Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

powerclown · 05-23-2005, 10:14 AM

roachboy,

1) While I agree with you that another administration's response to 9/11 might have been different, I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the current one's as simple-minded and without careful thought or planning. It's my belief that there was extremely careful, intense, and intelligent analysis - from very, very bright people in the know - of the situation from a geopolitical perspective, as opposed to a philosophical one. Desperate, uncompromising and unprincipled terrorists (in this case) care little for the nuances of Marx, Jefferson or Nietzsche. So the question becomes: How to deal with such uncompromising brutality? From everything I've seen so far, I think the term 'clash of civilizations' is a logical and accurate representation of the ramifications of globalization. In saying that, it might be helpful to realize that the first criticism of the 'imperial colonialist' (a term I disagree with as it pertains to America, as there are no large and significantly permanent 'societies' of Americans outside America) - that she beligerently strayed from her borders without provocation - I see as questionable, when, for example, America was invited into Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves to help them with their oil-extracting technologies, to the fury of the Wahabbists. Globalization meets Old-Tyme Religion. But how can the Saudi rulers be to blame, when they are trying to exploit a natural resource for the benefit (one imagines) of their own people, including, ironically enough, the Wahabbists.

2) The power of nationalism shouldn't be underestimated. Again, it's sometimes unclear where to distinguish the lines of philosophical discourse and political reality. Speaking relatively, 'Fascism', or a fascist regime, formed in Germany practically overnight. I don't think it absurd at all to characterize the formation of Nazi Germany as practically an overnight occurence. 20 years, give or take, for a relatively 'benign' society to be completely transformed into an destructive, homocidal juggernaut is an historic instant in the timeline of humanity. One can debate an inherent war-like tendency of the indigenous people elsewhere. The point is that HitlerWorld successfully 'flipped the switch' and transformed a country 'overnight'.

3) While I agree completely that mass media can be used as a powerful tool of state-sponsored propaganda, I just don't see a link between the Bush Administration and a sympathetic Media in it's service. How to explain the numerous and flagrantly hostile anti-Bush Administration media-driven public relations disasters that have been reported? To me it almost seems a case of checks and balances gone awry. "The lunatics are now running the asylum". Now if one wants to characterize these media public relations disasters as a campaign of deception orchestrated on the part of the Bush Administration, as possibly a funtional means of releasing psychic tension on a grand scale masqerading as something more sinister, as it were, there could and should always be room for further such disucssion and exploration now and in the future. Suffice it to say I don't see things this way.

4) I must admit honestly that I sense a certain amount of alienation on your part in the current (and not so current) history of American political discourse which is fine, insofar as the discussion here is concerned. I am in no position to validate (or invalidate) the entire political history of any country. Of course, it pays to be attentive when using broad strokes. I believe it is always helpful in one's political analysis to consider the nature of the surrounding world as well, the nature in which a given political system arises, as nothing 'good or bad' is ever formed in a vacuum, of course. As it pertains to your post, I must once again deny a Bush/MassMedia complicity, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to characterize the media as 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination, UNLESS one sees a hostile media environment - this current media environment - as a creation from on high. As well, I do not miss out on the facts that drives certain conspiracy theories, such as the preponderance of media control and content in the hands of Jews, for example.

5) I must admit that I found this paragraph to be the most interesting of the 6. If there is one thing that can almost universally be attributed to the current american administration, it is in it's benevolence not only to american business, but to large (and not-so-large) businesses around the world. Did you know that IBM just recently sold off its ENTIRE pc computer division to a chinese company? It was a curious and telling circumstance that, when quoted to speak on bush's re-election, many world leaders praised the fruitful working business relationships that existed between america and their respective countries. Ironically, in a world political climate characterized time and again in the media as 'strained', 'stand-offish', and downright hostile, the world business/financial climate amongst the major nations has flourished almost completely unimpeded. It is business as usual alongside the 'global war on terror'. Politicians play their games - Moneymakers play theirs. In this information age, I see capitalism as being somewhat disconnected from politics when viewed on a global (inter-connected) scale.

