File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0209, message 18


Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:08:12 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: x-files/polemic - notes from here




Rod/Eric

1.     NOTES FROM HERE
I'll get back to X-Files shortly - next time...

It's so difficult to discuss 'America' when you live on the margins 
between a European state and the America that is visited every couple of 
months and interrogated every day of the working week. But still not 
withstanding this the America I visit and have to address is nothing 
like the romantic vision that sometimes seems to have transfixed 
European intellectuals since the 40s and 50s onwards. In a sense, it may 
appear banal to say so but America has always been a deeply conservative 
place for me, which is contrary to how 'Z' discusses feeling about the 
place back in the 1970s when she used to visit the place - long before 
we got together. My own relationship with the USA started not on the 
west coast or east coast but in Dayton-Ohio and then Tulsa-Oklahoma. 
Though these days I driftwork into either Dallas or Washington every 
month or so. My personal contacts are drawn out between Southern 
Baptists (who always want to save my soul - whilst losing theirs as they 
willingly condemn people to death) and Northern 'liberals'. Needless to 
say these are precisely the people who are indirectly against 'dissent' 
admire 'Bush' though dislike 'Rumsfield' and imagine that they are 
fortunate to be Americans. Though the level of terror and angst is 
extraordinarily high - actually I have always thought that this may be 
why notions such as the 'cyborg' have gained currency in the USA - the 
necessity to escape from being the human being and the social you have 
created. Dissent of course has always been treated in the way that you 
discuss - for example in the UK from the Peasant's revolt through to  
social and working class defeats in the 80's and 90s. But with the 
'return' that is happening thoughout the european stage the 
'counter-reformation' of neo-liberalism is ending.

2.     ALIEN
I'm familiar enough with Theweleit's work and assume you are referring 
to the Male fantasies texts - your historical dates are, perhaps 
insignificantly wrong however for Theweleit in this text is dealing with 
the period from 1918 and the period when the friekorp were being used to 
prevent the possible revolution in Germany, this use of the precursors 
to the Nazis is worth remembering considering the number of occasions 
when the same or related patterns of behavior and events has been 
repeated since then. Not that this in anyway faults your logic. Whilst 
it wouldn't have occurred to me to think of this in terms of derived 
from Theweleit it does seem extraordinarily pertinent as we begin to see 
the drift of silicon and steel skinned young people drift across the 
media as they prepare to kill for the empire. However I would like to 
foreground the absent other from the position you describe for it 
remains the case that the 'soldier-masculinity' definition can only take 
place against a reactionary notion of femininity - what Theweleit refers 
to in terms of  right wing stereotypes of women  'Red-Whores and 
White-Nurses' - which is where the use of  the work begins to become 
problematic for it works as well if not better against the national 
socialist position of  Hussain's Iraq or indeed with militant Islam in 
general (including the people on the demonstration on Saturday in 
London), this issue is not addressed in Barbara E's introduction - but 
which, given the Islamic post-modernism and the current overt rejection 
of all things western is  an important caveat.

On Saturdays stop-the-war march it was clear that the alliance between 
the various leftist groups, the unions and the Muslim groups was uneasy 
and broadly on just two issues - the Iraq war and Palestine -  the 
Islamic post-modern rejection of socialism/communism along with all 
'western solutions' was well represented on Saturday is remarkably 
similar to the Iranian alliances from the late 70s pre the overthrow of 
Shah - the usual 'fascistic behavior'. The surreal desire to be 
oppressed runs through cultures like a particularly unpleasant virus. 
But consider this whilst ambling along the streets of London amidst 
multiple hundreds of thousands of others - between 150,000 to 400,000 
people there was no evidence of liberals or conservatives - but a great 
many leftists and moslems... (Isn't this simply because to critique and 
intervene against this society requires a left socialist/Marxist 
response?) plus quakers and green party supporters. The 'reality' is 
that the 'movement'  as Negri refers to it, is precisly part of the 
opposition that is crystallizing, as much around the stop-the-war issue 
as around the anti-globalisation struggles that are taking place as we 
type. They are of course the same issue - a response and a sequence of 
demands that the current neo-liberal, should I say post-modern 
capitalism, has to change, the war has extended the strange 
anti-globalization alliance into the Moslem community.

