage Foundation, in third place, was the highest-ranking conservative think tank, while the ninth-place Economic Policy Institute was the most prominent progressive think tank."
'centrist'... hehe...
5.8.03
'There exists today widespread propaganda which asserts that socialism is dead. But if to be a socialist is to be a person convinced that the words 'the common good' and 'social justice' actually mean something; if to be a socialist is to be outraged at the contempt in which millions and millions of people are held by those in power, by 'market forces', by international financial institutions; if to be a socialist is to be a person determined to do everything in his or her power to alleviate these unforgivably degraded lives, then socialism can never be dead because these aspirations will never die.'
- Harold Pinter (1996) from an artical on Cuban trade embargo...
- Harold Pinter (1996) from an artical on Cuban trade embargo...
4.8.03
Don't know whether you're all familiar with this guy or not, but the artical serves as a pleasant introduction to anarcho-sydicalism:
"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse economic conditions, on the premise that these cannot imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty. Anarchism is an attitude of the spirit towards life and in any and all economic situations not monopolistic, man can be master of himself and should exercise the control of his own will) rejecting imposition from without".
[...]
"The negation of the principle of authority of man over man is not bound up with the realization of a predetermined economic level. It is opposed to Marxism, which desires to attain a system, as a corollary of capitalist evolution. To be an anarchist, one has to attain a certain level of culture, consciousness of power and capacity for self-government. Idiots cannot become anarchists(oh dear...); they must be cared for by society, along with the weak and the incapacitated. We are cognizant of the fact that the grade of economic development and material conditions of life influence powerfully human psychology"
[...]
"...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the organisation of producers. We have followed this norm and we find no need for the hypothesis of a superior power to organised labour, in order to establish a new order of things. We would thank anyone to point out to us what function, if any, the State can have in an economic organisation, where private property has been abolished and in which parasitism and special privilege have no place. The suppression of the State cannot be a languid affair; it must be the task of the Revolution to finish with the State. Either the Revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the producers organise themselves for due collective distribution and the State has nothing to do; or the Revolution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution has been a lie and the State would continue. Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and nothing else."
- 'After The Revolution' (1937) Diego Abad de Santillan
"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse economic conditions, on the premise that these cannot imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty. Anarchism is an attitude of the spirit towards life and in any and all economic situations not monopolistic, man can be master of himself and should exercise the control of his own will) rejecting imposition from without".
[...]
"The negation of the principle of authority of man over man is not bound up with the realization of a predetermined economic level. It is opposed to Marxism, which desires to attain a system, as a corollary of capitalist evolution. To be an anarchist, one has to attain a certain level of culture, consciousness of power and capacity for self-government. Idiots cannot become anarchists(oh dear...); they must be cared for by society, along with the weak and the incapacitated. We are cognizant of the fact that the grade of economic development and material conditions of life influence powerfully human psychology"
[...]
"...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the organisation of producers. We have followed this norm and we find no need for the hypothesis of a superior power to organised labour, in order to establish a new order of things. We would thank anyone to point out to us what function, if any, the State can have in an economic organisation, where private property has been abolished and in which parasitism and special privilege have no place. The suppression of the State cannot be a languid affair; it must be the task of the Revolution to finish with the State. Either the Revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the producers organise themselves for due collective distribution and the State has nothing to do; or the Revolution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution has been a lie and the State would continue. Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and nothing else."
- 'After The Revolution' (1937) Diego Abad de Santillan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)