Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 01-26-2006, 08:35 AM

and so there we have it, folks: in post 12, the recapitulation of the core conservative committment that shapes such support as still exists for the bush administration's "war on terror" charade: here is how the right's critiques of state bureaucracy, with all its internal inconsistencies, converge with manufacturing consent for the various modes of bushwar....the state is understood in rightwingland as essentially a bureaucracy which is irrational by its nature---well, why?--apparently because the state is public, not private, and so does not operate around motives of profit, and because right ideology reduces all human action to p&l calculations, it follows, somehow, that the state is irrational. the conduct of the bushpeople in the context of its "war on terror" charade is perhaps a strong demonstration of the irrationality of a certain segment of state bureaucracy.

the military can only really operate in a war context if it refigures its adversary into a mirror image of itself. in the context of the "war on terror" this refiguring of the Adversary results in nothing but irrationality. as i have said before, the closest parallel to the situation this creates for the americans is that of france in the context of the algerian war, which is more instructive to think about than the other obvious parallel of vietnam (the same error in both cases, but with different results---the french experience in the algerian war tracks the "war on terror" in general, and the lovely party that the americans are throwing in iraq as well.

look it up.

that military bureaucracy is irrational is not news--catch 22 anyone?--it is also a common feature in accounts of the experience of those who, for whatever reason, join the military.

the effect of this critique of public bureaucracy--curiously private corporations, which are just as bureaucratic and--following the right's boy hayek--every bit as irrational as the state (particularly in a monopoly context)--are outside this critique of bureaucracy---go figure----the effect has been curious: its result appears to be a curious focus on the Person of the Leader: so state actions and the questions of legality that attend them are reduced immediately to questions of the personal motivations of the Leader. the ultimate criterion for evaluating state actions lay in speculations about the inward state of affairs in the brain of george w. bush.

think i am joking? read politicophile's post above: that's it's argument.

grotesquely distorted "intelligence" operating as grounds for the invasion of another country? george w bush did not believe he was lying. it is not his fault.

since the mind of george w bush--or anyone else--is not accessible to those of us who do not also circulate within the circuitry of his skull, attributions of motivations--or even contents--to george w bush is an arbitrary exercise. most conservatives are not stupid people, and they know this from their everyday experience: but when it comes to defending this administration, all judgement goes out the window,and george w. bush becomes a kind of father figure, a benevolent signifier which is continually adjusted to correspond to some kind of collective delusion of benevolence and concern. the Big Paterfamilias. the Big Guy who means well even if he fucks up alot, who is looking out for "us" in some coherent way, trying to protect his Children from Harm--who "we" should trust like a father--and in that context, so what if a few pesky laws get ignored or violated? it is all for our own good....besides, these pesky laws are promulgated by the legislative branch, which is also, curiously, kinda irrational, part of the Bureaucracy somehow, and so. and if the people resist? well, those who do so are not among the children of this particular Father, not one of "us"--so they must be one of "them"--you know, the enemy, the adversary, Satan blah blah blah--and so they are naturally suspect and should not be surprised if Dad, who worries about his children, tries to keep tabs on them.

just trying to make that which is inconsistent about rightwingland consistent folks.
it works fairly well: the outcomes of it are authoritarian, if you think about it, but i am sure this will not worry the nice Children of george w. bush, who gloss over the matter of implications of adminstration policies and actions by assuring themselves that He Means Well.

and so you get an outline of the bizarre notion of "trust"---folk from the right choose to "trust" this administration---i dont see how else that trust could be either formulated or implemented.

it is idiotic when you say it out loud.
it apparently is compelling for conservatives who continue to support this administration.
i do not understand the appeal.
but i am not a nice child.

01-26-2006, 08:35 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and so there we have it, folks: in post 12, the recapitulation of the core conservative committment that shapes such support as still exists for the bush administration's "war on terror" charade: here is how the right's critiques of state bureaucracy, with all its internal inconsistencies, converge with manufacturing consent for the various modes of bushwar....the state is understood in rightwingland as essentially a bureaucracy which is irrational by its nature---well, why?--apparently because the state is public, not private, and so does not operate around motives of profit, and because right ideology reduces all human action to p&l calculations, it follows, somehow, that the state is irrational. the conduct of the bushpeople in the context of its "war on terror" charade is perhaps a strong demonstration of the irrationality of a certain segment of state bureaucracy. the military can only really operate in a war context if it refigures its adversary into a mirror image of itself. in the context of the "war on terror" this refiguring of the Adversary results in nothing but irrationality. as i have said before, the closest parallel to the situation this creates for the americans is that of france in the context of the algerian war, which is more instructive to think about than the other obvious parallel of vietnam (the same error in both cases, but with different results---the french experience in the algerian war tracks the "war on terror" in general, and the lovely party that the americans are throwing in iraq as well. look it up. that military bureaucracy is irrational is not news--catch 22 anyone?--it is also a common feature in accounts of the experience of those who, for whatever reason, join the military. the effect of this critique of public bureaucracy--curiously private corporations, which are just as bureaucratic and--following the right's boy hayek--every bit as irrational as the state (particularly in a monopoly context)--are outside this critique of bureaucracy---go figure----the effect has been curious: its result appears to be a curious focus on the Person of the Leader: so state actions and the questions of legality that attend them are reduced immediately to questions of the personal motivations of the Leader. the ultimate criterion for evaluating state actions lay in speculations about the inward state of affairs in the brain of george w. bush. think i am joking? read politicophile's post above: that's it's argument. grotesquely distorted "intelligence" operating as grounds for the invasion of another country? george w bush did not believe he was lying. it is not his fault. since the mind of george w bush--or anyone else--is not accessible to those of us who do not also circulate within the circuitry of his skull, attributions of motivations--or even contents--to george w bush is an arbitrary exercise. most conservatives are not stupid people, and they know this from their everyday experience: but when it comes to defending this administration, all judgement goes out the window,and george w. bush becomes a kind of father figure, a benevolent signifier which is continually adjusted to correspond to some kind of collective delusion of benevolence and concern. the Big Paterfamilias. the Big Guy who means well even if he fucks up alot, who is looking out for "us" in some coherent way, trying to protect his Children from Harm--who "we" should trust like a father--and in that context, so what if a few pesky laws get ignored or violated? it is all for our own good....besides, these pesky laws are promulgated by the legislative branch, which is also, curiously, kinda irrational, part of the Bureaucracy somehow, and so. and if the people resist? well, those who do so are not among the children of this particular Father, not one of "us"--so they must be one of "them"--you know, the enemy, the adversary, Satan blah blah blah--and so they are naturally suspect and should not be surprised if Dad, who worries about his children, tries to keep tabs on them. just trying to make that which is inconsistent about rightwingland consistent folks. it works fairly well: the outcomes of it are authoritarian, if you think about it, but i am sure this will not worry the nice Children of george w. bush, who gloss over the matter of implications of adminstration policies and actions by assuring themselves that He Means Well. and so you get an outline of the bizarre notion of "trust"---folk from the right choose to "trust" this administration---i dont see how else that trust could be either formulated or implemented. it is idiotic when you say it out loud. it apparently is compelling for conservatives who continue to support this administration. i do not understand the appeal. but i am not a nice child. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite