> And for the record I write as
> someone with great admiration for the culture of the USA (inherited from the
> best of English culture)
The Irish guy says:
Bollocks!
> Thesis one: Those who resorted to the terrorist attacks last week susbcribe
> to intellectual patterns of pathologically low quality
> I think it is a mistake to say that the perpetrators are driven by
> biological values;
Right, they are not brigands or looters - and the whole outlook is indeed
psychotically puritan (a neurotic builds castles in the air, the psychotic
lives in them), so social values are involved too. They have intentionally
repressed/ritually killed their own biological instincts for survival. I
guess the feeling of euphoria that comes with believing you are about to
transcend death into instant paradise can count as biological. Richard
Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene") said "Promise a young man that death is not the
end and he will willingly cause disaster." ((
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html ))
The analogy to the original "Hashishin"/Assassins is appropriate. The young
recruits were shown a secret garden of delights while in a drugged-stupor
that they were told was a vision of paradise. They not only were fearless of
death, but welcomed it in the service of the order. What we have seen is not
something new, but something ancient, which has errupted onto our modern
landscape as though through a time tunnell, using jetliners instead of
swords.
In Dawkins' books, he advances the hypotheses of "Memes" - the Mental
counterpart of Genes. These can vary from the simple (a chain letter) to the
complex (a philosophical idea). The chain-letter e.g. utilises its
environment (the Mind) to propogate itself like a virus.
A Multi-Level Marketing scheme, and a destructive cult might be other
virus-like memes.
Caveat: "Racial" and "Mental" hygiene have been bywords and excuses for
among the worst abuses of humanity, and I think we should exercise great
caution and propriety when using biological analogies for social and
intellectual phenomena. It is especially dangerous to use the "virus"
analogy in a military context. It is a too-short distance from
"exterminating the virus" of Taliban to "removing the biological foundation"
of Taliban, I think. We have all been down this road before.
The Islamic Exclusivist Technocratic Cult (as opposed to Islam with its
Classical Juristic tradition and international outlook) that may have
organised these obscenities, is an awe-inspiring horror. It uses Death, or
the anticipation of death and afterlife, as a kind of drug - the ultimate
high, transcending all the other "lesser" values of life. They would
probably say that they have found their Fifth Level...
> the
> most important thing to my mind is that it is low quality (another way of
> saying that it is untrue)
Fair enough. Off on a tangent: I think this is a time when SOM (as a subset
of MoQ) comes into its own. In a court of law, we want either a "guilty" or
"innocent" verdict to ensure a high-quality society / efficient justice. The
same can apply for intellectual systems: we need "truth" and "falsity".
Sometimes MoQ provides too many moving targets for its own good. A
binary-outcome system is better sometimes than a system which is
self-referential with multiple levels and a continuum of judgement possible.
>and also that it is now virulently attacking the
> larger, dominant culture.
Be careful though, not to fall into the trap of majoritarianism - a
priveleged member of a static society might describe any force for change as
a virus too. The Taliban might claim that "The West" is a virus.
>I do think that this terrorism can be compared to
> a virus or a cancer, but it is not a question of biology vs intellect, but
> of cancerous intellect vs (fairly) healthy intellect (just as a cancerous
> cell is still a cell, not, eg a bacterium).
Their memes feed on desperation on all Levels, and promise paradise and
total transcendence through mass destruction in their "cause". I think it's
a combination of Social and Intellectual forces though, in a kind of
reinforcing feed-back loop.
Also, Alvin Toffler proposed a hypotheses that there are three "Waves" of
civilisation: Agricultural, Industrial, and Technological. He predicted that
conflicts would eventually arise between societies contemporaneously
inhabiting different Waves.
> Thesis two: The West, especially the US, bears a responsibility for
> encouraging the conditions within which this pathological intellectual
> pattern has been able to flourish.
http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/ny-attack.htm
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan: statement on
the terrorist attacks in the US
"RAWA had already warned that the United States should not support the
most treacherous, most criminal, most anti-democracy and anti-women
Islamic fundamentalist parties because after both the Jehadi and the
Taliban have committed every possible type of heinous crimes against
our people, they would feel no shame in committing such crimes
against the American people whom they consider "infidel".
But unfortunately we must say that it was the government of the United
States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul Haq in creating
thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In
the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama Bin Laden has been the blue-eyed
boy of the CIA.
.... will the US subject Afghanistan to a military attack similar to
the one in 1998 and kill thousands of innocent Afghans for the crimes
committed by the Taliban and Osama? Does the US think that through
such attacks, with thousands of deprived, poor and innocent people of
Afghanistan as its victims, will be able to wipe out the root-cause
of terrorism, or will it spread terrorism even to a larger scale? "
> In other words, it is rather like someone who smokes bearing a
> responsibility for the lung cancer that sets in many years later. To be
> fair, I think the vast majority of US citizens have been sublimely unaware
> of the consequences of their actions, but ignorance is no excuse in the
> sight of the law.
