No "NO WAR"

I can't say I know what the right thing to do about the war is, as an
artist. But as an editor I've always had a fairly good idea. After 9/11 I
kept 1000 Ridiculous Tragedies going because I figured the diversion and
constancy was what the world needed, now, I feel the exact opposite, and
have put up a strike page. I didn't use the future farmers template because
I feel like the slogan "NO WAR" is really kind of obvious, I don't know that
anyone consciously "wants" war besides a few 15 year old kids who watch the
news after playing "First Strike" for a few hours. I think the people who
support the war are people that think that the war is "a neccessary evil."
And of course, the deep seated subconscious bloodlust innate in the majority
of human beings is not something that can be reached by anyone but
themselves, even if people have no idea about that and no idea of where to
start "looking" in order to get rid of that. [Not to mention, personally,
the task of finding my own empathy- why it is that I say "I need to do
something about this" but never actually do anything about it, why I pretend
I can "change the world" without touching it.]

So my index consists of letters from Rachel Corrie, lifted from the
Guardian. [Rachel Green had sent me the link.] Not just because she is a
martyr- which is something I am worried about perpetuating- but because they
are really well written first hand accounts of what is going on over
there.While the Palestinian / Israeli conflict has little to directly do
with the war on Saddam, it was still Rachel Corrie- as per my last post-
that made me realize I wasn't doing anything, not really, and to try to be
authentic in who I was and how I presented myself, and to try to abandon the
bits of who I am that are fraudulent. Which is a whole lot, and I think
that's true of everyone, but that is what war is about.

This war is probably, really, not about oil or money or revenge, so much as
it is about neither the USA or the Iraqi government being willing to accept
that they are caught up in thier own ego agendas, the American Government
refusing to admit its embargos are killing children, and the Iraqi
Government refusing to admit they are a smaller, less powerful part of the
world than they desire. You have these denials in place up and down the
board in people, the secretaries and the phone operators, as well as the
presidents and representatives, all wanting to believe they are working for
the side that stands for and does "the right thing." And I am not suggesting
relativity, or that everything is subjective, I'm saying this denial gets in
the way of accepting what they're actually doing. Neither side can admit
this, so there will be violence to determine who is to blame for violence.
The winner gets to look thier best in whatever instance the theatre is
played out on in thier heads.

The fact that entire governments get swept up into these games that are
usually played out only in one on one relationships is a dangerous sign of
what "solidarity" and "speaking with one voice" can do on a global scale.
Which is why I don't want to start any mass movements or take part in them,
particularly one with a single minded message of "who is right, who is
wrong," which is what the "NO WAR" banner does. What about our role in the
war? What about our indirect support of the governments involved? If we were
dedicated to ending war, there are a lot of things I could do, but I don't
do them because they are uncomfortable.

So I am not putting up the "No War" banner because I don't want to simply
satiate myself. I want to actually work on finding the ways I indirectly
support war- and this is in my finances and my taxes, as well as it is in my
own brain and my own relationships with others, instead of masking that up
with simple slogans and peace "actions". I have always been good at
pretending I am peaceful, pretending I am concerned, pretending I "do the
right things" or that I "do more than most people so it's okay." I mean
that's blindness, really. And I feel that, quite simply put, the only
"action" I can take at this level- since I am still driven by the need to
"do something", is to get people to ask themselves honest questions with me,
and to find the truth of who they are when it comes to this one subject. And
I can't even do that, really, but Rachel Corrie can, so I'm giving up that
tiny little part of the internet, that part of my "voice time," to let her
do it, and I am hoping that that is the right thing to do, while I sort this
stuff out for myself.

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:39 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: NO WAR campaign


> archive of this post:
> http://www.mteww.com/cgi/mtaa-rr.pl/twhid/ff_nowar.html
>
> NO WAR campaign
> And why MTEWW.com won't be taking part.
>
> FutureFarmers have replaced their homepage with an anti-war homepage
> that says simply 'NO WAR' with links to resources and other 'NO WAR'
> pages.
>
> I can't put mteww.com into the campaign because I don't believe in
> the ideology behind the message. The <title> of the page reads "NO
> BLOOD FOR OIL AND PROFIT!!!", I believe this is an overly simplistic
> view of our current situation and a dangerous view to espouse. I
> don't oppose the war for pacifist or ideological reasons, I oppose it
> for security reasons. This war is going to make the world a more
> dangerous place IMO. Also, the simple message of 'NO WAR' would lead
> people to believe that I oppose all wars, but I don't. Sometimes
> violence must be met with violence in order to achieve greater aims
> (WWII being the example that everyone drags out).
>
> So, the FutureFarmer's 'NO WAR' message will not replace mteww.com's
> index page, I'm not sure if M.River agrees with me but I maintain
> mteww.com and I feel I'm allowed to make the decision.
>
> I encourage anyone who agrees with the ideology to take part. IMO the
> message was simply sloppily crafted. I want my web site to give
> information that's a bit more complex than what can fit on a picket
> sign.
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>

Comments

, Christopher Fahey

Eryk wrote:
> I don't know that anyone consciously "wants" war
> besides a few 15 year old kids who watch the news
> after playing "First Strike" for a few hours.

It's not just 15-year olds who live in a fantasy world in which war is
cool and other countries aren't real. I would guess that 25% of all
Americans would be in favor of *any* war no matter what for and no
matter against whom. Double that number if the 'enemy' is in a country
whose name is hard to pronounce. We are so very bored and war is fun,
right?

Keep in mind all those crazy statistics about how 25% of adult Americans
cannot find Europe on a world map, 20% think Germany was an American
ally in WWII, etc. A large number of people who voted for Bush II
thought he was Bush I. You can forgive such folks for thinking that a
war will be, like, so much cooler than the coolest reality-tv show.

From CNN.com:
http://LessLink.com/cnn_geography/
87 percent cannot find Iraq
83 percent cannot find Afghanistan
76 percent cannot find Saudi Arabia
70 percent cannot find New Jersey
49 percent cannot find New York
11 percent cannot find the United States


Oh, here's the actual survey (test yourself!)
http://LessLink.com/geosurvey/
(I am not closely related to the John Fahey at this site)

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

, alexandra reill

participating in the idea of changing the index through spreading the word
of the idea on our index and via email and interrupting all site activities
www.kanonmedia.com
cheers, a
ps: great initiative!

—– Original Message —–
From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:17 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: No "NO WAR"


>
>
> I can't say I know what the right thing to do about the war is, as an
> artist. But as an editor I've always had a fairly good idea. After 9/11 I
> kept 1000 Ridiculous Tragedies going because I figured the diversion and
> constancy was what the world needed, now, I feel the exact opposite, and
> have put up a strike page. I didn't use the future farmers template
because
> I feel like the slogan "NO WAR" is really kind of obvious, I don't know
that
> anyone consciously "wants" war besides a few 15 year old kids who watch
the
> news after playing "First Strike" for a few hours. I think the people who
> support the war are people that think that the war is "a neccessary evil."
> And of course, the deep seated subconscious bloodlust innate in the
majority
> of human beings is not something that can be reached by anyone but
> themselves, even if people have no idea about that and no idea of where to
> start "looking" in order to get rid of that. [Not to mention, personally,
> the task of finding my own empathy- why it is that I say "I need to do
> something about this" but never actually do anything about it, why I
pretend
> I can "change the world" without touching it.]
>
> So my index consists of letters from Rachel Corrie, lifted from the
> Guardian. [Rachel Green had sent me the link.] Not just because she is a
> martyr- which is something I am worried about perpetuating- but because
they
> are really well written first hand accounts of what is going on over
> there.While the Palestinian / Israeli conflict has little to directly do
> with the war on Saddam, it was still Rachel Corrie- as per my last post-
> that made me realize I wasn't doing anything, not really, and to try to be
> authentic in who I was and how I presented myself, and to try to abandon
the
> bits of who I am that are fraudulent. Which is a whole lot, and I think
> that's true of everyone, but that is what war is about.
>
> This war is probably, really, not about oil or money or revenge, so much
as
> it is about neither the USA or the Iraqi government being willing to
accept
> that they are caught up in thier own ego agendas, the American Government
> refusing to admit its embargos are killing children, and the Iraqi
> Government refusing to admit they are a smaller, less powerful part of the
> world than they desire. You have these denials in place up and down the
> board in people, the secretaries and the phone operators, as well as the
> presidents and representatives, all wanting to believe they are working
for
> the side that stands for and does "the right thing." And I am not
suggesting
> relativity, or that everything is subjective, I'm saying this denial gets
in
> the way of accepting what they're actually doing. Neither side can admit
> this, so there will be violence to determine who is to blame for violence.
> The winner gets to look thier best in whatever instance the theatre is
> played out on in thier heads.
>
> The fact that entire governments get swept up into these games that are
> usually played out only in one on one relationships is a dangerous sign of
> what "solidarity" and "speaking with one voice" can do on a global scale.
> Which is why I don't want to start any mass movements or take part in
them,
> particularly one with a single minded message of "who is right, who is
> wrong," which is what the "NO WAR" banner does. What about our role in the
> war? What about our indirect support of the governments involved? If we
were
> dedicated to ending war, there are a lot of things I could do, but I don't
> do them because they are uncomfortable.
>
> So I am not putting up the "No War" banner because I don't want to simply
> satiate myself. I want to actually work on finding the ways I indirectly
> support war- and this is in my finances and my taxes, as well as it is in
my
> own brain and my own relationships with others, instead of masking that up
> with simple slogans and peace "actions". I have always been good at
> pretending I am peaceful, pretending I am concerned, pretending I "do the
> right things" or that I "do more than most people so it's okay." I mean
> that's blindness, really. And I feel that, quite simply put, the only
> "action" I can take at this level- since I am still driven by the need to
> "do something", is to get people to ask themselves honest questions with
me,
> and to find the truth of who they are when it comes to this one subject.
And
> I can't even do that, really, but Rachel Corrie can, so I'm giving up that
> tiny little part of the internet, that part of my "voice time," to let her
> do it, and I am hoping that that is the right thing to do, while I sort
this
> stuff out for myself.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:39 AM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: NO WAR campaign
>
>
> > archive of this post:
> > http://www.mteww.com/cgi/mtaa-rr.pl/twhid/ff_nowar.html
> >
> > NO WAR campaign
> > And why MTEWW.com won't be taking part.
> >
> > FutureFarmers have replaced their homepage with an anti-war homepage
> > that says simply 'NO WAR' with links to resources and other 'NO WAR'
> > pages.
> >
> > I can't put mteww.com into the campaign because I don't believe in
> > the ideology behind the message. The <title> of the page reads "NO
> > BLOOD FOR OIL AND PROFIT!!!", I believe this is an overly simplistic
> > view of our current situation and a dangerous view to espouse. I
> > don't oppose the war for pacifist or ideological reasons, I oppose it
> > for security reasons. This war is going to make the world a more
> > dangerous place IMO. Also, the simple message of 'NO WAR' would lead
> > people to believe that I oppose all wars, but I don't. Sometimes
> > violence must be met with violence in order to achieve greater aims
> > (WWII being the example that everyone drags out).
> >
> > So, the FutureFarmer's 'NO WAR' message will not replace mteww.com's
> > index page, I'm not sure if M.River agrees with me but I maintain
> > mteww.com and I feel I'm allowed to make the decision.
> >
> > I encourage anyone who agrees with the ideology to take part. IMO the
> > message was simply sloppily crafted. I want my web site to give
> > information that's a bit more complex than what can fit on a picket
> > sign.
> > –
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> 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
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>