BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Don't Miss The Forest

  
 
deja_vroom
12:27 / 27.03.03
Whenever the topic of the Second World War would come up in a conversation with my friends, I would always estate my bemusement and awe about the fact that people, both distant from the conflict, and those in the epicentre of hell - (Have you watched "The Pianist" today?), would fail miserably to detect the big red signs that clearly said: "this shit is pretty fucked up, is fucked up big".

Two of the terms which often surface when this subject is tackled are "absurdness" and "surrealism". It's a recurring theme in memoirs of survivors and in books, that consensual reality, and the rules we are accostumed to live by, were turned upside down and inside out, and the process was so subtle and smooth that one day some 6 million people woke up to find out they were entrapped in a living nightmare that would claim their lives in the bleakest of ways.

What I'm trying to say here is: remember the axiom which goes along the lines "When you're lost in the forest, all you can see is a mess of trunks and leaves and roots. You're so entangled in it, and so concerned about the details of your current situation, that you miss the big picture. You need distance to see the whole forest". I'm thinking about this right now because perhaps the people which lived during WWII might not have been as numb as I used to think. They were just so concerned with their daily affairs, with their mundane lives, and with the news of the war (which country was invaded, what the politicians were saying), that *most* of them missed the big picture, and so it came to happen what someone (memory isn't helping right now) called the "CounterCreation", right under everybody's noses.

Would it be possible that it is our turn right now? What possible signs of reassurance do we have gained from then to today, that that sort of thing wont happen again? I mean, I'm getting all these bleak, fucked up signs everywhere - those who possess the power are no longer caring about the appearances (Haliburton, anyone?), every newspaper in the world is displaying pictures of people torn to pieces by smart missiles in a daily basis(this is unacceptable. This is criminal, and it's happening and happening, and it will continue happening until America's government gets what it wants), and right now, consensual reality is being gangbanged all over the world in live broadcast, and everybody's hands are tied up. We are little people. Little men, little women, living little, unimportant lives. We don't matter squat, and we can rally and protest and hold our breath until we burst, it still won't make an inch of a difference because a US$40-trillion-a-year-business is a business that cannot be stopped by humans.

So: Are we missing the forest? Is there any chance that we are marching to something very, very wrong and bad (I mean globally), or we have reasons to have hope? Because yesterday night I heard the news anchor talking on the telly, and he didn't say: "the USA are trying to avoid casualties of war". He said "The USA are trying to prevent *too many* casualties of war", and when he said that I could not help but cry because I'm fucking 25 and adulthood is turning out to be a fucking harsh place to be. Perhaps it has ever been, I don't know. Sorry for the rant.
 
 
grant
12:37 / 27.03.03
File card: "surrealism" (and, as an artistic movement, "absurdism") came into being as a result of World War I. Andre Breton served in an army psychiatric hospital.

Given a little bit of perspective after a couple years, he (and a bunch of other people) realized that the rationality that was driving the world was built on an irrational foundation. That the idea that one man getting shot in Yugoslavia should result in thousands of kids from Brittany dying in trenches in Turkey... that's a pretty silly idea.

I think part of living in the forest is that you see a lot of trees. And you can't see the whole thing until you're already out of it.

I'll let y'all figure out what "out of it" can mean.
 
 
Francine I
15:26 / 27.03.03
I get the distinct impression that none of this would be happening if Saddam were white and Christian. The opinions and desires of Iraq's middle-eastern neighbors are being not only ignored, but suppressed. Your opinion does not matter unless you're white and very, very wealthy.

You can't say this shit without sounding crazy in this country, but it's fucking true. Can't you feel it? When the individuals who became the beginning of the United States employed every tactic in reach to defeat overwhelming British forces, we coloured it heroic. We tatooed history with the brilliance and resolve of brave American freedom fighters employing guerilla tactics to defend their right to worship their own god. In Iraq, refusing to wear a uniform labels you a terrorist.