Though perhaps distinctions should be more firmly established between the US
body politic collectively, and the the poor unfortunates who have been
murdered. If I smoke and get cancer, it's not just some random part of my
body that gets killed, if you get me. Although if we see this as an attack
on the US way of life, it would be inconsistent not to then see if the
American way of life can change any of its habits that could
provoke/engender such occurences in the future.
>To list some of the prinicipal factors: i) the idolisation
> of material gratification,
- Social level being co-opted by the biological and inorganic, or lower
social values of rank/status.
- The social level thus co-opted by above pursuits, "eats" up other
peoples/nations social, biological and inorganic spheres. Like an
unthinking amoeba... or foreign policy that is set by the boys in the back
room, cause we're all too busy watching "Friends".
>most especially cheap oil;
Mmmm, dunno. Ya gotta burn ta earn... (yeehaw)
A fat lot of good the hydrocarbons were doing lying under the ground for 65
million years after all.
However, the Middle East states (and their ruling classes) are the creations
of Ameropean Imperial powers, carving up the turf in their Great Game.
Recycling is the life of the MidEast, in the form of Petrodollars
Mideast>Oil>Ameropea
Ameropea>Dollars>Mideast
Mideast>Dollars>Ameropea
Ameropea>Armaments>Mideast
Armaments are great. Their entire reason for existence is to destroy
otherwise useful capital. There is the potential capital of its user that is
essentially destroyed once it is used in their creation, and then there's
all that capital (of the, uh, "usee") destroyed when it is actually used.
Oh sure, there's the deterrent thing, security and stuff. Which leads me
to...
> ii) the sanctions
> campaign against Iraq;
Drop food and consumer products on "enemies" of the USA. Seriously. What
kind of opponents does the US have? If you drew a comparison graph, I'll bet
big money that the level of hostility of a regime, and the level of poverty
and starvation of the poor bastards who have to live under that regime, are
almost directly proportional. Think: North Korea.
Figure out how much a typical war costs. In money... in lives.
Then figure out how much it would cost to do the following:
What are the objectives of war? To make your opponents go away. US
opponent-regimes generally control what their captive populations hear, see,
eat, do. They welcome every punishment doled out by the great Satan as a way
to consolidate their own power - nothing so unites a people as a common
enemy remember. So just completely subvert their control mechanisms. Drop
food on them. Wind-up radios, TVs and DVD players. No military force in the
world can seperate teenagers from their MTV. Park satellites overhead
broadcasting all the decadence of the West into their living rooms. Do you
think well-fed people who can watch BayWatch and listen to Britney Spears
will give a damn about their Generalissimos Great Glorious Patriotic
Revolutionary War against the Western Imperialist Infidel? Your opponents
will go away. They will want to be able buy the things you have, and will
eventually become fat and obese and suffer from anomie and take Prozac like
us too, and their women will deliberately starve themselves to try and live
up to totally unrealistic role models in magazines.
Foreign policy seems to be the only pursuit where killing the hostages is
considered a way of punishing the Kidnappers.
>iii) the contempt for international norms (eg Kyoto;
> international court of criminal justice);
But NATO and Britney Spears could be argued to be international norms of a
sort too. I'm not sure that every country should be herded into accepting
them either.
I'm a former member of GreenPeace, and really appreciate the concrete work
they have done, epecially when environmentalism wasn't 'mainstream'.
I'm starting to have serious doubts concerning global warming though. For
every pronouncement insisting it exists, there seems to be a piece of
science or evidence that suggests to the contrary. I'm quite willing to
consider that there may be a bias in favour of industry when I consider the
sources - but this is not something that greens seem willing to ponder
regarding their own evidence. We should use the same intellectual framework
and stantards of quality for both. A lot of Greens seem to be anti-tech
first, and use some environmental concerns as a way to rationalise/justify
imposing their own view of society (or social values). Nowadays, we're all
supposed to cook to death, 30 years ago it was supposed to be a new ice age
- the only thing in common is a rejection of industrial society.
And from another mailing list:
"Decisions of the International Court of Justice are non-binding.
This situation is changing dramatically with the
creation of the International Criminal Court, adopted
in Rome, in 1998 - over the objection of the United
States. The purpose of this new court is to prosecute
violations of "human rights," which are presently
defined in the Court's Charter to be limited to war
crimes, genocide, international terrorism, and the
like. The Court, though, has the authority to redefine
its jurisdiction at will, well beyond the reach of
U.N. Security Council veto."
>iv) third world debt;
Cripples countries alright. But a bankers' relation to someone who borrows
money, is similar to that of a farmer and his chicken. The farmer is not the
chickens friend, he is not its animal welfare custodian. He keeps the
chicken for one purpose: it is a source of wealth for him. If the chicken
defaults with its eggs, off goes its head, and into the pot it goes. If
farmers weren't allowed to do this, what would be productive use of having
chickens? It is a mistake for anyone to think that a banker has his
customers' best interests at heart - this is a load of marketing hooey.
Also, many third world countries are little more than the gang-turfs of
various Kleptocracies. They use their countries' wealth as a personal
expense/retirement/mortgage account. Stop giving them money! You are
enabling a destructive addiction and dependency.
