Manufacturing Dissent

Posted by Wally Keeler | Tue Oct 22nd 2002 1 a.m.

From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> We all
> know what he has done since then. He is not so much known for his work as
a Linguist now as his
> being a conscientious objector and critic of abuses of power, particularly
in the west, and even
> more particularly by the United States. And it is the language of power he
pays particular
> attention to in the media. "The manufacture of consent" being his most
famous description of how
> power industrializes discourse, how power machines consent.
>
> I bring him up because he is really an inspirational figure not only to
activists around the
> world ...

Noam Chomsky's Jihad Against America
By David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 19, 2001

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3

ON OCTOBER 18, eleven days after U.S. military forces began America's
response to the monstrous September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center,
Noam Chomsky explained the unfolding events to an audience of 2,000 people
who were gathered for a prestigious MIT lecture series. His speech was
called "The New War Against Terror" and has been posted on the Internet,
broadcast on C-Span and published as a new Chomsky broadside. Weeks later,
as the fighting in Afghanistan reached its highest pitch, Chomsky appeared
in Islamabad to share his views with the Muslim population of Pakistan, that
nuclear and none-too-stable state.

Coming a month after the original attacks, and a week after the United
States had begun its response, the speech provided a clear picture of
Chomsky's analytic process, his use of evidence, and the way in which the
war has crystallized the agendas of Chomsky's lifelong crusade against his
country.

Chomsky proposes to deal with five questions in addressing his subject, the
first of which, he observes, far outweighs all the others: "One question,
and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit
in that is what can we do about it?" The numbered headings of the answers to
these questions in the text that follows correspond to the headings in
Chomsky's transcript as it appears on the website at zmag.org.

What's Happening Right Now? Starvation of 3 to 4 million people.

Well, let's start with right now. I'll talk about the situation in
Afghanistan. I'll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York
Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New York Times there are 7-8
million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true
actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On
September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting, that the United States
demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of
the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as
I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that
matter in Europe.

In short, in Chomsky's view the United States had already begun - in a
calculated way -- to starve millions of defenseless civilians in
Afghanistan. Moreover, no one in the West cared. This is what is "happening
now." This provides us with the accurate moral equation for these
misrepresented events.

In order that nobody should fail to appreciate the gravity of the point,
Chomsky spells it out again in the very next paragraph -- which the website
underscores with the sub-heading,

Silent Genocide
Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a
good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture we are part of. It
indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being
made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the
death of several million people in the next few months very casually with no
comment, no particular thought about it, that's just kind of normal, here
and in a good part of Europe.

The style is classic Chomsky. Looks like what's happening is some sort of
silent genocide. The casual tone and the faux professorial caution in
formulating the claim are meant to disarm his listeners as they absorb the
charge, which is actually quite lurid, and also quite lunatic - at odds with
everything we know about the way Americans and Europeans generally behave,
and the way they were behaving as of October 18 in response to the
unprovoked Al Qaeda attacks: No Muslim round-ups; no firing squads; no
missile sprays at civilian populations in South Asia. But the professor
knows better: The calculated starving of millions of innocents is actually
"just kind of normal" for us folks.

Chomsky's answer to the question "what is happening now?" provides his
audience with a bottom-line view of America and its Western allies: We are
moral monsters; we are coolly planning the murder of not merely thousands of
innocents like the desperate crew who brought down the World Trade Center -
and whom we are about to punish -- but millions. Moreover, even if the
starvation doesn't actually take place, the intention to make it happen is
unarguable. The American government has laid plans "on the assumption that
they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months
very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it ... The
country was on a life-line and we just cut the line."

Of course, these were cold and calculated lies. In fact, it is this kind of
malicious libel, characteristic of Chomsky's political writings that has put
them on the shelf alongside the Turner Diaries and the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion in the genre of paranoid conspiracy tracts. Readers unused to
such blunt mendacity, might still want to give Chomsky the benefit of the
doubt. Perhaps they think Chomsky could not possibly have meant what he
wrote. Surely he does not mean to place American democracy on a par with
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other apostles of the mass annihilation of
innocent populations. If so, however, they would be wrong, and Chomsky is
the first to let them know it. "All right," he continues, "let's turn to the
slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we are in
the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban,
of course, their victims."

No wonder they want to bomb us! No wonder Al Qaeda resorts to "terror" - a
word, which as Chomsky will explain, is really a cynical verbal construction
imposed on our language by the monsters themselves - since, in fact,
"terror" is more properly understood as the real victims' revenge.

Chomsky weaves these fantasies with the skill of Thomas Mann's Mario the
Magician - a famous fascist prototype whose audience, spellbound by his
illusions, could no longer distinguish truth from falsehood, evil from good.
Chomsky's own hypnotic power derives from the impression that his bizarre
text is based on actual sources like the New York Times, and as though the
reality he is inventing were instead visible beneath its surface to eyes
ingenious enough to detect it.

Recall how Chomsky sets up the scenario of a Washington plot to deliberately
starve 3-4 million innocent Afghan civilians: "On September 16th, the Times
reported, I'm quoting, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the
elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other
supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." That was September 16th. A
month later, on October 16th -- two days before Chomsky's speech another
article appeared written by Elisabeth Busmiller and Elizabeth Becker, which
began: "President Bush promoted his relief fund for Afghan children at the
headquarters of the American Red Cross today." In other words, the Bush
Administration was working to prevent the starvation of Afghan civilians.

"The Pentagon and the British Defense Ministry," the same article reported,
"have agreed to coordinate the air strikes so they will not hit relief
convoys." Evidently, the truck convoys continued. To get to Chomsky's
conclusion, therefore, one has to deny first the reality of American
governmental relief efforts and then convert every concern expressed by
private relief agencies - some of which like Oxfam have a history of
hostility to United States foreign policy -- into irrefutable statements of
fact. One would also have to ignore the role played by the Taliban itself in
the food crisis. As the Times story itself notes (and Chomsky ignores), the
Taliban was stealing food from the very convoys Chomsky refers to, in order
to supply their own forces:

The Taliban have also begun levying a tax of $8 to $37 a ton on wheat coming
into the country. "One convey of 1,000 tons of wheat was held up for five
days trying to negotiate the tax," Mark Bartolini of the International
Rescue Committee said. Since airstrikes began, several warehouses have been
looted and local staff members have been beaten.

Of course the war conditions in Afghanistan that militate against the
delivery of food are the result of the terrorist aggression supported by the
Taliban regime. No one would think of blaming Churchill and FDR, rather than
Hitler, for the harsh conditions in Germany during the war.

On November 16 -- almost a month after Chomsky's MIT talk -- another article
appeared on the front page of the New York Times with the title, "Now, the
Battle to Feed the Afghan Nation." Written by Tim Weiner, the article
reported that the American military was using its full resources to "deliver
relief for millions of hungry, cold, sick, war-weary Afghans." Moreover,
"NATO allies" -- acting as a "full partner" to relief agencies - "will ship
food, clothing, shelter and medicine to the nations surrounding Afghanistan
for United Nations relief organizations, private aid groups and intrepid
Afghan truckers to deliver to people in ruined cities and shattered
villages."

In other words, the facts tell a story the exact opposite of Chomsky's
malicious claims. US led military action saved Afghan lives, led to the
restoration of food relief, and lessened the danger of the mass starvation
that might have been in store had Taliban rule continued. Because of the US
action, some five million Afghans, who could have starved, now have hope.
While the aid effort is international, the US alone is "paying for much of
the good that the coalition is moving into Afghanistan." As Mark Bartolini,
vice president of the International Rescue Committee told the Times, "had
this war not occurred, we wouldn't have had the access we have now -- the
best access in the past decade." At the time, the Bush administration had in
fact provided $320 million in food aid, which has "resolved for the moment"
the question of actual food supplies getting to the people.

The Times story was reinforced by an article by Laura Rozen in the on-line
magazine Salon.com, which appeared the next day: "Aid experts say that the
agencies' repeated alarms about the impact of the U.S. military campaign
against the Taliban have ignored the fact that more food has been reaching
Afghanistan since the U.S. bombing began than was before-a lot more." Rozen
quotes John Fawcett, a humanitarian relief worker, who stated unequivocally,
"more aid has gone into Afghanistan in the past month than in the past year.
The aid agencies cried wolf. They said the bombing will stop us from
delivering humanitarian aid. It will create 1.5 million refugees. Well, in
fact, the result of the bombing is there are 150,000 new refugees --
one-tenth of what they expected, and there's been a tenfold increase of
humanitarian aid getting in."

A possible reason for the exaggerated concerns of the aid groups was
suggested by Rozen: "It's hard not to think that some aid groups' opposition
to the bombing stemmed more from a fundamental reluctance among humanitarian
groups to endorse a campaign of violence." It is certainly true that the
violence of war affected the flow of aid - in the last weeks of November,
when the war was at its height there was a temporary falling off in aid
shipments (which were still twice the levels pre-September 11th). But given
the conditions of war, the Bush regime, as one would expect, was doing what
was humanly possible to provide aid to the Afghan people. So much for
Chomsky's "silent genocide."

America's defeat of the Taliban, in fact, has greatly enhanced the future
prospects for the Afghan people. As John Norris, a senior advisor to the
International Crisis Group put it to Rozen, "the retreat of the Taliban from
key positions could make way to.a significant increase in aid deliveries and
distribution" of food and other materials. "The spigots for aid," Norris
said, "are going to be open in Afghanistan now like never before.. This
military action is humanitarian action. Do you want to deliver food packets
to the concentration camp, or do you want to get rid of the concentration
camp?"

On November 30th, the New York Times had reported that the absence of a
bridge between northern Afghanistan and Uzbekistan cut off "the most
promising avenue for shipping in supplies." Once again, however, the US
acted to address the situation. A week later, on December 8, Agence France
Presse reported that Colin Powell had flown to Uzbekistan "with a diplomatic
triumph under his belt after persuading the reluctant authorities to open a
key bridge linking the central Asian country to Afghanistan." The bridge,
which opened a few days later, was described as "a vital gateway for getting
badly-needed humanitarian aid supplies into northern Afghanistan." In other
words, U.S. policy had once again resulted in a situation that increased the
availability of food supplies. The bridge had been closed "for four years
since the Taliban took control of north-east Afghanistan," and the
Uzbekistan government feared Taliban fighters coming into its country if it
was reopened. America's military defeat of the Taliban changed the equation.
It was estimated that opening the bridge would supply "40 percent of the
humanitarian needs of the Afghan people."

Chomsky's indictment had two counts - the alleged genocide and the silence
that supposedly accompanied it: "Plans are being made and programs
implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
million people in the next few months very casually with no comment, no
particular thought about it." The first count -- as we have easily
established -- is obviously false. The second originates in a thesis
familiar to readers of Chomsky's book, Manufacturing Consent, a vulgar
Marxist tract arguing that the American media functions as a propaganda
agency for the government and its ruling class bosses. In his MIT address,
Chomsky asserted, "the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food
pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions
of victims. As far as I'm aware that was unreported. [Chomsky did not reveal
how he knew this if it was "unreported."] That was Monday. Yesterday the
major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea.
You can't find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the
Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir."

In fact, the story in the Boston Globe was headlined "Fighting Terror
Tensions in South Asia" - a region that includes Afghanistan - and there
were three full paragraphs on the pleadings of the aid groups to stop the
bombing. Moreover, as the citations above show, the story received attention
in other sources, including the Times story of October 16. It was also
reported on the nightly television network newscasts. It is reasonable to
presume that the reason the story failed to receive even wider coverage was
that it had no basis in fact, but only in the exaggerated fears of the aid
groups, which responsible reporters would check. Put another way, the reason
the genocide of Afghans was not a big news feature was that it was not news
at all; it was just a figment of Noam Chomsky's malignant imagination. Since
there was no such planned genocide there was also no silence concerning one.
Chomsky built his case, as his practice, on a tissue of distortions. It is
in the cumulative effect of these distortions that his cultic power derives.
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Oct 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    You may recall there was considerable publicity concerning the potential starvation of millions
    of Afghans in the absence of aide, given that the U.S. was starting an extended bombing campaign
    there, was preventing traffic between Afghanistan and other countries at border points, and the
    Afghan winter was about to set in.

    So, yes, the U.S ended up being very generous with both food and bombs. Just how that would go
    was not clear Oct 18. Extremely unpleasant of Chomsky to assume that the US would not care
    whether they starved. Perhaps he was thinking of the sanctions against Iraq which have resulted
    in many thousands of people, young and old, starving to death. Or how the Kurds were abandoned
    by the U.S to face Iraqi gas once they were no longer of use.

    Regardless of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' it is usually innocent people who end up dying
    in masses, Wally. In speaking out forcefully concerning the potential starvation of millions of
    Afghan civilians, at a time when it was very much still a possibility, and in placing the
    responsibility for averting this on the U.S. government, Chomsky did what needed to be done at
    the time.

    He was not spearheading a "jihad against America", but attempting to do what he could to avert
    more senseless misery and death.

    The article you posted, I note, was from www.frontpagemagazine.com . I visited that site to see
    what it was like. Here are some of today's headlines from that site:

    "Twelve thousand professors have signed a petition urging the President not to take the war to
    Saddam Hussein; fortunately no one is listening to professors these days."

    "Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
    By John J. Ray
    The current left owes more to Mussolini than to Marx."

    "They want to kill us all
    Forget the
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Oct 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    http://www.ludology.org/kabulkaboom.html

    An interesting piece done during the bombing of Afghanistan.

    ja
  • marc garrett | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    It's like another McCarthy stint..

    marc

    > You may recall there was considerable publicity concerning the potential
    starvation of millions
    > of Afghans in the absence of aide, given that the U.S. was starting an
    extended bombing campaign
    > there, was preventing traffic between Afghanistan and other countries at
    border points, and the
    > Afghan winter was about to set in.
    >
    > So, yes, the U.S ended up being very generous with both food and bombs.
    Just how that would go
    > was not clear Oct 18. Extremely unpleasant of Chomsky to assume that the
    US would not care
    > whether they starved. Perhaps he was thinking of the sanctions against
    Iraq which have resulted
    > in many thousands of people, young and old, starving to death. Or how the
    Kurds were abandoned
    > by the U.S to face Iraqi gas once they were no longer of use.
    >
    > Regardless of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' it is usually innocent
    people who end up dying
    > in masses, Wally. In speaking out forcefully concerning the potential
    starvation of millions of
    > Afghan civilians, at a time when it was very much still a possibility, and
    in placing the
    > responsibility for averting this on the U.S. government, Chomsky did what
    needed to be done at
    > the time.
    >
    > He was not spearheading a "jihad against America", but attempting to do
    what he could to avert
    > more senseless misery and death.
    >
    > The article you posted, I note, was from www.frontpagemagazine.com . I
    visited that site to see
    > what it was like. Here are some of today's headlines from that site:
    >
    > "Twelve thousand professors have signed a petition urging the President
    not to take the war to
    > Saddam Hussein; fortunately no one is listening to professors these days."
    >
    > "Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
    > By John J. Ray
    > The current left owes more to Mussolini than to Marx."
    >
    > "They want to kill us all
    > Forget the 'root causes', says Mark Steyn. The massacre in Bali was part
    of the continuing
    > Islamofascist war against the West, and those who ignore it are
    sleepwalking to national
    > suicide"
    >
    > Travel, Wally. Have fun. Loosen up. Be kind. Somebody buy this man a beer.
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Wally Keeler [mailto:poetburo@sympatico.ca]
    > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:36 PM
    > > To: Jim Andrews; List@Rhizome. Org
    > > Subject: Manufacturing Dissent
    > >
    > >
    > > From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    > > > We all
    > > > know what he has done since then. He is not so much known for his work
    as
    > > a Linguist now as his
    > > > being a conscientious objector and critic of abuses of power,
    particularly
    > > in the west, and even
    > > > more particularly by the United States. And it is the language of
    power he
    > > pays particular
    > > > attention to in the media. "The manufacture of consent" being his most
    > > famous description of how
    > > > power industrializes discourse, how power machines consent.
    > > >
    > > > I bring him up because he is really an inspirational figure not only
    to
    > > activists around the
    > > > world ...
    > >
    > > Noam Chomsky's Jihad Against America
    > > By David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh
    > > FrontPageMagazine.com | December 19, 2001
    > >
    > > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
    against
    > > them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
    > > U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3
    > >
    > > ON OCTOBER 18, eleven days after U.S. military forces began America's
    > > response to the monstrous September 11 attacks on the World Trade
    Center,
    > > Noam Chomsky explained the unfolding events to an audience of 2,000
    people
    > > who were gathered for a prestigious MIT lecture series. His speech was
    > > called "The New War Against Terror" and has been posted on the Internet,
    > > broadcast on C-Span and published as a new Chomsky broadside. Weeks
    later,
    > > as the fighting in Afghanistan reached its highest pitch, Chomsky
    appeared
    > > in Islamabad to share his views with the Muslim population of Pakistan,
    that
    > > nuclear and none-too-stable state.
    > >
    > > Coming a month after the original attacks, and a week after the United
    > > States had begun its response, the speech provided a clear picture of
    > > Chomsky's analytic process, his use of evidence, and the way in which
    the
    > > war has crystallized the agendas of Chomsky's lifelong crusade against
    his
    > > country.
    >
    >
    > + new media rugby
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    > You may recall there was considerable publicity concerning the potential
    starvation of millions
    > of Afghans in the absence of aide, given that the U.S. was starting an
    extended bombing campaign
    > there, was preventing traffic between Afghanistan and other countries at
    border points, and the
    > Afghan winter was about to set in.

    The so-called "brutal Afghan winter was largely a no-show, pumped up by a
    handful of ngo's and their media ass-lickers. (The media don't care who they
    lick as long as they get a startling image). The considerable publicity was
    also pumped up by many ngo's who saw a way of increasing their relevance and
    funding. Indeed, the USA could be given credit for opening up a supply line
    in the north to bring in tons of food. Actually, it turned out that the USA
    made conditions favourable enough that it inspired millions of refugees to
    return. This never happened since the Soviets occupied the country, and
    never happened while the Taliban was ruling. After almost a quarter century,
    not a single ngo had a single idea on how to bring those millions home. Of
    course, when several million people make a mass movement from one place to
    another, there are problematic logistics -- and it is my opinion that The
    West should be doing more to help these millions re-settle back into their
    homeland.

    > So, yes, the U.S ended up being very generous with both food and bombs.
    Just how that would go
    > was not clear Oct 18. Extremely unpleasant of Chomsky to assume that the
    US would not care
    > whether they starved.

    Assumptions. Alarmist jingoism. How astute!

    > Perhaps he was thinking of the sanctions against Iraq

    If he was thinking about that, then Chomsky's thoughts are less focussed and
    more likely roaming peripheries. How astute.

    > which have resulted
    > in many thousands of people, young and old, starving to death.

    Interesting, how sanctions against South Africa didn't have the same
    results, but sanctions were applauded. Hmm.

    > Or how the Kurds were abandoned
    > by the U.S to face Iraqi gas once they were no longer of use.

    That is a valid criticism. And I hope like hell the USA learned from this
    lesson. But then again, if we follow your reasoning, better that Saddam have
    his hands on their throats.

    > Regardless of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' it is usually innocent
    people who end up dying
    > in masses, Wally.

    Millions of innocents at the hands of Saddam. Millions at the hands of
    Stalin & his heirs. Millions at the hands of Hitler. Millions at the hands
    of Pol Pot. Millions at the hands of Kim Il Sung. Yep, it is better not to
    intervene and save any of those millions.

    > In speaking out forcefully concerning the potential starvation of millions
    of
    > Afghan civilians, at a time when it was very much still a possibility,

    Only in the wet dreams of alarmist jingoists.

    > and in placing the
    > responsibility for averting this on the U.S. government, Chomsky did what
    needed to be done at
    > the time.

    Chomsky didn't make any policy concerning this. The credit goes to the USA
    government for doing the right thing - opening up supply lines for food. But
    jeeeez, how could one give credit to the USA? Oh it must be so damn
    difficult for so many to have to give a single point of credit to the USA.

    > He was not spearheading a "jihad against America", but attempting to do
    what he could to avert
    > more senseless misery and death.

    I don't believe he was spearheading a jihad either. That is nothing more
    than pumping things up for the media, just like some ngo's pump things up
    for the media.

    > The article you posted, I note, was from www.frontpagemagazine.com . I
    visited that site to see
    > what it was like. Here are some of today's headlines from that site:
    >
    > "Twelve thousand professors have signed a petition urging the President
    not to take the war to
    > Saddam Hussein; fortunately no one is listening to professors these days."

    Meaningless generalization.

    > "Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
    > By John J. Ray
    > The current left owes more to Mussolini than to Marx."

    There is as much blood on the hands of the left as there is on the right.

    > "They want to kill us all
    > Forget the 'root causes', says Mark Steyn. The massacre in Bali was part
    of the continuing
    > Islamofascist war against the West, and those who ignore it are
    sleepwalking to national
    > suicide"

    There are still many empty rectums that have room for more heads.

    > Travel, Wally. Have fun. Loosen up. Be kind. Somebody buy this man a beer.

    I don't drink. Perhaps some inhalation?

    Oh I do have fun. My speciality the past few years has been assisting Roma
    (Gypsies) refugees to settle in Canada.
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Is that your method of formulating policy -- animated cartoons? How astute!

    > http://www.ludology.org/kabulkaboom.html
    >
    > An interesting piece done during the bombing of Afghanistan.
    >
    > ja
    > + new media rugby
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > It's like another McCarthy stint..

    Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
  • marc garrett | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Wally,

    Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for you...

    marc

    > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    >
    > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    >
    >
  • Wally Keeler | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    It's deliberate. It's poetic licence. I use it to achieve poetic justice.
    Sorry to expose your banality boner.

    From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for you...
    >
    > > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    > >
    > > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Ok class. All those in favor of a better world raise your hands. Now all those
    who didn't raise your hands, please go home. The rest of you, lets start
    talking and stop fighting amongst yourselves.

    Joseph

    Quoting Wally Keeler <poetburo@sympatico.ca>:

    > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    >
    > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    >
    >
    > + new media rugby
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • marc garrett | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Yep - i'm bored with it all, let's move on...

    marc

    > Ok class. All those in favor of a better world raise your hands. Now all
    those
    > who didn't raise your hands, please go home. The rest of you, lets start
    > talking and stop fighting amongst yourselves.
    >
    > Joseph
    >
    >
    > Quoting Wally Keeler <poetburo@sympatico.ca>:
    >
    > > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    > >
    > > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    > >
    > >
    > > + new media rugby
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Marc;

    I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this weekend.
    I've never been to one. But something I've noticed is that whenever I
    see them on TV, people are dressed really casually. Because I was
    thinking that if I went I would wear a suit and tie, just because every
    person you see at a rally in dreadlocks and an anarchy tee shirt is one
    guy whose opinion doesn't matter as far as the media and centrist
    americans are concerned. If we had 40,000 protesters in clean hair cuts
    and respectable suits getting arrested there would be greater resistance
    to the war, I bet you a zillion dollars. Maybe I'm cynical but the
    pro-war guys have a massive advantage in the public relations department
    and I think it's stupid to let them have it when all we have to do is
    tiny things like dress better, like, seriously, we do it for job
    interviews, why don't we do it when there are thousands of lives at
    stake? Like why dress all casual for a protest if you take it seriously,
    you know? I think protesters should try their hardest to look like
    republicans. Especially if they're going to get arrested. Imagine media
    coverage of a guy in a suit and tie and good haircut getting arrested,
    as opposed to a picture of a shaggy haired guy with lots of beads- and
    that is always who you see getting arrested. And most people say "oh
    well, he's probably smoking pot and doesn't have a real job" which is
    obviously bullshit but why give those people any reason to take this
    less seriously?