I know most of you folks know, but just for the record, I hope the world knows that resistance in the U.S. is huge. Most want this war over, most want Bush out. There is little we can do. The polls, they say there is overwhelming support: Some 90% on day one or whatever, sinking towards 67% more recently. They polled 516 individuals and told the nation we were all of one mind. This is a fucking farce. All of it.

Maybe I'm young. Maybe this all happens every twenty years. Maybe those who disagree with me are too old, and as you've mentioned, fail to see the forest for the trees.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:33 / 27.03.03
I've said it before, but isn't it nice that we can have thgis intellectual conversation while people are being bombed for no good reason.

I really wish we could think of something to do to stop it.

As it is, this website is the epicenter of my news. I go to google news first, then here and find that you guys are WAY More on the ball than anyone else.

If only there was a way to USE that knowledge?? I've been forwarding the news briefs and pics found here to my local press. Maybe we could all do that? I dunno.

In any case, thanks for being you, you guys. Thanks for being concerned and involved, and having your eyes open.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:04 / 27.03.03
The polls, they say there is overwhelming support: Some 90% on day one or whatever, sinking towards 67% more recently. They polled 516 individuals and told the nation we were all of one mind .... Most want this war over, most want Bush out.

And you've polled exactly how many people to support this claim?

I like a good hategasm as much as anyone, Frances, but unless you've got real numbers of your own to contradict "their" numbers, then your assertions that "most want Bush out" are nothing but wishful thinking.

Maybe nobody you know personally supports the war—but that means nothing: our individual social circles tend to be smaller and more homogenous than we would like to think.

And it's a big world out there, and people are gonna feel just what they feel, not what you think they should feel.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:15 / 27.03.03
Six: fuck Google news. Fuck CNN, too: their web-presence just isn't keeping up, and they're precious short on analysis.

I'm listening to live audio feeds from NPR, and checking in regularly with BBC News, the Reuters wire, and MSNBC for breaking news. C-Span is your best source for news conferences—they've generally gor RealVideo live within an hour of the event, and some of it they stream live.

And since you're in Cambridge, listen to WBUR: they've got NPR and BBC coverage, and shedloads of commentary and analysis. 90.9 FM or streaming over the Web.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
19:39 / 27.03.03
Cool.

Will do.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
19:46 / 27.03.03
Oh, and check out this nonsense...

http://www.boston-metro.com/index.php
 
 
Francine I
01:19 / 28.03.03
You're right. I should have said "many".

A large number of Americans appear to believe this war will only be valid if we can generate proof that Iraq possesses WMD:

CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll, 03/23/03:

Question: "Which comes closest to your view about the war with Iraq: it is justified only if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is justified even if the U.S. DOES NOT find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or it is not justified even if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?"
%
Justified only if found: 41
Justified even if not found: 38
Not justified even if found: 15
No opinion: 6

Of course, if I wanted to, I could contradict myself:

ABC/Washington Post Poll, 3/20/03:

Question: "Do you think the United States will be able to justify this war ONLY if it finds weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, in Iraq; or do you think the United States will be able to justify this war for other reasons, even if it does NOT find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"

%
Only if Find WMD: 35
Even if Don't Find WMD: 53
Neither/No Justification (vol.): 7
No Opinion: 6

Of course, no evidence is enough evidence for half of us:

CBS News Poll, 3/16/03:

Question: "Do you think the Bush Administration has presented enough evidence to show that military action against Iraq is necessary right now, or haven't they done that yet?"

%
Has: 56
Have Not: 39
Don't Know: 5

I mean, hey, if you follow the polls enough, it becomes clear that most Americans are ignorant, bloodthirsty hicks. You can say whatever you want. Lies, damned lies, and all that.