05-23-2005, 10:14 AM	#46 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	roachboy, 1) While I agree with you that another administration's response to 9/11 might have been different, I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the current one's as simple-minded and without careful thought or planning. It's my belief that there was extremely careful, intense, and intelligent analysis - from very, very bright people in the know - of the situation from a geopolitical perspective, as opposed to a philosophical one. Desperate, uncompromising and unprincipled terrorists (in this case) care little for the nuances of Marx, Jefferson or Nietzsche. So the question becomes: How to deal with such uncompromising brutality? From everything I've seen so far, I think the term 'clash of civilizations' is a logical and accurate representation of the ramifications of globalization. In saying that, it might be helpful to realize that the first criticism of the 'imperial colonialist' (a term I disagree with as it pertains to America, as there are no large and significantly permanent 'societies' of Americans outside America) - that she beligerently strayed from her borders without provocation - I see as questionable, when, for example, America was invited into Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves to help them with their oil-extracting technologies, to the fury of the Wahabbists. Globalization meets Old-Tyme Religion. But how can the Saudi rulers be to blame, when they are trying to exploit a natural resource for the benefit (one imagines) of their own people, including, ironically enough, the Wahabbists. 2) The power of nationalism shouldn't be underestimated. Again, it's sometimes unclear where to distinguish the lines of philosophical discourse and political reality. Speaking relatively, 'Fascism', or a fascist regime, formed in Germany practically overnight. I don't think it absurd at all to characterize the formation of Nazi Germany as practically an overnight occurence. 20 years, give or take, for a relatively 'benign' society to be completely transformed into an destructive, homocidal juggernaut is an historic instant in the timeline of humanity. One can debate an inherent war-like tendency of the indigenous people elsewhere. The point is that HitlerWorld successfully 'flipped the switch' and transformed a country 'overnight'. 3) While I agree completely that mass media can be used as a powerful tool of state-sponsored propaganda, I just don't see a link between the Bush Administration and a sympathetic Media in it's service. How to explain the numerous and flagrantly hostile anti-Bush Administration media-driven public relations disasters that have been reported? To me it almost seems a case of checks and balances gone awry. "The lunatics are now running the asylum". Now if one wants to characterize these media public relations disasters as a campaign of deception orchestrated on the part of the Bush Administration, as possibly a funtional means of releasing psychic tension on a grand scale masqerading as something more sinister, as it were, there could and should always be room for further such disucssion and exploration now and in the future. Suffice it to say I don't see things this way. 4) I must admit honestly that I sense a certain amount of alienation on your part in the current (and not so current) history of American political discourse which is fine, insofar as the discussion here is concerned. I am in no position to validate (or invalidate) the entire political history of any country. Of course, it pays to be attentive when using broad strokes. I believe it is always helpful in one's political analysis to consider the nature of the surrounding world as well, the nature in which a given political system arises, as nothing 'good or bad' is ever formed in a vacuum, of course. As it pertains to your post, I must once again deny a Bush/MassMedia complicity, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to characterize the media as 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination, UNLESS one sees a hostile media environment - this current media environment - as a creation from on high. As well, I do not miss out on the facts that drives certain conspiracy theories, such as the preponderance of media control and content in the hands of Jews, for example. 5) I must admit that I found this paragraph to be the most interesting of the 6. If there is one thing that can almost universally be attributed to the current american administration, it is in it's benevolence not only to american business, but to large (and not-so-large) businesses around the world. Did you know that IBM just recently sold off its ENTIRE pc computer division to a chinese company? It was a curious and telling circumstance that, when quoted to speak on bush's re-election, many world leaders praised the fruitful working business relationships that existed between america and their respective countries. Ironically, in a world political climate characterized time and again in the media as 'strained', 'stand-offish', and downright hostile, the world business/financial climate amongst the major nations has flourished almost completely unimpeded. It is business as usual alongside the 'global war on terror'. Politicians play their games - Moneymakers play theirs. In this information age, I see capitalism as being somewhat disconnected from politics when viewed on a global (inter-connected) scale.