[iDC] Re: The politics of cultural production

[A. G-C]

Dear SauI, dear all,

What appears to me following the line of this subject, it is the survival of
the dialectic materialist concept of Culture as a political struggle. Just
to remind how the class struggle for the revolution until once taken the
power yet became the following fight of the power against its reactive
enemies (as well the former power, as well between social mass the former
ideology of the traditional more of the capitalistic society of production),
this concept of Culture always developed as a militant avant-gardist
representation containing the representative conditions of progress
(performing the political economy criticism against the political economy),
is according with a mode of war even as ideas (through the hierarchy of the
war or of activism holding the very true concept) front of the peoples (that
do not know or hope but the mass ‹challenge of all the political
representatives whatever their board).

At the moment we entered the post productive society, since just before it
stopped till just after the Cold war, at the same time may be the
Klausewitzian relevance of the war ended in opportunity thanks the ascent
without barriers of the supra national organizations, as their leadership
globally recognized become triumphing ; by a matter of fact in the global
world far from the political dialectical disposition between the supreme
power and the localized powers, any war in the name of the right of
intervention for the respect of human rights, in the frame of the inherited
right of people freely disposing of themselves to edify nations, would have
been far from the best, on the contrary a grave error installing perverse
meta global powers. Maybe including the fact that Kossovo inaugurated the
proceeding of the survival of the dialectical representation, in general
situations which did not correspond any more to them, and that mainly drive
to approve Iraq ‹ quote quite below the second article published on Kosovo
by Baudrillard in Libération, 1999 (sorry in French as it does not exist
EN-US translations online, but any one to make it?), that I think today
really predictable as a death of the culture to what it unfortunately refers
(Kosovo in 1999 or more indifferently any country of EU at the moment the EU
is formed as a fact of a new supranational State).

Death of the Left. But for another hand this sort of dialectical
misunderstanding on avant gardes detaining a believing truth of the
objective as means caused great damages though the activists of the post
productive society: remember the film titled ³Ice² on the Weathermen, by
Robert Kramer (a critical Journalist at last a weatherman himself then
leaving) just before he went exiled in France, when activists pointing their
Kalashnikovs ([?) Don¹t remember exactly the guns] to the people of a
popular residence... Not to quote EU activism hard turning. Was the death of
Leftism at the time of the decline of its dialectical couple with the Left
(as well the post productive revolutionary one as well the post productive
reformist one), of the society of progress?

Equally, there is a permanent remind of the war trough the ideological
leftist universe of critical hacking of the Net and fronting equally hackers
(of the power) in the other part.

But at the moment there is power can be violence, can be peace, can be
dictatorship, can be democracy or republic of the rights (the ³res publica²
being dissolved in the neo liberal privatization as well the public common
properties as well the public common virtual properties even the rights of
acknowledge and of the tolerated difference as diverse), there is a power to
govern against a part of the desire and more ignoring otherness. There is a
following remind of the war in the critical concept of culture. But where is
the renewing revolution of reference? Is it that one of the following
objective to justify the means ‹ I mean the good objective to justify
whatever the means = as culture? So: it is the war.

I do not even say to myself that this warrior attitude of the materialist
modernity in any approach of abstract or material things is connected to a
way of thinking; I say to myself that it is connected as reflex from an an
ancestral way of thinking the modernity by the way of the struggle of the
productive class to get at the power, rather than project of realizing the
collective/ individualized autonomy, thus it would have become an absorbed
culture, and consequently except brainwashing by new Guards or new camps,
nothing could destroy it: it has become archaic (the same as the Tech as a
force in the place of the force of the nature, but as a matter of the fact
of the struggle of class, even the poorest part of the society is not a
productive exploited one but an excluded part from the economy. So what
revolution of reference ( bis ) and who to get at the power but the new
critical bureaucracy instead of the live institutionalizing peoples?

Hope convince anyone to any mode of life in society is far from my
intentions... More may be this eternal question turn out in another matter
to think and project front of the obvious reality that the former vision of
the war does not drives more to any change nowadays? Just now it appears
otherwise the question: the war but the other war.

What is Global Guerrillas: 4GW -- Fourth Generation Warfare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare

More: ³It has been said that "fourth generation warfare" (4GW) includes all
forms of conflict where the other side refuses to stand up and fight
fair.(...) Note that as with human generations, several may be alive and
functioning simultaneously.  The word "generations," though, is an analogy
to help gain new insights, and it is wise not to push it too far ("species"
might be more descriptive, but "generations" seems to have stuck).² In a
site of ³Defense² (dedicated to nationalist interest -private)...