> v) the
> sponsorship of state terrorism (Chile, Nicaragua, Israel etc). I could go
> on, and doubtless this argument is raging in various places, and it doesn't
> need to be rubbed in.
No, I think it needs to be rubbed in.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran196.html
The Blasts
by Joseph Sobran
"Ah yes, we and the Israelis are hated for our good qualities. Our
governments have done nothing to provoke hostility. US and Israeli bombings
of civilians don't count as "terrorism," of course; nor should Iraqis resent
sanctions that cause them and their children to die of disease and
malnutrition; nor should reasonable Palestinians mind being shot and
tyrannized with American-supplied weapons."
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
WHO IS OUSMANE BIN LADEN?
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics,
University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation
"Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks,
branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in
the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Ousmane bin Laden was
recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices
of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders"."
> Thesis three: Military force cannot defeat an intellectual pattern.
Unless by total war you "liquidate" all potential biological carriers of
it... hands up for "Operation Infinite Bloodshed", anyone? Anyone?
> This seems axiomatic to me, but lets spell out what it would mean in
> practice....
Let me add some more shpiel:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/
An Afghan-American speaks
By Tamim Ansary
Sept. 14, 2001
"You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there. But you can
start a new world war, and that's exactly what Osama bin Laden wants
... he figures [that] if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West,
he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands,
that's a billion people with nothing left to lose; that's even better from
Bin Laden's point of view.
... the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
ours.
Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=94254
Robert Fisk: Bush is walking into a trap
16 September 2001
"Retaliation is a trap. In a world that was supposed to have learnt that the
rule of law comes above revenge, President Bush appears to be heading for
the very disaster that Osama bin Laden has laid down for him. Let us have no
doubts about what happened in New York and Washington last week. It was a
crime against humanity. We cannot understand America's need to retaliate
unless we accept this bleak, awesome fact. But this crime was perpetrated -
it becomes ever clearer - to provoke the United States into just the blind,
arrogant punch that the US military is preparing."
http://www.thepost.ie/story.jsp?story=WCContent;id-26961
The Sunday Business Post, Ireland
"If America is now to embark upon a huge war against Islam, can any adviser
argue with credibility that this war can be brought to a successful
conclusion? There will be no end to such a conflict. The overwhelming
military superiority of the west will be no more than an irrelevance in
tackling such an ill-defined and highly motivated enemy. The strategy that
Bush seeks to impose upon his European allies is one without any exit
mechanism."
> Thesis four: An intellectual pattern succeeds and flourishes in so far as it
> shows itself of higher value than the alternatives (ie closer to the truth,
> and more profitable for individual believers)
Which is why International students have such great parties in US
universities (compared to those Frat/Sorority cultists): They've seen and
experienced the alternative social/intellectual patterns...
The thing is though, people from around the world who go to university
parties, or who debate in forums such as this, generally belong to a very
priveleged elite globally. Most people on this planet will never even use a
phone in the course of their lives.
Actually, maybe the best thing the US could do for the rest of the world is
to encourage/aid more students from abroad to study there, and to continue a
liberal immigration policy. Every grateful immigrant or returned student is
a potential international peace ambassador.
Have you noticed how the more of a basket-case a country is, the more hoops
you have to jump through to just ENTER it...?
> If the West is to succeed in this war, then it must win the battle for the
> hearts and minds of people in the Muslim world, removing the wells of hatred
> from which the fundamentalists drink. A military victory is a necessary part
> of that, but it is not sufficient. I would suggest that the strategic
> victory can only be accomplished by: a change in US foreign policy towards
> the Muslim world - indeed towards all of the third world, demonstrating the
> generosity which I know is a real part of the American nature.
But we should distinguish between aiding the People of a country, and giving
more money to Vampires who may run it. Also be aware that money-aid that
comes with conditions placed on the receiving state, is often portrayed (for
political gain) as American interference and meddling
>It also
> requires a multilateral approach,
I'm not sure I get this though. Switzerland isn't even a member of the UN,
it's a neutral country too. It hasn't been bombed by states or terrorists.
Couldn't the USA pursue armed, active Neutrality?
> and a submission to a higher form of law
> than the individual state
But this often just translates into being nothing more than the creation of
*another*, uber-state that can screw things up with even less
accountability.
> - a truly dynamic development, on the lines of the
> European Union.
The EU wants to be a superstate though. It subverts/bypasses national (i.e.
LOCAL) democracy and accountability, centralising power over all aspects of
its citizens' lives in a largely unaccountable and non-transparent
bureaucracy which produces 10 new laws a day, with little or no
local/national variation or veto or input. Is that progress...?
>Although the US is in the lead, it cannot win this on its
> own.
One last smarty-pants comment: I don't think the US has to win anything, or
lead anyone. I notice with the influence of American culture how so much
emphasis is placed on leadership as an inherent virtue, but I think the
world has greatly suffered from an excess of Great Leaders...
How about an international cooperative of peoples? (I think that's what
you're getting at anyway)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST