[syndicate] the human factor

[A. G-C]

On 2/08/06 16:58, "Yasir Husain" <yasir.media at gmail.com> probably wrote:

> 
> http://www.edge.org/ <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/goldstein.html>
> 
> 
> ----------------------
> REASONABLE DOUBT
> 

I apologize of my bad En spoken. Below is an answer from my part in a debate
on nettime-l that I would be very surprised to see reposted;-) for a part it
is not academic (the language); for another part it is not academic (the
ideas) and so on... May be here you have anopposite point of view to Rebecca
Goldstein¹s one? But being for my part so much little;-)
A. 

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


Towards global alter activism ( Seattle-Gothenburg-Genoa movement can being
stopped by the easy way to forbid the mass at the door of the global power )
‹of which I admit not having been a part myself, but solider‹ that itself is
plastic, that have to change in relation with its targets... There are
several questions from there to here regarding the dualistic or post
dialectic conceptions, which appear or disappear through the current
consensual theory of this debate but without being developed; specially two
being present but not expressed and the other one really missing. As if it
could be a cause of division, or simply the sign of a fear, a fear of being
exceeded in the capacity of analysis of the new situations of the global war
as superpower and mode of society.


    1. The question of activism partition still appearing presented in a
disposition of possible or impossible avant-gardes, ( please tell me if in
my way of simplifying I really make a nonsense or not ) as much from the
part of Brian ‹micro as activist multitudes establishing the progressive
mass‹, as much from the part of Alex ‹macro as progressive mass establishing
the power of the global democracy‹, appearing a consensual opposition to the
detail quoted from Lazzarato's analysis, the principal objective does not
appear that it can be discussed rather the role and the objective... That
appears so strange to me.

A question from a point of view of critical anthropology: are we in a post
historic materialism re-building? That is the question from reformism till
activism ‹it appears.
So much here and  whatever the means of micro or macro interpretation or
tribute in social living (or activist) process ‹that is the activist side‹
equal the EU cultural project tribute from the part of next Documenta 12
(2007) that is the reformist side from Habermas conception to tribute
establishing EU as established power:
http://www.documenta12.de/leitmotive.html
in three leit-motiv: 1. Is modernity our antiquity? 2. What is bare life? 3.
What is to be done?
Of this reformist side in the "progressive" re-actualizing history...
whatever the available or not available dialectic to our times, Michel
Serres singularly speaks of a the third part‹ to stay in the web quotation:
" Revisiting "The natural contract" "
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=515


    2. And the consequent question: in matter "progressive" culture of the
society that askes what do you mean by "progress"? Right now, is it still
available but from which theory? Is is the post materialist dialectic
turning dualistic? Is it the following materialist dialectic of the critical
of political economy founding the class struggle more the historic
materialism? But they can be they failed ‹ I mean forever in this form of
following forms‹?  

The problem that I want to watch for it is not of the following post
theories, but of the actual facts as new events at the moment one do not
accept to consider them such as phenomena to learn more or towards.

Regarding the question of the "global democracy" it is the same problem than
historic materialism as global‹universal‹explanation. The same of
Creationism as a faith in opposition to Darwinism as a science...
Why would you absolutely imagine an exclusive solution as global democracy
to the world ‹even sciences? ‹ that is exactly the US proposition to the
world with its techno sciences from gene to trading process‹ no import that
can be neo conservative or progressive as the question is of universal or
diverse singular (can be singular not numerous it is more than the
dialectical opposite;-)
From this point of view it is easy to show how the point of view of
tolerance being the global democracy can be of respective proper
intolerance.

Pataphysics is not useful to logically argue that adding divine predictions
with CIA scenarios ( can being linked coming from their respective worst
occurrence ): dividing the world into two axes ( the objective being to get
the axe of evil disappeared ), the alternative rebuilding of historic
materialism tribute the global democracy as a following return of
progressive modernity (that could not be the view of the evil) ‹ as radical
domination by the rule of the mostly good one to the least other one. That
does not make the difference in the world of the post dialectic of class,
nor of the war opposing neoconservative Occidentalism and Islamist
fundamentalism.


    3. From this anthropological critical point of view there is a
geopolitical hypothesis regarding the map from India to EU where Iran is a
key of the global world if the global world success to subject it...
Whatever the question of "Islamist fundamentalism" can be linked to the
actual government of Iran, you know perfectly of which misinformation it was
the object by several parts of the project to Gran MidEast...

Notoriously concerning the segregation of religions under specific badges
having to be obviously fixed on clothing... Of which any several indicters
had to publicly apologize. You know perfectly that there are impossible
manners to criticize the western totalitarianism at the moment it implies
Israel's State, so as to be considered either anti-semitic, or negationist
of the camps even by critical activists: Chomsky was a victim and it is
notorious that Perlman criticism is never quoted.

Active negationism can be an unbearable reality, but that the radical
criticism to the totalitarianism of the superpower and to the dishonest
compromise of allies can be considered forbidden at the point to justify the
public misinformation: yet it is a declaration of war through the war of
information. 

At the moment negationism becoming one resource of the signs of terror used
by the dominant power, the same as Al Qaïda, it means that no one being
really cool front of Information can say which part they come. But seeing
which part of political advantages they tribute after all.

>From a side: the signs of the terror appear more and more as parts of the
global war of the terror to get the global world out without contradiction
with the project of the superpower ‹by and from the multiform of the war.
From the global democracy to the geo distribution of the products and
commodities till the geo territories, all strategic global economy and
defense tactics being integrated by the war as mode of society accepting the
new order of the world ‹.

>From another side: are you absolutely certain that all the good activists
are united on the fact that they want a global democracy?


        Observing the various activist positions more anarchism culture of a
part of Hackers, personally I am afraid that the present debate on global
and activism may be oversaw a large zone.

Can be there are one to think that global, universal, systems to united
world under the regime of the same (even the climate till the moment the
planet reheating so aims at the united earth:) it is a mortiferous vision of
the world. Even global democracy?

Do you think that Saudi Arabia as model of Arabian Mid East alliance is more
democratic than Iran‹may be more democratic in Iran?

Do you think really that Israel would be the very democracy of Mid East? But
Palestinian that are not Jews what could happen to them if they cannot stay
for a part of Jerusalem? Territories? But they are not more welcome in their
own territories. What of new multi allied emergence of the government in
Lebanon or exactly what Israel presumes to present of its own democracy? Is
it really very interesting to ask them for a return to the division? Have an
alliance of the Christian president with Syria: and so what at the moment
Syria has left Lebanon conforming the resolution of UN?

In which name Lebanon would not have not the right of privilege alliances in
its own region: economic, trade, and so on... Just at the moment that would
not be this one privilege of Israel or US advantages, dispositions and
domination?

Concerning Palestine, The issue from Israel was not "whether Hamas
recognises Israel" ‹see the article in the Financial times of June 8 2006 by
Henry Siegman " Senior Fellow and Director for the U.S./Middle East Project"
relating the venue of Efraim Halevy former falcon and director of Mossad
himself collaborator of Sharon's government having made recently a general
outcry in New York, in front of the members of the Conference of the most
important US Jews organizations, with the idea that it was not the
interesting same step for Israel to shut down Hamas:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10870/issue_is_not_whether_hamas_recognises_i
srael.html )
You know that actual President of the World bank is the neo conservativ US
just former representative in the lobbies of defense that can be tracked
since Lewinski affair to the determination of Iraqi war. That is to tell how
the world is in war.

But what it could happen appearing that diverse Mid East can be a chance to
the global world toward the current models and analysis whatever their part,
at the moment Lebanon government even having lost all the material structure
of the state refuse to self divide under the pressing global occidental
democracy of the war.. Could be the first virtual state having lost her
material structures and social divisions to stay existing as a real social
territory of diverse people in common interest with common borders to be
radically respected?

It is a fact that global vision founds resistances from all its parts
(fields and points of view)‹even fate random, we could say of self
organization being the dynamic thing acting before the moment of the
exploding crisis‹, can be the Cycle of negotiations of Doha, the question of
E-commerce, all the questions are failing at the moment US and Federation of
Russia does not play the game of others. Can be the global plastic world at
the moment it wants the most global superpower by the war is put "check"
everywhere by the local organization of the life; it does not want to say
"checkmate", but really "failure" and why not the prediction of a future
"defeat" of global universe?

At the moment it could exist all sorts of concept of democracy or republics
as singular events, the only political question is that citizens can move
from the country they do not agree with to the one other they agree. It is
exactly what the global democracy do not want because of the global
territories of economy and mode of life: that people move as they hope.

But more we can imagine people moving for anther cause than hunger, or
holidays, if we do not want to die as critical beings.

So who but privilege supreme bureaucrats at the service of the power has
ever dreamt that global distribution of goods could satisfy the cultural
singularity of people? At the moment URSS was checkmate who enough fool to
imagine that Neo liberalism can be neo conservative can be progressive could
be successful in the global admin of the world?

Global is failing. Check it is check. May be we have to hope that it is
finishing faster we could imagine by self checkmate ( as could say Marx of
the decay of the supra governmental State )?

Now, let us imagine other several worlds, please to create from each place?

A.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tekspost.no/mailman/private/syndicate/attachments/20060802/70e4c44b/attachment.html>