3.    AMERICA
I think the logic you are discussing relating to the x-files 
supersoldiers seems appropriate - the attempt at representing ultimate 
invulnerability and the return of immunity does seem logically to be 
part of the process. The 'hard' structural skin you propose separating 
the 'USA' from the Other seems predominantly related to those who are 
envisaged as truly Other. For example back in the period from the 40s to 
comparatively recent times it would not have been unusual for 'me' to 
have to mask my actual social-political opinions. But now in these days 
of the temporary triumphant empire it appears as if you can confess to 
being a european left-winger . Even to the extent of discussing and 
arguing terrorism as a social and political strategy - using terrorists 
such as Mandela, Latin American right wing groups and of course the IRA 
but not those who as you say in some sense threaten the American 
heartland. That appear to be threatening the hegemonic status of liberal 
democracy - for which read capital, probably closer to the sense of 
Negri and Hardt's Empire than we imagine.

It's not clear to me how this fits within the paranoic nature of the 
current American social, the American state - however even given the 
overly depressing nature of your analysis I suspect that the crevices 
and cracks in the machine are showing already - I'm not an american so I 
cannot imagine the pressures to conform that obviously, obviously have a 
drastic effect upon peoples everyday lives - but individual Americans 
joining the stop-the-war 'dissent' is incredibly important given the 
economic pressure being brought to bear by the USA government on France, 
Russia, China and Germany to signup for the 'coalition' a little US 
dissent could save an enormous number of lives....(enough of this 
preaching I'm sounding like a southern/leftist baptist(laughs))

4.    NON_AMERICAN
Resistence as they say begins at home - but if you'd asked the people on 
the stop-the-war demo you'd have noticed that very few would have faith 
in 'representatives and democracy'  - only demands of them. But knowone 
would have imagined making even demands of Thatcher/Major or Reagen/Bush...


regards
steve

Thomas Taylor wrote:

>Please Steve, tell me more about M. Klein.
>
>I am interested in your post. I just finished a conversation with a collegue
>regarding the bringing  of theoretical positions to particular historical
>current moments (the only way that the so-called literary theory camp can
>transfigure its elaborate and high stakes politics into something practical,
>telling, and perhaps forceful).
>
>Your post opened the question: what is america actually? How does it
>constitute itself as a defense against certain, shall we say, primal fears?
>How do these "deep" fears become, in turn, frightening public policy? I am
>very ashamed to be labled as an american at the moment, given that the
>majority trend is to side with 19th century notions of colonialism and
>imperialism, but with more intensity given that the rhetoric used ( freedom
>v evil) is apocalypitic in high crusades-era style.
>
>The fear of contamination by alien forces, if not carnal in its initial
>expression, may be so in origin. Klaus Theweleit works out a theory of the
>masculine body in early 30's Germany. I will not elaborate on it too much,
>unless asked. In general, the thesis is: the constitution of the body occurs
>with respect to establishing a certain rigidity of boundaries. However,
>given any human body's capacity for sensation, the topos within which the
>body derives its source material, but also within which anything defining
>itself as an independent body is threatened (ie-- we compose our bodies
>through feeling, but in the course of feeling, our bodies are open to the
>world, not hard and fast, touched or penetrated)-- this situation gives rise
>to certain phobias which jump contexts from the personal to the political.
>That is, the drama of maintaining one's carnal sovereignty and the
>vulnerability one opens oneself up to in the process tend to become
>automatically extrapolated into political, social, and ethical arenas.
>
>We need supersoldiers because  our carnality excludes invulnerability. It is
>the case that so-called good citizens adopt the position of allowing the
>current administration free reign in order to not be considered soft. They
>do this in order to make our skin iron: so that america should become its
>own transcendental thing, its borders made of iron, much like we contstrue
>our own to be-- touch me not and do not tread on me. Not only the person,
>but a nation built of persons must attempt this invulnerability.  In so
>doing we become the constructed slave race, a slave unto ourselves.  The
>maintainance of privacy has been a constant american concern from the
>beginning. Perhaps it has a less-personal and more teleological-sick
>messianic end. That is, to put the world in the form of america.
>
>Furthermore, we can witness its defensive tactics playing themselves out
>both previously and currently. To maintain the hard iron skin of the
>american body, it has been seen as "necessary" on a number of occasions to
>go beyond the american skin (manifest destiny and colonial policy of the
>19th century). This spark of paranoid insight has once again been rekindled.
>I feel that our current war policy (and I say "our" even though it is not my
>own) reflects the former policies in which the american skin must be
>maintained at all costs, from both inside and outside-- what ever is more
>pragmatic.
>
>First, with a resistance against aliens. But secondly, with a premptive
>program against potential aliens (evidence of their guilt is no longer a
>concern-- only any slim possibility that they might become evil at some
>time, and therefore threaten the freedom of the organs of the american body:
>which is apparently the freedom to work ourselves to death and not ask
>questions). As an american citizen, i can say that the sentiment now is as
>such: dissent, or what I would call asking good political questions is not
>only an infraction against the social bond, an  unpopular postion, but more
>importantly has become to be seen as a mortal sin. With all the eternal
>qualities of sin, inviting a slight against god and the good in general. It
>is our duty, or so I have been told, to allow our politicians to do what
>must be done in order to protect ourselves from terrorism, and in a larger
>spectrum, evil (a word defined in the public sphere as anyone opposed to
>Bush policy).  But our most important duty as good (read: servile, robotic)
>citizens is precisely not to ask what should be done and what this phantom
>signifier, terrorism, is. Go on with you daily lives as you usually would,
>Bush says. Buy what you are told to buy, not only in the grocery store, but
>also when you watch the news.
>
>It is even more disturbing to me that the latter position, citizenship
>revised as quietism and eating whatever is made handy for hand and mouth,
>is advocated in just over half of americans poled. Do these people have any
>understanding of democracy? Politics only exists in dissensus. And there is
>little of that, even among my fellows who before 9/11 made a pretense to
>being "leftist".
>
>I must appologize for conflating several angles in one. I am preparing for a
>dissertation while wondering if I might be better off in some remote shack
>somewhere, the where and world that america quite ignorantly calls the
>third. If I have been polemical, it is because, as a provisional american, I
>have noticed that next to no one is interested in asking the pressing
>questions. Is "our" position ethically sound? Or does it base itself rather
>on the project of america becoming rome to the second power? My personal
>question (now seemingly incidental given recent political moves on the
>global chessboard) is of course about sources and orgins: is our
>relationship with our own bodies a factor in cementing the loathesome and
>sick lack of positive dissent which we see in american culture at the
>present? I was so immersed in it, my great question,  before things have
>become what they are now. My question now, though I have not put the latter
>to the side, would be like this: by what means can we put a stop to these
>ridiculous propositions of world policing put forth by american politicians?
>It involves the mingling of the rarified air of literary theory and
>concerted political effort. But I can't help thinking that most of my
>countrymen are more interested in the next television program. (The latter
>have become more spectacular as our political situation has become more
>dire).
>
>By my own assessment, activism has become useless in my country.
>Intellectual remarks as well. Standard political channels have been
>overtaken by CNN (for instance: no one, at least it is rare, reads the Bush
>policy statements, or congressional propositions, instead we get slices of
>rhetorical moments in the public appearances of politicians).  The condition
>is nauseating to me. Any active dissent becomes before the fact, not only
>un-american, but threatening to each and everyone's private and personal
>security (or so they say: I think that it is imperial politics, in all its
>valences, that jepordized my personal, and for that I forgive no one
>involved in the process, as far back as Andrew Jackson: america is old and
>sick, older than europe, a dream of conquest, economics and aesthetics
>without politics).  And by dissent I don't even mean anything as extreme as
>revolution, much less contesting the actual policies which are being devised
>(behind closed doors). Dissent as I see it means puting a policy to the
>test, asking of its future, its consequences, what it entails. This is not
>being done here. A democracy, which is a government based on dissent,
>entails at least that. But we are not  a democracy. Just a republic with
>alot money and influence like the romans. And much interal decadence: less
>responsibility to actual descions and more to ny own pocket.
>
>As such, being in such an impotent and frustrated position, I would urge any
>non-american to oppose the american position as it stands. Write your
>representitives. Raise hell. No matter what rhetoric we try to put over on
>my side, there are so few listeners (their ears have been stunted by red
>white and blue bumper stickers). But if there was a sound resistance in the
>European Union, a much contested organization I admit, and one which led to
>a total resistance the american practice of manifest destiny, then maybe
>some cards come into play.
>
>I began this response with the theory that I am so fascinated with, still
>am. But I have to end in despair. The deck is stacked over here. My
>neighbors treat me suspciously (this is true) because I refuse to fly a flag
>in my yard already, when my general sentiment is to burn it, as it is dead
>anyway, and in america, that is a flag's proper funeral. it should have been
>given years ago, as america, the idea, was decadent and misguided even
>before it began.
>
>Cheers, Rod T. (ready to immigrate if you've got options)
>
>(please pardon spelling errors, as I do not have a spell checker on this
>account and am a terrible speller).
>
>In any case,
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; "eric and mary salstrand"
><ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
>Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:26 AM
>Subject: x-files
>
>
>>Eric
>>
>>Last night i watched the last episodes of the X-files tv series - linked
>>directly into the ideological heartland of  america - contemporary fears
>>and terrors drawn out on the countryside of an america that never
>>references the non-american unless, that is, it is a representation of
>>the Kleinian Schzoid/Paranoid position. Here then lies the terror of the
>>X place - Alien Invasions (with the inevitable collusion of the paranoid
>>state), secret governments,  the production of people as slave races,
>>the reproduction of  people as 'aliens', 'super soldiers' - all this is
>>rendered incoherent next to the deep suspicion of the state.  There is a
>>classic inversion in the dying moments of the series. Love, redemption
>>and the return of faith, the return to jesus. Faith closing the circle
>>and finally eradicating the last moments of rationality - as the aliens
>>are scheduled to invade on 22th December 2012. Within the X-files return
>>to faith and the shows commitment to weak knowledge the date is marked
>>as the apocalypse - Mulder lies on the bed with Scully fondling her
>>
>cross...
>
>>It was a universe structured around Melanie Klein's Schzoid/Paranoid
>>position.
>>
>>The sooner the aliens return the better.... but then we don't live in
>>this universe.
>>
>>regards
>>steve
>>
>>
>


HTML VERSION:

Rod/Eric

1.     NOTES FROM HERE
I’ll get back to X-Files shortly – next time...

It’s so difficult to discuss ‘America’ when you live on the margins between a European state and the America that is visited every couple of months and interrogated every day of the working week. But still not withstanding this the America I visit and have to address is nothing like the romantic vision that sometimes seems to have transfixed European intellectuals since the 40s and 50s onwards. In a sense, it may appear banal to say so but America has always been a deeply conservative place for me, which is contrary to how ‘Z’ discusses feeling about the place back in the 1970s when she used to visit the place – long before we got together. My own relationship with the USA started not on the west coast or east coast but in Dayton-Ohio and then Tulsa-Oklahoma. Though these days I driftwork into either Dallas or Washington every month or so. My personal contacts are drawn out between Southern Baptists (who always want to save my soul – whilst losing theirs as they willingly condemn people to death) and Northern ‘liberals’. Needless to say these are precisely the people who are indirectly against ‘dissent’ admire ‘Bush’ though dislike ‘Rumsfield’ and imagine that they are fortunate to be Americans. Though the level of terror and angst is extraordinarily high – actually I have always thought that this may be why notions such as the ‘cyborg’ have gained currency in the USA – the necessity to escape from being the human being and the social you have created. Dissent of course has always been treated in the way that you discuss – for example in the UK from the Peasant’s revolt through to  social and working class defeats in the 80’s and 90s. But with the 'return' that is happening thoughout the european stage the 'counter-reformation' of neo-liberalism is ending.

2.     ALIEN
I’m familiar enough with Theweleit’s work and assume you are referring to the Male fantasies texts – your historical dates are, perhaps insignificantly wrong however for Theweleit in this text is dealing with the period from 1918 and the period when the friekorp were being used to prevent the possible revolution in Germany, this use of the precursors to the Nazis is worth remembering considering the number of occasions when the same or related patterns of behavior and events has been repeated since then. Not that this in anyway faults your logic. Whilst it wouldn’t have occurred to me to think of this in terms of derived from Theweleit it does seem extraordinarily pertinent as we begin to see the drift of silicon and steel skinned young people drift across the media as they prepare to kill for the empire. However I would like to foreground the absent other from the position you describe for it remains the case that the ‘soldier-masculinity’ definition can only take place against a reactionary notion of femininity – what Theweleit refers to in terms of  right wing stereotypes of women  ‘Red-Whores and White-Nurses’ – which is where the use of  the work begins to become problematic for it works as well if not better against the national socialist position of  Hussain’s Iraq or indeed with militant Islam in general (including the people on the demonstration on Saturday in London), this issue is not addressed in Barbara E’s introduction – but which, given the Islamic post-modernism and the current overt rejection of all things western is  an important caveat.

On Saturdays stop-the-war march it was clear that the alliance between the various leftist groups, the unions and the Muslim groups was uneasy and broadly on just two issues – the Iraq war and Palestine -  the Islamic post-modern rejection of socialism/communism along with all ‘western solutions’ was well represented on Saturday is remarkably similar to the Iranian alliances from the late 70s pre the overthrow of Shah – the usual ‘fascistic behavior’. The surreal desire to be oppressed runs through cultures like a particularly unpleasant virus. But consider this whilst ambling along the streets of London amidst multiple hundreds of thousands of others – between 150,000 to 400,000 people there was no evidence of liberals or conservatives – but a great many leftists and moslems… (Isn’t this simply because to critique and intervene against this society requires a left socialist/Marxist response?) plus quakers and green party supporters. The ‘reality’ is that the 'movement'  as Negri refers to it, is precisly part of the opposition that is crystallizing, as much around the stop-the-war issue as around the anti-globalisation struggles that are taking place as we type. They are of course the same issue – a response and a sequence of demands that the current neo-liberal, should I say post-modern capitalism, has to change, the war has extended the strange anti-globalization alliance into the Moslem community.

3.    AMERICA
I think the logic you are discussing relating to the x-files supersoldiers seems appropriate – the attempt at representing ultimate invulnerability and the return of immunity does seem logically to be part of the process. The ‘hard’ structural skin you propose separating the ‘USA’ from the Other seems predominantly related to those who are envisaged as truly Other. For example back in the period from the 40s to comparatively recent times it would not have been unusual for ‘me’ to have to mask my actual social-political opinions. But now in these days of the temporary triumphant empire it appears as if you can confess to being a european left-winger . Even to the extent of discussing and arguing terrorism as a social and political strategy – using terrorists such as Mandela, Latin American right wing groups and of course the IRA but not those who as you say in some sense threaten the American heartland. That appear to be threatening the hegemonic status of liberal democracy – for which read capital, probably closer to the sense of Negri and Hardt’s Empire than we imagine.

It’s not clear to me how this fits within the paranoic nature of the current American social, the American state – however even given the overly depressing nature of your analysis I suspect that the crevices and cracks in the machine are showing already – I’m not an american so I cannot imagine the pressures to conform that obviously, obviously have a drastic effect upon peoples everyday lives – but individual Americans joining the stop-the-war ‘dissent’ is incredibly important given the economic pressure being brought to bear by the USA government on France, Russia, China and Germany to signup for the ‘coalition’ a little US dissent could save an enormous number of lives….(enough of this preaching I’m sounding like a southern/leftist baptist(laughs))

4.    NON_AMERICAN
Resistence as they say begins at home - but if you'd asked the people on the stop-the-war demo you'd have noticed that very few would have faith in 'representatives and democracy'  - only demands of them. But knowone would have imagined making even demands of Thatcher/Major or Reagen/Bush...


regards
steve

Thomas Taylor wrote:
Please Steve, tell me more about M. Klein.

I am interested in your post. I just finished a conversation with a collegue
regarding the bringing of theoretical positions to particular historical
current moments (the only way that the so-called literary theory camp can
transfigure its elaborate and high stakes politics into something practical,
telling, and perhaps forceful).

Your post opened the question: what is america actually? How does it
constitute itself as a defense against certain, shall we say, primal fears?
How do these "deep" fears become, in turn, frightening public policy? I am
very ashamed to be labled as an american at the moment, given that the
majority trend is to side with 19th century notions of colonialism and
imperialism, but with more intensity given that the rhetoric used ( freedom
v evil) is apocalypitic in high crusades-era style.

The fear of contamination by alien forces, if not carnal in its initial
expression, may be so in origin. Klaus Theweleit works out a theory of the
masculine body in early 30's Germany. I will not elaborate on it too much,
unless asked. In general, the thesis is: the constitution of the body occurs
with respect to establishing a certain rigidity of boundaries. However,
given any human body's capacity for sensation, the topos within which the
body derives its source material, but also within which anything defining
itself as an independent body is threatened (ie-- we compose our bodies
through feeling, but in the course of feeling, our bodies are open to the
world, not hard and fast, touched or penetrated)-- this situation gives rise
to certain phobias which jump contexts from the personal to the political.
That is, the drama of maintaining one's carnal sovereignty and the
vulnerability one opens oneself up to in the process tend to become
automatically extrapolated into political, social, and ethical arenas.

We need supersoldiers because our carnality excludes invulnerability. It is
the case that so-called good citizens adopt the position of allowing the
current administration free reign in order to not be considered soft. They
do this in order to make our skin iron: so that america should become its
own transcendental thing, its borders made of iron, much like we contstrue
our own to be-- touch me not and do not tread on me. Not only the person,
but a nation built of persons must attempt this invulnerability. In so
doing we become the constructed slave race, a slave unto ourselves. The
maintainance of privacy has been a constant american concern from the
beginning. Perhaps it has a less-personal and more teleological-sick
messianic end. That is, to put the world in the form of america.

Furthermore, we can witness its defensive tactics playing themselves out
both previously and currently. To maintain the hard iron skin of the
american body, it has been seen as "necessary" on a number of occasions to
go beyond the american skin (manifest destiny and colonial policy of the
19th century). This spark of paranoid insight has once again been rekindled.
I feel that our current war policy (and I say "our" even though it is not my
own) reflects the former policies in which the american skin must be
maintained at all costs, from both inside and outside-- what ever is more
pragmatic.

First, with a resistance against aliens. But secondly, with a premptive
program against potential aliens (evidence of their guilt is no longer a
concern-- only any slim possibility that they might become evil at some
time, and therefore threaten the freedom of the organs of the american body:
which is apparently the freedom to work ourselves to death and not ask
questions). As an american citizen, i can say that the sentiment now is as
such: dissent, or what I would call asking good political questions is not
only an infraction against the social bond, an unpopular postion, but more
importantly has become to be seen as a mortal sin. With all the eternal
qualities of sin, inviting a slight against god and the good in general. It
is our duty, or so I have been told, to allow our politicians to do what
must be done in order to protect ourselves from terrorism, and in a larger
spectrum, evil (a word defined in the public sphere as anyone opposed to
Bush policy). But our most important duty as good (read: servile, robotic)
citizens is precisely not to ask what should be done and what this phantom
signifier, terrorism, is. Go on with you daily lives as you usually would,
Bush says. Buy what you are told to buy, not only in the grocery store, but
also when you watch the news.

It is even more disturbing to me that the latter position, citizenship
revised as quietism and eating whatever is made handy for ha nd and mouth,
is advocated in just over half of americans poled. Do these people have any
understanding of democracy? Politics only exists in dissensus. And there is
little of that, even among my fellows who before 9/11 made a pretense to
being "leftist".