If I had the time and desire to prove it you, I could likely generate statistics demonstrating that a significant portion of the population that opposes Bush and/or Bush's war in Iraq goes unrepresented in the polls due to a combination of political paranoia and 'lazy liberalism'. I mean, hey, maybe the missing chunk would rock it on over to a majority. But you know what? That would prove the point to you and only you.

So let's revise this -- many Americans oppose this war, and I suppose, if you'd like, most Americans support quasi-genocidal foreign policy designed to quietly spread the branches of American imperialism. I mean, if you want to use loaded terms and all. Or, if it's preferable, we could say it's absolutely possible that the polls grossly misrepresent the will of the American people, and that it's possible most Americans do oppose the war. Whatever.

You know, say what you want about hate and sexual fetishes. If you need to dismiss my opinions with condescending bullshit and pat answers, you're probably not someone I need to convince in the first place.

Oh, and here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
 
 
deja_vroom
12:17 / 28.03.03
This is all well and good, but let me try and steer this conversation back to topic.

Right now, "human beings" are making decisions that no one should be allowed to make. The prima facie reason for this war is the threat of Terror, but we're all grown-ups and we can skip that part, since it's all bullshit anyway. The second and more important reason (and even this one doesn't stand on its feet), and the one which the White House doesn't like to see mentioned, is supposedly to guarantee that the world doesn't fall into a dark age of economic recession due to the "possible" threat that Saddam Hussein does something unacceptable with Iraq's oil fields, or that it changes its economic politics so much that it makes impossible for the western world to profit from them. That's pre-emptive economics for you.

I was talking to my boss about this and he said stuff like:
"You know, UN is a fucking mess, they can't even decide which language they should be speaking or which measures they should take to counterpoint Saddam's unwillingness to co-operate. The Middle East has always been dependent on foreign aid to coordinate and make possible oil prospection in that area. So nobody wants to risk that Saddam, who's getting more and more pressure from the UN, tries to do something stupid with one of the biggest oil resources of the world. Too much depend on that. Do you wanna risk having to pay three times more for your computer, for your VCR, for your car? No you don't. So America made their choice. 'We'll do something about it and fuck else'. And in the end, we'll all benefit from those bombs falling in civilians. Economic stability is guaranteed, our shiny toys will still cost the same.
In the end the USA gets what it wants, and since it knows that world stability is paramount to do good business, it's gonna make sure that every big guy in the western world gets it's share - maybe not France, they might think they have a lesson or two to teach France, but that's another story. There's gonna be some face-saving for the UN - they can pretend to slap USA's big hands and say 'Don't do this again, mkay?', and the USA will be practically giving some oil away to lubricate its international relationships with its partners. Five years from now, nobody will even remember that this war happened, and the world will keep spinning".

My boss is German, and I'm not implying anything here, but his line of thought sent shivers up and down my spine, because here I recognized a sort of alien, cold, detached rationalism which is not inherently "wrong" (in the sense of logical thinking), but that's completely *wrong* (in the sense of the ethics and duties we all have to our next as human beings).

We all know where this reasoning might lead, and it's not a nice place. It would make of George W. Bush our salvation lamb, the economical equivalent of Christ, the guy who will take the toll on the deaths of civilians, who will take the decisions that no one else will dare to in order to guarantee the greater good. Don't mess with Texas and all that.

My boss added: "We don't really know. We don't know the options UN might have had, we might not even know what is at stake. Have you ever travelled abroad?", he asked, to which I said: "No". I started to see how in this scenario, is tempting to let these sort of decisions in the hand of the big guys. I don't have a degree in Economics or what-fuck-else, I never even travelled abroad right? I might be talking out of my ass here, waving the flag of pacifism with half-sincere enthusiasm, because that's what *good* people are supposed to do.

Fortunately, I could see the other side of this reasoning. Since most of these talks and meetings are made far away from the public eye, it's almost always the work of Providence that we know what's going on before the bombs start falling. We know practically nothing. We don't know of their arrangements, their contracts, their agreements. We don't know what was discussed in the Azores (they didn't want to meet in the Continent because public demonstration agains the war would probably be the biggest ever seen). So, how can we be sure that what they're doing is really the best? We can't. There must be something else we can cling to. I force myself to think, I force myself to *believe* that there's one thing that I can cling to, to keep me sane and to strenghten my position against this war: I possess a human body, with nerves that allow me to feel pain. I can never dissociate myself from that. And so I have the instinctive reaction against any measure that makes possible to see the brutal death of innocent people as "collateral damage". In the end, when faced agains charts, polls, cold-blooded reality-checks and fuck-else, I just need to remember Germany during the 40's. Because I bet there were a lot of polls, charts and graphics in some Berlin offices from 1939-45, and I bet they were right on the nail on everything pertaining the economical situation in Europe, and about the measures the German would have to take to assure the future of Germany at the time. It was reasonable, it was feasible, it involved tough decisions but there were people inhuman enough to carry those measures out. Sound familiar? I hope it does. Do you remember Gerald Ford saying "Nobody's human?" when the waiter accidentaly spilled water on him? Do you hear what the unconscious (which is not supposed to lie) part of one of the residents of the USA had to say?


I hope I'm making some sense in this rant of mine. I'm trying to establish paralels to one of the most fucked up moments in human History, I'm trying to raise my head and see the fucking forest because I want to be prepared. I would like to hear from you people facts that would assure me there's no reason to fear anything *that* big coming up in the near future, because I can't shake the feeling that History's cogs are about to start crushing some little people. Being a little one myself, I hope you can be sympathetic to my paranoid rants. I don't have anyone else to talk about this (not in this level, at least), and I'm feeling really bad about the elected representatives of my species at the moment.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:44 / 28.03.03
You know, say what you want about hate and sexual fetishes. If you need to dismiss my opinions with condescending bullshit and pat answers, you're probably not someone I need to convince in the first place.

No, you don't need to convince me of anything. And I'm not trying to dismiss your opinions. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's opinion.

Just because an opinion is a minority opinion, that doesn't make it an invalid opinion. In fact, sometimes, quite the opposite. Nor is a majority opinion de facto either valid or invalid.

You will note, for the record, that I have never stated outright whether I agree or disagree with your stated position: nor will I now. That's not the point. I'm just saying that, whatever side you argue, you must argue it with clarity and intellectual honesty.

Opinions need to be considered on their own merits, not by outright dismissals of one demographic or another as "ignorant, bloodthirsty hicks" or "lazy liberals." There are plenty of vile, foaming, racist right-wingers who oppose this war on the grounds that it makes the US the catspaw of the International Zionist Conspiracy: there are plenty of left-wingers who support it on the grounds that it is the last best chance to bring humantitarian relief to a country that has suffered unimaginable cruelty for the last quarter-century. Strange bedfellows, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, however you want to put it.

But, if you want to consider the issue honestly, yoy mustn't mistake the vehemence of your own opinion for the mood of the public at large. And don't fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must have something wrong with them. The issues here are immensely complex, and there is plenty of room for disagreement between people of good will.
 
 
Francine I
16:31 / 28.03.03
In fact, I agree with just about all you say. It appears we've both got our peeves and they sometimes collide. I did note that you hadn't in fact offered your opinion. In fact, I think I can safely admit that there are times when the passion of opinion overrides the consistancy of intellect we all value. However, it was (hopefully clearly) with no malicious intent that I exaggerated my standpoint -- the subject matter was, I'm sure you'll agree, quite provoking. I can't speak for what 'the masses' believe, but nor can CNN, in truth. In a sense, I have an equal claim to the truth, but that claim is only valid to those with an existing sympathy towards my prior viewpoints. That is to say, I am my own poll, even if I'm answering a question that I cannot possibly answer with full knowledge -- like polls that ask how long the war will last.

Do I believe that most Americans feel as strongly as I do? Absolutely not. I believe the opposite. What I do believe, however, is this: When Bush's foreign and domestic policy comes home to roost, there will be few Americans not of the upper echelon that approve of what he's done for the country and for the world. It is tragic and upsetting to me that many seem unwilling to venture a prediction as to the consequences of Bush's choices.

Also, for the record, I'm not actually dismissing the demographics in accordance with stereotypes, but rather the polls and the impressions that they tend to create. The polls provide valuable data, but the data is very rarely considered in full context. This permits for an amazing proliferation of half-truths.

I think, to stay on topic, that this blatant implementation of Neoconvervatism is threatening to a diversity of culture and to the sovereignty of free nations other than the U.S. I am deeply concerned in any instance where extreme nationalist sentiment leads to quasi-religious justification for unprovoked war. To define unprovoked in this context, I mean against a nation which has no means to wage international war beyond their immediate adjacencies, a poor and starving nation which has only threatened the aggressor nation at times when that nation saw fit to interfere in the politics of their region and their state.

Bush, in fact, has been researching Neoconservatist approaches to war fairly recently:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37785-2002Aug19?language=printer

According to my information, the Neoconservatist approach to foreign policy endorses the continued execution of war in any and all countries that are not governed by a U.S.-style capitalist-democracy. Neoconservatism, as a political system, is overtly nationalist and if what I've read about it is true, works under the premise that the U.S. is a nation under the province of divine forces. While most consider Bush to be a Religious Conservative, much of the civilian staff in the Pentagon, as mentioned (I believe) in the article above, is Neoconservatist in bent. Thusly, I, and I think much of the world, fears that what essentially constitutes an attempt at world domination is already underway. I heard that Bill Clinton during a speaking event recently said that he supported the American soldiers already deployed in the Gulf, but encouraged the people of the U.S. to debate and protest the possibility of an invasion in North Korea pre-emptively. I don't think Clinton's comments were based on idle speculation, but of course, no one here can certainly predict the future.

But we can be concerned, and we can fight against a future we don't believe in. If we wait until we're certain, it'll be too late -- and while this rai·sons d'être sounds ironically similar to Bush's, it is not intended to justify violent action. It is intended to encourage peaceful action, civil disobedience, and debate.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:34 / 28.03.03
simplistic:

It's cool. This for me was the effect of the destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 (9-11 sounds way too much like a Soda or movie to me). "The world," I though to myself, "is for the most part a nightmare; it is run by greed and contempt in an effort to make certain groups more poweerful than others and alienate the human experience so that it is only seen as a film, sonmg or video game. Joy, friendship, expansions of existence are all PART of life, but only as an escape from the actual reality that life is a nightmare. I'm lucky that I am free, have a home, clothes, friends, etc. Most others people are being bombed so that I can be offered Gap clothes. Their lives are far more of a living nightmare while mine is a subdued one. Now, on September 11th, I've seen that living nightmare come to America."

We've been living in the wake of that and ever since it's like a fucking steamroller has been going over our dreams.

BUT. I have an idea to offer... There is a theory that our culture is coming to an end. I met some dudes in Santa Barbera, CA who proposed the idea that problems of the scale we're seeing are too big for our current authority systems to handle. They're going to have to mutate into something else. This might happen in our lifetime. I accept that the UK and US are trying to occupy the oil reserves, but I just cannot accept that they will succeed and turn it into a monopoly. It mught cause others to look at whatever price the US offers and say, "Fuck that. I'm making that solar car from the 70's Exxon didn't like. Also, healthcare is getting cut so drastically that people are at odds about what to do. Western medicine, in my experience, is a joke. It causes more problems than it creates. So.. what's to stop people from treating themselves with hollistic medicine?

So all I'm saying is that something big is going down, but it doesn't need to be a bad thing. And if you're stuck for someine to talk to, enail me.
 
  
Add Your Reply