    Anyway I feel like this is also relevant to our behavior towards people
    with pro-war stances. If we dismiss people out of hand, aren't we
    perpetuating the issues that lead to war? I mean to be truly pacifist it
    means more than being against the war- it's also a method of being
    against the war in a way that doesn't perpetuate us vs thems? I mean
    Wally annoys the shit out of me too, just like when I hearing fox news
    in the other room while I was fixing a meal up, you know, "Fair,
    Accurate and Unbiased- Fox News!" and then the reporter literally said
    that President Bushes military budget increase he passed today would
    help to "Fight Evil-doers across the globe" and "keep americans safe
    from those who would do us harm." This was the news reporter, not like,
    Karl Rove. Wally strikes me the same way, "I'm open minded and check my
    facts- see, this article on one of the most notorious right wing
    websites in the world says it's true!" But at the same time, you know,
    we discuss things from the Guardian all the time. Is that any better?

    My main point really is that there's tiny things we can do to have the
    ideas taken more seriously, and I feel like responsibility in our
    discussions for what we say is important. Like you can attack Wally
    because he pretends he's fair and open minded and you can clearly blow a
    hole in that logic, but dismissing people and pretending it's because of
    spelling errors is a risk I feel like people shouldn't take. Anyone who
    wants to prove war is bad shouldn't give any easy ammo to the
    opposition, and we shouldn't fire that ammo, either.

    -e.

    furtherfield wrote:

    >Hi Wally,
    >
    >Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for you...
    >
    >marc
    >
    >
    >>From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    >>
    >>>It's like another McCarthy stint..
    >>>
    >>Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >+ new media rugby
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Christopher Fahey | Wed Oct 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    > > "Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
    > > By John J. Ray
    > > The current left owes more to Mussolini than to Marx."
    >
    > There is as much blood on the hands of the left as there is
    > on the right.

    This is a matter of semantics, a matter of how you define "right" and
    "left". To me, almost every tyrranical or belligerent regime I have ever
    heard of has been politically aligned to the right - even if they
    started off as Communists (left) they end up as fascists (right) once
    power is in their hands. At that point, they really no longer should be
    considered leftists except insofar as their internal propaganda may
    retain some leftist rhetoric to help keep the workers under control. If
    you consider the leftist trappings of the sociopathic regimes of Stalin
    or Pol Pot to be their most salient characteristics (that is, if you
    think that the fact that Stalin was a member of the Communist party is
    more important than the fact that he was a paranoid homicidal maniac),
    then I suppose you would consider many of the most notorious
    dictatorships in history to be "leftist" regimes. Right-wingers are so
    quick to point out that Hitler was a National *Socialist*, as if that
    proved something besides the political marketing value in the 1930's of
    the word "Socialist".

    It's pretty blurry ground when you try to apply "left" and "right" to
    instances of mass hysteria or to sociopaths and bloodthirsty dictators
    who have essentially transcended all political nomenclature... In
    general it seems to me that while left-wing ideology is often used to
    mask atrocities, right wing ideology has often historically *advocated*
    atrocities without shame or embarassment. Maybe my definitions are
    really screwed up, but to me once the bodies start piling up or once the
    rhetoric gets hateful or violent, then we're dealing with a swing to the
    right. Again, a lot of this is simply a matter of semantics I suppose.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • MTAA | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Marc;

    I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this
    weekend. I've never been to one. But something I've noticed is that
    whenever I see them on TV, people are dressed really casually.
    Because I was thinking that if I went I would wear a suit and tie,
    just because every person you see at a rally in dreadlocks and an
    anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose opinion doesn't matter as far as
    the media and centrist americans are concerned. If we had 40,000
    protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable suits getting arrested
    there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet you a zillion
    dollars. Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a massive
    advantage in the public relations department and I think it's stupid
    to let them have it when all we have to do is tiny things like dress
    better, like, seriously, we do it for job interviews, why don't we do
    it when there are thousands of lives at stake?

    this is great eryk, i'm taking your advice the next time i go to one
    of these things.

    i went to the anti-war/peace demo in central park a few weeks back.
    (m.river's gal (who is a hippy ;-) was taking him and since i'm
    anti-iraqwar II "The Revenge of The Shrub" i went along.)

    funny thing was, as we were walking to the rally i made the
    observation that what bothered me most about these things was the
    kooks they let on stage, every far left-wing (considering myself
    near-left to middle) wacko gets their minute to push their funky
    agendas. it's a totally non-mainstream chorus line of BS. and wonder
    of wonders, we get some stupid idiot (from the communist youth party
    no-less) yelling about the "motherfucking" capitalist pigs. she was a
    stereotype of a cliche of a cartoon, it was ridiculous.

    anyway, later i saw this on salon, so i post it now:

    Peace kooks
    The new antiwar movement is in danger of being hijacked by bizarre
    extremist groups -- and most protesters don't even know it.
    http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html

    if you can't get in (salon is subscription only on some stories), let
    me know and i'll email it to individuals. if enough people are
    interested i'll post it to the list.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • terrence kosick | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    Police beat children durring protest

    Terrence writes;

    I wonder if the "crazy and violent"" image of protests is quickly endorsed
    by those who would seek to discredit the good ideas that are masked by a
    largely unorganized groups' various frustrations and angers. I think the
    press works protest to create confusion and has only negative defeatist
    ends. As a simple example; Our Premier has recently started a closed door
    policy and has prevented a freeflow of information. Protests now follow him
    wherever he goes. ( he has around the clock security due to the high volume
    of supposed death threats) During one rally a Policeman was seen punching a
    12 year old in the face. The press got the melee on the news. It seemed
    sympathetic. A touching news clip showed two young girls tearfully
    recounting their friends fate, the next clip showed a gloating Leader
    calling the protestors "thugs". Even the camera angles, one down on on the
    huddled victims of police brutality expressing crushed hopes of the loss of
    freedom of speech and peaceful protest, the next clip, a childs view of the
    mocking angle of a head back, disdainful sneering comments of their adult
    leader calling all the protestors thugs, (including the kids I supposed) . I
    thought the message was about control and loss of hope telling us "your
    youthful protests are fruitless and disorderly and no one cares about you,
    you little thugs". I tend to think the news was showing the street kids as
    unruly victims with criminal parents who's lack of parental control was
    socially liable. The protest took place in what i would call the area where
    most artists and other socially responsible people live, and hang out. It
    seems to me the management used whatever occurs to their advantage, no
    matter who the protestors are or how the press makes them to be ( what clips
    to run) and what content gets reported and who gets hurt. maybe to get
    easier access, maybe to serve the powerful. Walking a thin line. Protest is
    supposed quietly discussed over dinner so you won't be a socially
    irresponsible thug? Hmm. That makes little sence since nothing comes of that
    setting if you eat well. There was really no intelligent reporting of what
    the protestors were saying as it was too easy, and news worthy to just
    report on the physical, social and emotional aspects that any ambulance
    chaser could want. So what would get discussed after a family watched the
    report? The views of the protestors? No , sadly, it would be about just
    another fruitless protest that ended in dicreditable violence and ignorance
    for all concerned or not. What's for dessert?

    T.

    >
    >I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this weekend. I've
    >never been to one. But something I've noticed is that whenever I see them
    >on TV, people are dressed really casually. Because I was thinking that if I
    >went I would wear a suit and tie, just because every person you see at a
    >rally in dreadlocks and an anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose opinion
    >doesn't matter as far as the media and centrist americans are concerned. If
    >we had 40,000 protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable suits getting
    >arrested there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet you a zillion
    >dollars. Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a massive advantage in
    >the public relations department and I think it's stupid to let them have it
    >when all we have to do is tiny things like dress better, like, seriously,
    >we do it for job interviews, why don't we do it when there are thousands of
    >lives at stake?
    >
    >this is great eryk, i'm taking your advice the next time i go to one of
    >these things.
    >
    >i went to the anti-war/peace demo in central park a few weeks back.
    >(m.river's gal (who is a hippy ;-) was taking him and since i'm
    >anti-iraqwar II "The Revenge of The Shrub" i went along.)
    >
    >funny thing was, as we were walking to the rally i made the observation
    >that what bothered me most about these things was the kooks they let on
    >stage, every far left-wing (considering myself near-left to middle) wacko
    >gets their minute to push their funky agendas. it's a totally
    >non-mainstream chorus line of BS. and wonder of wonders, we get some stupid
    >idiot (from the communist youth party no-less) yelling about the
    >"motherfucking" capitalist pigs. she was a stereotype of a cliche of a
    >cartoon, it was ridiculous.
    >
    >anyway, later i saw this on salon, so i post it now:
    >
    >Peace kooks
    >The new antiwar movement is in danger of being hijacked by bizarre
    >extremist groups -- and most protesters don't even know it.
    >http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html

    >
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    Broadband?
  • Christopher Fahey | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    > Imagine media coverage of a guy in a suit and tie and
    > good haircut getting arrested, as opposed to a picture
    > of a shaggy haired guy with lots of beads- and that is
    > always who you see getting arrested.

    Heh, if there were 99 arrests of protesters in suits and one of a
    topless college student with a nail through her nose, you can be sure
    the latter would be the one they show on the news.

    That said, I think your idea of asking protest participants to dress up
    a bit is a great idea. Your argument that "lives are at stake" should
    trump any punk rock ethos that says that "The Man cannot dictate how I
    look!". A protest is not an uprising or a party - it is a public
    relations exercise, even a propaganda operation.

    I also agree with t.whid's asessment of the speakers at such rallies.
    Not sure what to do about that, since most mainstream political speakers
    seem to have already knucked under. In an election season, the only
    people brave enough to oppose the war are those with nothing to lose
    -i.e., the lifer leftists tilting their pet windmills.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • M. River | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    --- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
    >
    > i went to the anti-war/peace demo in central park a
    > few weeks back.
    > (m.river's gal (who is a hippy ;-)

    Just for the Rhizome record: I'm single. She's more of
    a southern ex-goth. We're just "friends". I'm the
    "left kook" of MTAA. The tree works fine and yes,it
    does not use recycled paper. Sending an email out to
    "bring your drum" to the protest is a very lame idea
    and that person should have ants poured on them. On
    the other hand, don't wear the fucking suit. I'm still
    deciding about going to Washington this weekend (I'm
    broke). Endnode.net. The girl at the eyebeam party was
    not the girl that T. Whid mentioned.

    I hope this helps. Now, if the rest of the list has
    anything they would like to confess, please feel free.
    Thanks

    =====
    http://mteww.com
    http://tinjail.com

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
    http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
  • marc garrett | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Eryk,

    Hi Marc;

    I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this weekend. I've=
    never been to one. But something I've noticed is that whenever I see them =
    on TV, people are dressed really casually. Because I was thinking that if I=
    went I would wear a suit and tie, just because every person you see at a r=
    ally in dreadlocks and an anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose opinion doesn'=
    t matter as far as the media and centrist americans are concerned. If we ha=
    d 40,000 protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable suits getting arrest=
    ed there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet you a zillion dollar=
    s.

    Yes, I partly agree with you but back in the years of the Poll Tax in the U=
    K. There was a massive march where all sorts turned up against thatchers po=
    licies at the time. I witnessed the carnage caused by the many 'Little Men'=
    in their nasty gangs hitting women, children and anyone else they could fi=
    nd. The Riot Police loved every moment of it (rush of power you see). They =
    had obviously been briefed to cause as much pain as possible to let everyon=
    e know who was the boss. In the end many marchers got fed up with being bru=
    tally bashed by nasty officially 'legalized' thugs & retaliated to protect =
    themselves. Causing damage to property and many of the policemen. It's such=
    a shame that governments never listen to what it's people's needs are. The=
    Riot at Trafalgar Square is one of those examples. When push comes to shov=
    e, citizens are swiftly left to rot and what counts is maintaining the illu=
    sion of democracy.

    I'm not sure if you saw it at all, but I still have an image, the memory of=
    a woman, she could of been termed as a normal woman (I suppose) trampled b=
    y the police horses. Watching it made feel sick inside, it made me realise =
    that people (citizens) are not that valuable, not important, especially one=
    's who disagree with imposed non-democratic government policies, and also a=
    re willing to go and declare it.

    Many people were wearing suits that day also, but to be honest - you'd be c=
    lumped whatever you are, whatever you are wearing if you happen to get in t=
    he way at the time.

    It was a strange experience for me the next day. It was as if I had just be=
    en to a movie. The newspapers showed a young, masked women with a long pole=
    about to strike a policeman as he was defending himself with his shield. T=
    he press mentioned nothing of the ghastly things I and everyone saw. The po=
    lice are still arresting anyone who exhibits photographs proving what they =
    had done to many people that day. There are still many citizens in hospital=
    from that day who have been crippled & brain damaged by their inhumane wra=
    th. The media, the government condemned them all as anarchists. Wake up! Ho=
    w many anarchist are there out there? It was a mixture of Britain's people'=
    s, all united against the corrupt antics of the state.

    The recent Anti-War march in London had over 400,000 people from all differ=
    ent communities uniting together, trying and change something that they col=
    lectively belive is wrong. And, no! It is not wrong to ask governments to s=
    top killing civilians, Wally seems to feel it is. He also said that everyon=
    e who went was a sheep. Which I thought was a pretty shallow thing to say, =
    when there are so many dying out there and definatley much more will, and h=
    e's worried about being a sheep, poor little lamb. I listened to the radio =
    afterwards and watched the news to see the coverage - sure they covered it,=
    but played down the figures, falsified them. And then Tony Blair gave this=
    really lame speach on how he understands the feelings of the people of thi=
    s nation who do not want imposed wars and more dead, just for oil, or any o=
    ther lame-invented reason.

    Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a massive advantage in the publ=
    ic relations department and I think it's stupid to let them have it when al=
    l we have to do is tiny things like dress better, like, seriously, we do it=
    for job interviews, why don't we do it when there are thousands of lives a=
    t stake? Like why dress all casual for a protest if you take it seriously, =
    you know? I think protesters should try their hardest to look like republi=
    cans. Especially if they're going to get arrested. Imagine media coverage o=
    f a guy in a suit and tie and good haircut getting arrested, as opposed to =
    a picture of a shaggy haired guy with lots of beads- and that is always who=
    you see getting arrested. And most people say "oh well, he's probably smok=
    ing pot and doesn't have a real job" which is obviously bullshit but why gi=
    ve those people any reason to take this less seriously?

    Recently, earlier this year in a place called Bradford in the north of the =
    UK. There was some troubles with 'The National Front', causing tensions in =
    poor areas. They were stirring up racial tension against the muslims in the=
    area and saying that they should be driven out of the country. They had sk=
    inhead gangs beating asians up which caused some pretty outraghous riots, t=
    he police of course piled in and got in trouble by accidently hitting the w=
    rong 'asian-nigger', they accidentally beat up an asian labour politician. =
    It was in the press briefly, then as usual the 'whitewash' happened, the mo=
    re tirvial news was put on the front pages instead, dulling the issue, noth=
    ing has been heard since.

    Also while the march was happening in the UK against the War. The media was=
    spewing out in contrast loads of crap about an x politian and his sex life=
    all over the papers, this of course distrated many from the information ag=
    ainst the War.

    Anyway I feel like this is also relevant to our behavior towards people wit=
    h pro-war stances. If we dismiss people out of hand, aren't we perpetuating=
    the issues that lead to war? I mean to be truly pacifist it means more tha=
    n being against the war- it's also a method of being against the war in a w=
    ay that doesn't perpetuate us vs thems? I mean Wally annoys the shit out of=
    me too, just like when I hearing fox news in the other room while I was fi=
    xing a meal up, you know, "Fair, Accurate and Unbiased- Fox News!" and then=
    the reporter literally said that President Bushes military budget increase=
    he passed today would help to "Fight Evil-doers across the globe" and "kee=
    p americans safe from those who would do us harm." This was the news report=
    er, not like, Karl Rove. Wally strikes me the same way, "I'm open minded an=
    d check my facts- see, this article on one of the most notorious right wing=
    websites in the world says it's true!" But at the same time, you know, we =
    discuss things from the Guardian all the time. Is that any better?

    No- the Guardian is not better. What is better, is that civilians take cont=
    rol for once in their lame life and declare 'honestly', any where they can,=
    that they do not want people being killed for oil. If someone, a civilian =
    says that they do not want to see more lives killed - what's wrong with tha=
    t? Nothing, yet there ae those who feel that by expressing a human interest=
    , you creating propaganda. Give me a break!

    Eryk, it is not up to the media to tell us the news anymore, it ain't real.=
    It is up to us to find out for ourselves and make a decision/action on wha=
    t we find out. By going against the mediated haze that the boggled-eyed wes=
    tern world are drowning in, and discovering for ourselves what is real or f=
    alse or whatever, brings it back to us, on our own terms. Peopel are genera=
    lly lazy, and leave to much to others to give them information, that as we =
    both know, very often is misinformation.

    Declaring how you feel about something I believe is very important, especia=
    lly in these stylized, dis-empowering and mediated days. At present there i=
    s a war raging between the globalisation of market forces and the inadequat=
    e bombardment of (fascist style), extreme-like religions. Neither of these =
    options seems able to move humanity to a place of harmonious sanctity. The =
    historical push and pull effect caused by fundamentalist religion and the w=
    hite man's soul 'careering', sure is not getting us anywhere useful. So we =
    need to get those people who cause pain on a global scale out of their thro=
    nes - they need to be toppled. They are not good for the world. So how do w=
    e do that, by (like you said) in our own small ways challenging these basta=
    rds with our own methods. With one's art, by writing to them by marching, c=
    reating your own press and much more. Everyone who has a brain, a soul, a h=
    eart and potential of empathy, we can all do their own little bit. Make it =
    obvious that what is happening is wrong - rather than cowering behind the s=
    tate as though it is a parent.

    Is the ordinary person really too docile or uninterested to challenge all t=
    his nonsensical, bombastic exploitations? Well, no, but it can seem so. In =
    fact a lot of people get offended when one discusses various issues happeni=
    ng in the world. As though it is bad manners or something - but excuse me, =
    in my book it is bad manners to kill someone, anyone. A lot of people are n=
    ot interested in what's happening out there, outside their own small little=
    system. America & England are in a dangerous state of denial, if you look =
    at the news, listen to Bush/Blair speeches. It seems that everyone is just =
    searching for product rather than change.
    My main point really is that there's tiny things we can do to have the idea=
    s taken more seriously, and I feel like responsibility in our discussions f=
    or what we say is important. Like you can attack Wally because he pretends =
    he's fair and open minded and you can clearly blow a hole in that logic, bu=
    t dismissing people and pretending it's because of spelling errors is a ris=
    k I feel like people shouldn't take. Anyone who wants to prove war is bad s=
    houldn't give any easy ammo to the opposition, and we shouldn't fire that a=
    mmo, either.

    In respect of attacking Wally, and your issues around myself supposedly tak=
    ing the easy option and snapping at him. Well, the context needs to be clea=
    rer here, and I am sure others (hopefully) might get my drift; that I have =
    been pretty dedicated for a long time in arguing on various issues, and has=
    not all been political. Anyway, it should not be termed as a political ac=
    t to care for others. But recently I have grown very, very, very tired of R=
    hizome and coming across these 'right-wing people' who do not give a damn a=
    bout the issues discussed. They do not share their creativity with anyone, =
    in fact have not shown any interest at all in anyone else's work. So why ar=
    e they here?

    Personally I am very interested in other people's creativity and how they c=
    ome about to do what they do - I like to see people shine, it's special and=
    it is important. But it seems that the list is not that important anymore,=
    almost an embarassment to those upstairs. Don't get me wrong, I think that=
    the Rhizome crew are a pretty kool bunch, and they have done wonders in pr=
    omoting and declaring to the world the talent that resides on the Internet =
    - but putting one self in the position of worrying about how the list is pe=
    rcieved by the outside world is not positive. And the policy of not getting=
    rid of certain individuals who actually are not interested in sharing idea=
    s, rather just imposing them is wrong. Creativity should be free, not suppr=
    essed by people who continiously shout people down, just for being creative.

    But having said all this, I did not feel great by what I said. Sometimes yo=
    u feel that some people are not interested in debating or discussing or mov=
    ing on, or questioning their own assumptions/denail and all; so you just la=
    sh out back at them for attacking you. I will not do this again, but I am v=
    ery sure that there are many on this list who (being human) understand my f=
    rustation...

    thanx - marc

    furtherfield wrote:

    Hi Wally,Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for y=
    ou...marc
    From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    It's like another McCarthy stint..
    Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    + new media rugby-> post: list@rhizome.org-> questions: info@rhizome.org-> =
    subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give=
    : http://rhizome.org/support+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the term=
    s set out in theMembership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org=
    /info/29.php
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Thu Oct 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hey Chris, I saw your comment on the issue of mainstream politicians all
    knuckling under. So you may be as surprised as I was to find that the
    people who are paying for buses from downtown Portland, Maine to
    Washington, DC for the express purpose of the anti-war protest are none
    other than Maines Democratic Party. In a state where the Greens have a
    shot at Governor, it was kind of nice to see that the Democrats are more
    willing to embrace left of center ideas as radical as not killing lots
    of people who don't look like us.

    -e.

    Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:

    >>Imagine media coverage of a guy in a suit and tie and
    >>good haircut getting arrested, as opposed to a picture
    >>of a shaggy haired guy with lots of beads- and that is
    >>always who you see getting arrested.
    >>
    >
    >Heh, if there were 99 arrests of protesters in suits and one of a
    >topless college student with a nail through her nose, you can be sure
    >the latter would be the one they show on the news.
    >
    >That said, I think your idea of asking protest participants to dress up
    >a bit is a great idea. Your argument that "lives are at stake" should
    >trump any punk rock ethos that says that "The Man cannot dictate how I
    >look!". A protest is not an uprising or a party - it is a public
    >relations exercise, even a propaganda operation.
    >
    >I also agree with t.whid's asessment of the speakers at such rallies.
    >Not sure what to do about that, since most mainstream political speakers
    >seem to have already knucked under. In an election season, the only
    >people brave enough to oppose the war are those with nothing to lose
    >-i.e., the lifer leftists tilting their pet windmills.
    >
    >-Cf
    >
    >[christopher eli fahey]
    >art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    >sci: http://www.askrom.com
    >biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
    >
    >
    >
    >+ new media rugby
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Max Herman | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Anyone see that little kid get grabbed off the plate tonight? We're talkin'
    baseball's brightest moment, I think.

    >From: "Terrence Kosick" <terrencekosick@hotmail.com>
    >Reply-To: "Terrence Kosick" <terrencekosick@hotmail.com>
    >To: twhid@mteww.com, list@rhizome.org
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: RE: Manufacturing Dissent
    >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:31:53 -0700
    >
    >
    >
    >Police beat children durring protest
    >
    >
    >Terrence writes;
    >
    >I wonder if the "crazy and violent"" image of protests is quickly endorsed
    >by those who would seek to discredit the good ideas that are masked by a
    >largely unorganized groups' various frustrations and angers. I think the
    >press works protest to create confusion and has only negative defeatist
    >ends. As a simple example; Our Premier has recently started a closed door
    >policy and has prevented a freeflow of information. Protests now follow him
    >wherever he goes. ( he has around the clock security due to the high volume
    >of supposed death threats) During one rally a Policeman was seen punching a
    >12 year old in the face. The press got the melee on the news. It seemed
    >sympathetic. A touching news clip showed two young girls tearfully
    >recounting their friends fate, the next clip showed a gloating Leader
    >calling the protestors "thugs". Even the camera angles, one down on on the
    >huddled victims of police brutality expressing crushed hopes of the loss of
    >freedom of speech and peaceful protest, the next clip, a childs view of the
    >mocking angle of a head back, disdainful sneering comments of their adult
    >leader calling all the protestors thugs, (including the kids I supposed) .
    >I thought the message was about control and loss of hope telling us "your
    >youthful protests are fruitless and disorderly and no one cares about you,
    >you little thugs". I tend to think the news was showing the street kids as
    >unruly victims with criminal parents who's lack of parental control was
    >socially liable. The protest took place in what i would call the area where
    >most artists and other socially responsible people live, and hang out. It
    >seems to me the management used whatever occurs to their advantage, no
    >matter who the protestors are or how the press makes them to be ( what
    >clips to run) and what content gets reported and who gets hurt. maybe to
    >get easier access, maybe to serve the powerful. Walking a thin line.
    >Protest is supposed quietly discussed over dinner so you won't be a
    >socially irresponsible thug? Hmm. That makes little sence since nothing
    >comes of that setting if you eat well. There was really no intelligent
    >reporting of what the protestors were saying as it was too easy, and news
    >worthy to just report on the physical, social and emotional aspects that
    >any ambulance chaser could want. So what would get discussed after a family
    >watched the report? The views of the protestors? No , sadly, it would be
    >about just another fruitless protest that ended in dicreditable violence
    >and ignorance for all concerned or not. What's for dessert?
    >
    >T.
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this weekend.
    >>I've never been to one. But something I've noticed is that whenever I see
    >>them on TV, people are dressed really casually. Because I was thinking
    >>that if I went I would wear a suit and tie, just because every person you
    >>see at a rally in dreadlocks and an anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose
    >>opinion doesn't matter as far as the media and centrist americans are
    >>concerned. If we had 40,000 protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable
    >>suits getting arrested there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet
    >>you a zillion dollars. Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a
    >>massive advantage in the public relations department and I think it's
    >>stupid to let them have it when all we have to do is tiny things like
    >>dress better, like, seriously, we do it for job interviews, why don't we
    >>do it when there are thousands of lives at stake?
    >>
    >>this is great eryk, i'm taking your advice the next time i go to one of
    >>these things.
    >>
    >>i went to the anti-war/peace demo in central park a few weeks back.
    >>(m.river's gal (who is a hippy ;-) was taking him and since i'm
    >>anti-iraqwar II "The Revenge of The Shrub" i went along.)
    >>
    >>funny thing was, as we were walking to the rally i made the observation
    >>that what bothered me most about these things was the kooks they let on
    >>stage, every far left-wing (considering myself near-left to middle) wacko
    >>gets their minute to push their funky agendas. it's a totally
    >>non-mainstream chorus line of BS. and wonder of wonders, we get some
    >>stupid idiot (from the communist youth party no-less) yelling about the
    >>"motherfucking" capitalist pigs. she was a stereotype of a cliche of a
    >>cartoon, it was ridiculous.
    >>
    >>anyway, later i saw this on salon, so i post it now:
    >>
    >>Peace kooks
    >>The new antiwar movement is in danger of being hijacked by bizarre
    >>extremist groups -- and most protesters don't even know it.
    >>http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html
    >
    >>
    >>
    >
    >_________________________________________________________________
    >Broadband?
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:

    > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    >
    > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.

    Poetry is impotence of the imagination. You have it in spades.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:

    > Ok class.

    School's over. And so is church.

    > All those in favor of a better world raise your hands.

    The world would be far 'better' without pissing dogs of
    your sort. In fact, the 'world' is constructed so that
    naturally it functions in harmony. Only blind dumbass
    'rebellious' idiot bullys 'cripple' it like you do.

    And the 'world' will take care of the likes of you.

    > Now all those who didn't raise your hands, please go home.

    Dear idiot, impotent and incompewtent twit--avoid
    dictating like the brain-obsessed ape that you are.

    > The rest of you, lets start talking

    Empty mouthing bla bla that keeps humans asleep.
    Lets!

    > and stop fighting amongst yourselves.

    And incompetent brute whose actions murder others
    advocating peace. Har. Yeah maybe they should
    'stop fighting' so you may feed more comfortable.
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, furtherfield wrote:

    > Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for you...

    What's with the idiotic spelling obsession?

    Your language is CRAP anyways in comparison to shakespearean times
    and very harmful. You're so mucha gainst UNIFORMS, but you haven't
    gotten rid of your own MENTALLY INDUCED ONE.

    Eins Zwei. March like I say.
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    >
    > And the 'world' will take care of the likes of you.
    >

    I want a big yard, a big house, a nice car, and all the ju-ju beans I can eat
    please.

    Thanks

    joseph
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:

    > I want a big yard, a big house, a nice car, and all the ju-ju beans I can eat
    > please.

    And the 'world' will leap to your ego-driven service.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
    >
    > > I want a big yard, a big house, a nice car, and all the ju-ju beans I can
    > eat
    > > please.
    >
    > And the 'world' will leap to your ego-driven service.
    >

    Doesn't your world meet your needs? But sad...

    Joseph
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Wally Keeler wrote:
    >
    > > From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    > > > It's like another McCarthy stint..
    > >
    > > Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    >
    > Poetry is impotence of the imagination. You have it in spades.

    What!?! Do you mean that poets are not capable of making Art? And isn't
    imagination something to be avoided (as you told Eryk), so impotence would be a
    good thing?

    Joseph
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:

    > What!?! Do you mean that poets are not capable of making Art?

    No.

    > And isn't imagination something to be avoided (as you told Eryk),

    I didn't say anything of the sort.

    > so impotence would be a good thing?

    Imagination is impotent abuse of various faculties.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    >
    > Imagination is impotent abuse of various faculties.

    For what purpose do you use imagination?

    Joseph
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:

    > > And the 'world' will leap to your ego-driven service.
    > >
    >
    > Doesn't your world meet your needs? But sad...

    The statement implied no inferences about me.
    Avoid attempting to substitute what was said with
    a wishful derogatory comment in order to make yourself
    appear 'superior'. You aren't little doggie.
    And you're still chasing your tail.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:

    > For what purpose do you use imagination?

    Mu.
  • brad brace | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    whatsa ju-ju been?

    The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project >>>> since 1994 <<<<

    + + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
    + + + eccentric ftp://ftp.idiom.com/users/bbrace
    + + + continuous hotline://artlyin.ftr.va.com.au
    + + + hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
    + + + imagery ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace

    News: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr alt.binaries.pictures.misc
    alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.misc alt.12hr

    . 12hr email
    subscriptions => http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html

    . Other | Mirror: http://www.eskimo.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
    Projects | Reverse Solidus: http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/
    | http://bbrace.net

    { brad brace } <<<<< bbrace@eskimo.com >>>> ~finger for pgp
  • Lee Wells | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    I totally agree.
    It was achieved in part with Billionares for Bush.
    If the 700-1000 Black Block activists used this method of infiltration, they
    would certainly gain greater access to core targets, instead of being
    spotted and held at on the far lines of the blockades.

    The cops know who to arrest first.

    on 10/24/02 9:32 AM, t.whid at twhid@mteww.com wrote:

    > Hi Marc;
    >
    > I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this
    > weekend. I've never been to one. But something I've noticed is that
    > whenever I see them on TV, people are dressed really casually.
    > Because I was thinking that if I went I would wear a suit and tie,
    > just because every person you see at a rally in dreadlocks and an
    > anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose opinion doesn't matter as far as
    > the media and centrist americans are concerned. If we had 40,000
    > protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable suits getting arrested
    > there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet you a zillion
    > dollars. Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a massive
    > advantage in the public relations department and I think it's stupid
    > to let them have it when all we have to do is tiny things like dress
    > better, like, seriously, we do it for job interviews, why don't we do
    > it when there are thousands of lives at stake?
    >
    > this is great eryk, i'm taking your advice the next time i go to one
    > of these things.
    >
    > i went to the anti-war/peace demo in central park a few weeks back.
    > (m.river's gal (who is a hippy ;-) was taking him and since i'm
    > anti-iraqwar II "The Revenge of The Shrub" i went along.)
    >
    > funny thing was, as we were walking to the rally i made the
    > observation that what bothered me most about these things was the
    > kooks they let on stage, every far left-wing (considering myself
    > near-left to middle) wacko gets their minute to push their funky
    > agendas. it's a totally non-mainstream chorus line of BS. and wonder
    > of wonders, we get some stupid idiot (from the communist youth party
    > no-less) yelling about the "motherfucking" capitalist pigs. she was a
    > stereotype of a cliche of a cartoon, it was ridiculous.
    >
    > anyway, later i saw this on salon, so i post it now:
    >
    > Peace kooks
    > The new antiwar movement is in danger of being hijacked by bizarre
    > extremist groups -- and most protesters don't even know it.
    > http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html
    >
    > if you can't get in (salon is subscription only on some stories), let
    > me know and i'll email it to individuals. if enough people are
    > interested i'll post it to the list.
    >
    >
  • Wally Keeler | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Eryk Salvaggio
    To: list@rhizome.org
    I was invited to attend a protest rally in Washington DC this weekend. I'=
    ve never been to one. But something I've noticed is that whenever I see the=
    m on TV, people are dressed really casually. Because I was thinking that if=
    I went I would wear a suit and tie, just because every person you see at a=
    rally in dreadlocks and an anarchy tee shirt is one guy whose opinion does=
    n't matter as far as the media and centrist americans are concerned. If we =
    had 40,000 protesters in clean hair cuts and respectable suits getting arre=
    sted there would be greater resistance to the war, I bet you a zillion doll=
    ars. Maybe I'm cynical but the pro-war guys have a massive advantage in the=
    public relations department and I think it's stupid to let them have it wh=
    en all we have to do is tiny things like dress better, like, seriously, we =
    do it for job interviews, why don't we do it when there are thousands of li=
    ves at stake? Like why dress all casual for a protest if you take it seriou=
    sly, you know? I think protesters should try their hardest to look like re=
    publicans. Especially if they're going to get arrested. Imagine media cover=
    age of a guy in a suit and tie and good haircut getting arrested, as oppose=
    d to a picture of a shaggy haired guy with lots of beads- and that is alway=
    s who you see getting arrested. And most people say "oh well, he's probably=
    smoking pot and doesn't have a real job" which is obviously bullshit but w=
    hy give those people any reason to take this less seriously?

    During the 1960's I was expelled from school because I had long hair (it =
    covered my ears). The principal was a colonel -- whatelse is there to say. =
    Sp off I went to the regional media. This was pre-hippie days, when a Beatl=
    e cut was sufficient to cause a social disturbance. Anyway, the issue was f=
    ramed as one whereby a military man denied a teenager the right to an educa=
    tion because of an extra millimetre of hair covered his forehead. A shaggy-=
    haired guy with a fluffy sweater didn't do my cause any harm, and I doubt t=
    hat wearing CEO costumes will sell anything to the general public. It assum=
    es that the general public is a stupid mass of human beings who don't have =
    enough brains to seperate dress from issues. The general public would see t=
    hrough it -- that it is a fraud. Although you have to do is articulate your=
    arguement and present it forcefully.

    Anyway I feel like this is also relevant to our behavior towards people w=
    ith pro-war stances. If we dismiss people out of hand, aren't we perpetuati=
    ng the issues that lead to war? I mean to be truly pacifist it means more t=
    han being against the war- it's also a method of being against the war in a=
    way that doesn't perpetuate us vs thems? I mean Wally annoys the shit out =
    of me too,

    Really? Do you get annoyed just because someone holds a different opinion=
    than you? I don't really think you should. Although we may have differing =
    opinions and perceptions about events, doesn't mean that you annoy me whats=
    oever. You don't. However, I am disappointed and shrug my shoulders when I =
    get the knee-jerk response of "McCarthyism" or some other single word respo=
    nse. It's juvenile thinking. Someone with a well-articulated arguement and =
    well-founded, can certainly influence my perception and opinion. It's happe=
    ned before. But those who provide the dime-a-dozen "McCarthy" arguement, si=
    mply have no desire to pursuade -- more likely they know they are inadequat=
    e to pursuade anyone other than to preach to the already converted.

    just like when I hearing fox news in the other room while I was fixing a =
    meal up, you know, "Fair, Accurate and Unbiased- Fox News!" and then the re=
    porter literally said that President Bushes military budget increase he pas=
    sed today would help to "Fight Evil-doers across the globe" and "keep ameri=
    cans safe from those who would do us harm." This was the news reporter, not=
    like, Karl Rove. Wally strikes me the same way, "I'm open minded and check=
    my facts- see, this article on one of the most notorious right wing websit=
    es in the world says it's true!" But at the same time, you know, we discuss=
    things from the Guardian all the time. Is that any better?

    Absolutely not. It is starting point for a discussion and exchange. Simpl=
    e-minded responses such as "McCarthyist" serve no other purpose than to shu=
    t down discussion.
    My main point really is that there's tiny things we can do to have the id=
    eas taken more seriously, and I feel like responsibility in our discussions=
    for what we say is important. Like you can attack Wally because he pretend=
    s he's fair and open minded and you can clearly blow a hole in that logic,

    There is no pretending about it. It is sincerely held and honestly presen=
    ted. However, you can blow a hole in any of the aguements put forth -- that=
    's fine. However your choice of image, choice of language, "blow a hole" in=
    dicates a streak of violence within your pacifist posturing. To blow a hole=
    is more likely the language and image a person like me would use, because =
    I am not a pacifist.

    but dismissing people and pretending it's because of spelling errors is =
    a risk I feel like people shouldn't take. Anyone who wants to prove war is =
    bad shouldn't give any easy ammo to the opposition, and we shouldn't fire t=
    hat ammo, either.

    -e.

    furtherfield wrote:

    Hi Wally,Once you can spell & care little more, may be i'll have time for y=
    ou...marc
    From: "furtherfield" <info@furtherfield.org>
    It's like another McCarthy stint..
    Impoetent jingoism! Newspeak is Nospeak. You have it in spuds.
    + new media rugby-> post: list@rhizome.org-> questions: info@rhizome.org-> =
    subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give=
    : http://rhizome.org/support+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the term=
    s set out in theMembership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org=
    /info/29.php
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Oct 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting { brad brace } <bbrace@eskimo.com>:

    >
    > whatsa ju-ju been?

    A ju-ju bean is a candy.

    A Ju-Ju is a blessed object that is said to keep evil and negativity at bay

    perhaps a ju-ju been is a holy candy that has came and went - maybe it is pope
    poop (a holy relic) http://aztlan.net/popepoop.jpg

    (Max wasn't that a work of art ;)

    Joseph
  • Wally Keeler | Sat Oct 26th 2002 1 a.m.
    From: <joseph@electrichands.com>
    > Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
    > > Imagination is impotent abuse of various faculties.
    >
    > For what purpose do you use imagination?

    He doesn't have one.
Your Reply