I must appologize for conflating several angles in one. I am preparing for a
dissertation while wondering if I might be better off in some remote shack
somewhere, the where and world that america quite ignorantly calls the
third. If I have been polemical, it is because, as a provisional american, I
have noticed that next to no one is interested in asking the pressing
questions. Is "our" position ethically sound? Or does it base itself rather
on the project of america becoming rome to the second power? My personal
question (now seemingly incidental given recent political moves on the
global chessboard) is of course about sources and orgins: is our
relationship with our own bodies a factor in cementing the loathesome and
sick lack of positive dissent which we see in american culture at the
present? I was so immersed in it, my great question, before things have
become what they are now. My question now, though I have not put the latter
to the side, would be like this: by what means can we put a stop to these
ridiculous propositions of world policing put forth by american politicians?
It involves the mingling of the rarified air of literary theory and
concerted political effort. But I can't help thinking that most of my
countrymen are more interested in the next television program. (The latter
have become more spectacular as our political situation has become more
dire).

By my own assessment, activism has become useless in my country.
Intellectual remarks as well. Standard political channels have been
overtaken by CNN (for instance: no one, at least it is rare, reads the Bush
policy statements, or congressio nal propositions, instead we get slices of
rhetorical moments in the public appearances of politicians). The condition
is nauseating to me. Any active dissent becomes before the fact, not only
un-american, but threatening to each and everyone's private and personal
security (or so they say: I think that it is imperial politics, in all its
valences, that jepordized my personal, and for that I forgive no one
involved in the process, as far back as Andrew Jackson: america is old and
sick, older than europe, a dream of conquest, economics and aesthetics
without politics). And by dissent I don't even mean anything as extreme as
revolution, much less contesting the actual policies which are being devised
(behind closed doors). Dissent as I see it means puting a policy to the
test, asking of its future, its consequences, what it entails. This is not
being done here. A democracy, which is a government based on dissent,
entails at least that. B ut we are not a democracy. Just a republic with
alot money and influence like the romans. And much interal decadence: less
responsibility to actual descions and more to ny own pocket.

As such, being in such an impotent and frustrated position, I would urge any
non-american to oppose the american position as it stands. Write your
representitives. Raise hell. No matter what rhetoric we try to put over on
my side, there are so few listeners (their ears have been stunted by red
white and blue bumper stickers). But if there was a sound resistance in the
European Union, a much contested organization I admit, and one which led to
a total resistance the american practice of manifest destiny, then maybe
some cards come into play.

I began this response with the theory that I am so fascinated with, still
am. But I have to end in despair. The deck is stacked over here. My
neighbors treat me suspciously (this is true) because I refuse to fly a flag
in my yard already, when my general sentiment is to burn it, as it is dead
anyway, and in america, that is a flag's proper funeral. it should have been
given years ago, as america, the idea, was decadent and misguided even
before it began.

Cheers, Rod T. (ready to immigrate if you've got options)

(please pardon spelling errors, as I do not have a spell checker on this
account and am a terrible speller).

In any case,
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; "eric and mary salstrand"
<ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: x-files


Eric

Last night i watched the last episodes of the X-files tv series - linked
directly into the ideological heartland of america - contemporary fears
and terrors drawn out on the countryside of an america that never
references the non-american unless, that is, it is a representation of
the Kleinian Schzoid/Paranoid position. Here then lies the terror of the
X place - Alien Invasions (with the inevitable collusion of the paranoid
state), secret governments, the production of people as slave races,
the reproduction of people as 'aliens', 'super soldiers' - all this is
rendered incoherent next to the deep suspicion of the state. There is a
classic inversion in the dying moments of the series. Love, redemption
and the return of faith, the return to jesus. Faith closing the circle
and finally eradicating the last moments of rationality - as the aliens
are scheduled to invade on 22th December 2012. Within the X-files return
to faith and the shows commitment to weak knowledge the date is marked
as the apocalypse - Mulder lies on the bed with Scully fondling her
cross...
It was a universe structured around Melanie Klein's Schzoid/Paranoid
position.

The sooner the aliens return the better.... but then we don't live in
this universe.

regards
steve





Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005