Narration and virtualism in the 4GW (Sorry mostly FR):
³L¹effet stratégique se fait déjà sentir
    Nous évoluons donc dans deux champs bien distincts, complètement séparés
et qui, pourtant, interfèrent l¹un l¹autre. Lorsque les deux champs sont
confrontés, l¹effet est considérable. Les premiers signes concrets de cet
effet se font déjà sentir. C¹est là que nous retrouvons la définition de
base de la G4G.
    Il y a un point qui nous a toujours intéressé dans cette définition,
point sur lequel Lind ne manque jamais d¹insister. Il s¹agit de la question
de l¹opposition d¹un acteur non étatique à un Etat, ce qui est bien le cas
d¹Israël contre le Hezbollah. Nous y ajoutons la question de la légitimité
et ce qui va avec (* identité, souveraineté). (Nous avons largement
développé ce thème dans notre F&C du 25 juillet déjà cité.)
    La G4G, pour être la ³guerre² de notre temps, doit reproduire le grand
enjeu politique de notre temps. Quel grand enjeu? Celui d¹une bataille entre
la légitimité, l¹identité et la souveraineté contre les pressions
déstructurantes d¹un mouvement général qui ne dissimule même pas cette
ambition. (La Maison-Blanche veut un ³New Middle-East², Condi Rice nous
décrit l¹affrontement Israël-Hezbollah comme ³the birth pangs of a new
Middle East².)
    C¹est donc une bataille sur ce terrain : la guerre GAG est une guerre où
la légitimité est un enjeu parce qu¹elle est, littéralement, au centre du
jeu. La faiblesse de Tsahal dans cette affaire est bien son absence de
légitimité, pour la simple raison, ‹ dénoncée par nombre de commentateurs
israéliens, ‹ qu¹elle agit comme ³proxy² des USA. Contre cela, le Hezbollah
y gagne une légitimité à mesure.  (...)
http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=3033


        The other war: the question appears more precisely by quoting the
4GW (4th Generation War) critical theory of William S. Lind, whose last
remarkable notes about the war of Lebanon published in antiwar.com issue of
July 19th can be yet now relevant (integral quotation below); but more
integrating the stochastic random conditions (what appears very interesting
fronting the hardest powers) that means for a hand that may be the following
respective and each other retorts can be predict, more the solutions to stop
the war: not found in a system of dialectical balance of forces to an
untraceable political sense (by a critical remind of the former relevance of
Klausewitz) nor more in the term of the biggest number of deaths (by a
remind of Canetti), but on the contrary for an objective to avoid the deaths
but not by the security mode (what calls a device of repression and hard
weapons to impose it ‹i.e. Israel, the USA and so on). All the contrary the
war of the 4th generation not being that one of the politics by the war but
the culture of the other retort of all diverse means.

At this point what can become the culture of the model of the 4GW itself? I
do not know ‹but together reflecting, may be? What I know it is that
certainly the road of a possible re-definition of the culture in our world.

Before I leave, I want to note a thing that the author of ³de defensa² would
have better make to forget, because his article would be much more relevant
(but yet it is;-): * ³identité² ³identity². That is the interesting extreme
question of the war of Kosovo that Baudrillard presents in his text
concerning the question of State and Nation at the end of the representative
autonomy of the Nations. More question about ethnics but the fake question,
specially concerning the Lebanese Hezbollah at the moment of its
representativeness as resistant force having the capacity of leading the
enemy (not having the political victory but the respect through the real
power of stopping the enemy ‹ returning the enemy to the reason of his
relative power even weapons of massive destruction.

As culture: what of the culture following the relaxing war in self respect
of diverse memberships as peace?-)

But more over, from this point of view, the crazy representation of the
nuclear war by the fact of a country which would be able to have his best
from the resistance through 4GW is not more relevant: but 4GW. From this
point of view it is following Klausewiz at a level Klausewiz could not
imagine, all the rule being to leave the rule. What of the traditional
citizenship of the human rights when the rights are leaving their
traditional countries?

Yesterday I was hearing an issue of a serial broadcast dedicated to Michel
Serres the subject was ³identity². He said that identity is not the good
term but concerning the very one person. All that refers to the current use
of identity is not identity it is ³membership² can be the things of the
community, can be the things of the public State, can be the nation, can be
the religion and so on, it is just ³membership²; the identity escapes all
this: the identity it is me and only me. Take the membership for the
identity is exactly what defines and install the racism.

All my best.

A.

On 28/08/06 5:06, "saul ostrow" <sostrow at gate.cia.edu> probably wrote:

> The promotion of culture as a tool of social conscience is has long been
> considered a significant aspect of a political struggle. It as an alternative
> media has been used to get the message out  by criticizing the dominant
> consciousness, conventional values and an ideology of class domination.   By
> promoting doubt, self-criticality, and self-determination as positive forces,
> this critical culture by negative example proposes  that awareness is a
> determining factor in the evolution of those uncontrollable variables within
> the human equation. Problematically, those who seek to construct a more
> egalitarian society and those who wish to turn culture and consciousness into 
> commodities  both act in the name of achieving the same promised autonomy of
> discourse, self­referentiality, and self-reflectivity. Each side in this
> equation seeks hegemony over the terms and means of cultural production
> because these are the traditional means  by which  not only the aesthetic but
> also  the social values, standards and criteria that form our collective sense
> of self come to be   re-enforced, maintained, reformed and reformed. 
> 
> The heroes of this epic struggle for political  emancipation through cultural 
> awareness are supposedly the artists and intellectuals, who continue to
> negotiate the conventions of their practices, the forms of mass culture and
> the means of production by challenging the social relevance of these practices
> and the limitations of their forms.  Beyond this, critical culture continues
> is  the only area of social production in which the stated ideals of
> individualism and innovation are sustained.  Because we are allowed and even
> encourage to exercise this fetishized, relative freedom  we continue to
> believe that  our critical practices can effectively challenge the legitimacy
> of Capital's mass culture industry which on the structural level   by turning
> all real events into an author-less, un-interruptible flow of undifferentiated
> information and entertainment produces a reality that is more nuanced, and
> complex  than we suspect.   Within its economy  our lives  are made to appear
> to be nothing more than  a confusion of facts, fictions, and ersatz
> experiences.   The consequence of this is we are slowly being disconnected
> from the world of knowledge, awareness that induces the desire to transform
> our world and ourselves.  Under these conditions it would appear to me that in
> the absence of a viable collective sense of self - that the consturction of
> one would be the first order of business - otherwise we have no place to speak
> from or position to speak for.
> 
> On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:06 PM, MATTHEW C KENYON wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Saul,
>> I've been thinking about the politics of cultural production by analogy to
>> the shoe industry (Nike) and the popular critique of the shoe industry (via
>> adbusters). Nike uses its understanding of youth markets, mass-media,
>> concentrations of capital etc. to produce sports shoes, while propagating the
>> belief that what you put on your feet has something to say about who you are
>> as a person.
>> Toronto based Adjusters (popular critics of both Nike's production methods as
>> well as Nike's manufacturing of cool) just started making shoes of their own.
>> The adbuster shoes are the "Anti-shoe" designed and marketed to be an
>> alternative to Nike in may ways (pro-union, renewable materials etc.).  
>> Adbusters move from making a critique of consumer culture, to manufacturing a
>> shoe that makes being critic of consumer culture another nich market-brings
>> up many questions.
>> The problem with perceiving oneself as a critic outside of the system-is that
>> 1)you are not offering up true alteratives (i.e your comment re: global
>> economies)  2)you never can be outside of the system entirely. Adbusters
>> critical stance regarding Nike Shoe Company failed to cause real
>> change-largely because they were preaching to the converted.
>> The problem with providing functional alternatives (in this case a "better
>> shoe") is that you must engage in the conventions of the system-in this case
>> in order to market, brand and sell your alternatives. (i.e. Anti-shoe
>> billboards function and look a lot like shoe billboards after all.) This ends
>> up being simply another branding strategy, and fails to bring about real
>> change.  
>> Instead, I' like to think of the role of the artist as a kind of
>> thermostat-providing cultural feedback. The Artists (thermostat) function is
>> to deliver messages to the power center(s) (air conditioner) not to assume
>> their function. I see this reactionary position as one position in a system
>> of feedback. Where the problem exists is in a system where
>> consumption/production run unchecked-The air conditioner without a
>> thermostat. 
>> 
>> 
>> Link:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackspot
>> Have a great first week of class. I'll try and do the same on sept. 5th.
>> 

////////////
Quotations from my part:

Lind: the theory of Fourth Generation war (4GW ) paying attention to Middle
East singularity:
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9330

 July 19, 2006
 The Summer of 1914
 
by William S. Lind

With Hezbollah's entry into the war between Israel and Hamas, Fourth
Generation war has taken another developmental step forward. For the first
time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state not by waging an
insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary.
Again we see how those who define 4GW simply as insurgency are looking at
only a small part of the picture.

I think the stakes in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas war are significantly
higher than most observers understand. If Hezbollah and Hamas win ­ and
winning just means surviving, given that Israel's objective is to destroy
both entities ­ a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat,
again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two,
depending on how one defines Gaza's border. The balance between states and
4GW forces will be altered worldwide, and not to a trivial degree.

So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless
before Israel's assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah,
intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its
initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli
soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once
again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms (the
Chechens are the only other 4GW force to demonstrate that capability). In
both respects, the contrast with Arab states will be clear on the street,
pushing the Arab and larger Islamic worlds further away from the state.

Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to
terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with
rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. One can only imagine how this
resonated worldwide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb
back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and
disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something (I question Israel's
claim that the weapon was a C-801 anti-ship missile, which should have sunk
a small missile corvette). Hezbollah's leadership has promised more such
surprises.

In response, Israel has had to hit not Hezbollah but the state of Lebanon.
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah
raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a
terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without
reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to
do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction
for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against? Again we see the
power 4GW entities obtain by hiding within states but not being a state.

What comes next? In the short run, the question may be which runs out first,
Hezbollah's supply of rockets or the world's patience with Israel bombing
the helpless state of Lebanon. If the latter continues much longer, the
Lebanese government may collapse, undoing one of America's few recent
successes in the Islamic world.

The critical question is whether the current fighting spreads region-wide.
It is possible that Hezbollah attacked Israel not only to relieve the siege
of Hamas in Gaza but also to preempt an Israeli strike on Iran. The current
Iranian government is not disposed to sit passively like Saddam and await an
Israeli or American attack. It may have given Hezbollah a green light in
order to bog Israel down locally to the point where it would not also want
war with Iran.

However, Israel's response may be exactly the opposite. Olmert also said,
"Nothing will deter us, whatever far-reaching ramifications regarding our
relations on the northern border and in the region there may be." The phrase
"in the region" could refer to Syria, Iran, or both.

If Israel does attack Iran, the "summer of 1914" analogy may play itself
out, catastrophically for the United States. As I have warned many times,
war with Iran (Iran has publicly stated it would regard an Israeli attack as
an attack by the U.S. also) could easily cost America the army it now has
deployed in Iraq. It would almost certainly send shock waves through an
already fragile world economy, potentially bringing that house of cards
down. A Bush administration that has sneered at "stability" could find out
just how high the price of instability can be.

It is clear what Washington needs to do to try to prevent such an outcome:
publicly distance the U.S. from Israel while privately informing Mr. Olmert
that it will not tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran. Unfortunately, Israel
is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. That may be the most
disturbing aspect of the "summer of 1914" analogy.

//////////////



Baudrillard: second article on Kosovo, 1999.

" Partout en Europe, les minorités ethniques sont en voie de disparition.
Tous les Etats en tant que tels ne peuvent qu'être fondamentalement
complices de Milosevic.

 
Duplicité totale de cette guerre
 
Par JEAN BAUDRILLARD
Le jeudi 29 avril 1999
 
 
        Il faudrait quand même extraire les raisons cyniques de cette
«guerre», les raisons inavouées de cette intervention qu'on dit être un
échec, qu'on dit catastrophique sur tous les plans. Et justement, c'est là
où nous vient un doute cruel sur toute cette mise en scène. Tant d'erreurs
accumulées, tant de tergiversations et d'actes manqués doivent bien avoir un
sens, et cette persistance dans la confusion tactique, dans cette guerre
velléitaire qui rate comme délibérément sa cible (je parle des Occidentaux:
Milosevic n'a pas raté la sienne), tout cela ferait douter de la définition
même de la guerre: la poursuite de la politique par d'autres moyens. Si
cette définition vaut encore, alors tous nos stratèges et nos politiciens
occidentaux sont idiots, ce qui n'est pas à exclure, mais avant d'en arriver
à cette extrémité demandons-nous s'ils ne sont pas au contraire en train de
mener à bien et de réussir une opération parfaitement programmée, qui en
tout cas se déroule comme si elle l'était.

On dit: l'Otan ne fait que des erreurs. L'Europe est incapable d'avoir la
moindre politique concertée. Mais NON, c'est exactement le contraire. Que
fait Milosevic? Il élimine ses minorités, en particulier bien sûr la
minorité musulmane, ce en quoi toute la Yougoslavie «blanche», catholique ou
orthodoxe, est derrière lui. Mais pas seulement la Yougoslavie. Toute
l'Europe est derrière lui. Tous les Etats nationaux européens ont des
problèmes avec leurs minorités de souche ou immigrées qui ne vont pas
s'exténuer bien au contraire. Partout les minorités ethniques,
linguistiques, toutes les singularités sont en voie de disparition ou
d'élimination. Milosevic est le porte-drapeau de la purification, mais elle
est partout à l'¦uvre dans une perspective politique, au-delà de toutes les
rodomontades sur l'autonomie et les droits de l'homme, tous les Etats
européens en tant que tels (je ne parle pas des populations, mais que
sont-elles, sinon la caisse de résonance idéologique et humanitaire de
l'information?) ne peuvent qu'être fondamentalement complices de Milosevic -
quitte à le vomir comme leur mauvaise conscience et à faire semblant de le
châtier parce qu'il fait trop bien (c'est-à-dire trop mal, trop brutalement)
le sale travail. Mais on lui aura laissé tout le temps pour le faire.
Pourquoi regretter inlassablement qu'on ne soit pas intervenu un an, deux
ans, trois ans plus tôt (ça fait quinze ans que ça dure), et pourquoi, par
quelle méconnaissance stupéfiante de la situation, l'Otan a-t-elle engagé
des frappes aériennes sans se douter des conséquences au sol (alors que
tellement d'experts ont dû y réfléchir pendant des mois), et pourquoi ne pas
paralyser immédiatement les forces serbes au sol, au Kosovo, au lieu de
déployer une logistique aérienne plus ou moins inutile? Eh bien, ça crève
les yeux - tout devient clair si on imagine que les frappes aériennes sont
là pour ne pas intervenir au sol ou pour retarder le plus possible
l'intervention - quand tout sera fini. Solana l'a bien dit (sans se douter
qu'il trahissait cruellement la vérité politique de cette guerre): «Nous ne
reprendrons les négociations avec Milosevic (tiens: on ne cherche donc plus
à s'en débarrasser?) que lorsqu'il sera mis fin au nettoyage ethnique» -
entendez bien: lorsqu'il sera achevé. Ce qui se déroule implacablement. Dans
ce sens, cette guerre - ou du moins l'opération qui sous-tend cette guerre
qu'on nous donne à voir - se déroule de façon optimale, quasiment
programmatique. Parce que Milosevic est l'exécutant de la politique
européenne, la vraie, la seule, celle d'une Europe blanche, propre, expurgée
de toutes les minorités - politique négative, politique exclusive et
intégriste, mais pourquoi se faire des illusions, l'Europe n'a aucune idée
positive d'elle-même, l'Europe n'est que hantée par le spectre de l'Europe
-, pour toutes ces raisons nous faisons semblant de le combattre, mais
toujours trop tard et mal. De toute façon, ce n'est pas fini: après le
Kosovo, le Monténégro, comme ailleurs le Kurdistan, la Palestine, etc. (la
tragi-comédie du «processus de paix» au Moyen-Orient relève très exactement
de ce «retardement» indéfini et calculé).

Mais les choses sont encore plus compliquées. Car si l'Europe a une
politique déterminée, sinon délibérée, celle d'une future coalition
d'entités nationales qui auront fait le ménage chez elles (sinon comment se
consolider mondialement face à l'Amérique?), et non pas du tout
multiculturelle et multiraciale, l'Amérique, elle, via l'Otan, a une
stratégie tout aussi déterminée. Après être venue à bout du communisme au
terme d'une troisième guerre mondiale froide et décongelée, après avoir
neutralisé l'autre puissance immédiatement menaçante, le Japon, grâce à une
déstabilisation elle-même largement calculée des places financières
asiatiques, l'Europe est désormais son point de mire, et son objectif celui
de faire échec le plus longtemps possible aux velléités de multinationale
européenne cohérente, qui deviendrait une rivale menaçante. Le meilleur
moyen pour cela est de désunir l'Europe en la prenant au piège d'une guerre
dont celle-ci ne veut pas et qui ruine ses dernières chances, en venant
éventuellement au secours des minorités (Bosnie, Kosovo, Kurdes, etc.), dont
l'Amérique elle-même n'a rien à faire, et dont tout le monde veut
secrètement se débarrasser - l'ennemi public mondial numéro 1 étant de toute
évidence l'Islam et le front islamique, car le seul profondément réfractaire
à la mondialisation en cours -, là est le véritable front de la quatrième
guerre mondiale. On négociera donc inévitablement avec Milosevic, on le
laissera survivre (tout comme Saddam Hussein) moitié pour consolider le
nettoyage, moitié pour brouiller les cartes de l'Europe. Même la présence au
sol d'une force internationale (dont on connaît toute l'ambiguïté dans la
continuation des massacres en Bosnie) n'y changera rien. L'Amérique sait
donc parfaitement ce qu'elle veut - c'est à croire que les experts du
Pentagone sont des génies (même politique à travers Israël: maintenir
partout les abcès de fixation et de déstabilisation, faire la police en se
faisant à la fois le champion des victimes et le complice des bourreaux).
Mais il n'en est rien: c'est le cours inéluctable du Nouvel Ordre mondial
qui veut cela, et ils n'en sont que les opérateurs. Quant aux Européens,
impliqués (mais on a vu avec quelles arrière-pensées) dans l'action de
l'Otan, qui travaille à leur déconfiture, ils plongent dans une situation
confuse et insoluble. Chaque Etat est pris aujourd'hui entre deux ennemis au
fond: ses propres minorités et l'Amérique. Gérer à la fois le Nouvel Ordre
mondial à son échelle (éliminer tous les éléments hétérogènes et
réfractaires) et subir les effets d'une mondialisation à grande échelle,
dont l'Europe telle qu'elle se profile est à la fois le relais et la
victime. C'est plus ou moins sans espoir. Reste le refuge de la coalition
humanitaire, à défaut de politique cohérente - autre contradiction
pathétique, car secourir les victimes en tant que victimes ne fait que
consacrer le succès de l'opération de nettoyage. Mais Benetton va pouvoir y
ressourcer sa publicité, et chacun, «en arrêtant de fumer et en reversant
l'équivalent aux Kosovars, pourra sauver deux vie en même temps»!

Il y a donc une duplicité fondamentale de cette «guerre», dont la moindre
n'est pas de nous sommer d'être pour ou contre. Rien ne permet de prendre
parti dans une guerre qui est un leurre, qui se joue pour autre chose et
dont les objectifs sont masqués, inavoués et peut-être même obscurs à la
conscience des uns et des autres. C'est être parfaitement dupe des raisons
cyniques et secrètes de cette guerre, que masquent à profusion et de toutes
parts les commentaires idéologiques, intellectuels et humanitaires. Anéantir
Milosevic? C'est ne pas voir que nous en sommes complices. Arrêter tout,
aller jusqu'au bout de quoi? C'est ne pas voir les subdéterminations de
cette guerre qui n'a jamais véritablement commencé, étant donné qu'on n'a
jamais vraiment voulu en finir, et qui n'est que l'un des multiples épisodes
à venir d'une confrontation cette fois véritablement elle-même. D'où la
difficulté paradoxale de mettre fin à une guerre qui n'est pas la vraie,
dont la duplicité est totale et dont les objectifs n'auront même pas été
atteints - mais qui se déroule en fait, derrière cette duplicité et ces
fausses man¦uvres, exactement comme elle doit se dérouler. Il est donc
absurde, en plein truquage et en pleine désinformation - qui fait elle-même
partie de la «catastrophe humanitaire» (quel lapsus! ou cette catastrophe
est humaine ou c'est l'humanitaire lui-même qui fait partie de la
catastrophe) d'être pour ou contre. Ce qu'il faut dénoncer et percer à jour,
c'est d'abord l'illusion de cette guerre. A la Realpolitik il faut opposer
une Realanalyse - ce qui n'empêche pas la violence des réactions et des
sentiments que peut provoquer cette mondialisation hégémonique. Mais, pour
la combattre, il faut savoir, derrière les péripéties idéologiques dont la
guerre et les médias font partie, qui est vraiment du bon ou du mauvais côté
de l'universel... Nous les Occidentaux sommes du bon côté de l'universel.
Honneur à ceux qui sont tombés du mauvais côté. Honneur, et non pas
compassion. Pas de compassion pour les victimes, mais pas de pitié pour les
autres.

J.B." 
 
 /////////////////////////

And what of the master and the slave but the master not being more that one
who decides of the life from the death?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20060828/9d9604da/attachment-0002.htm