Amir have you read this?

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/our-friends

Its analysis of the /situtation/ is useful - but takes as its subject
things that are much closer to home.
On 31 Aug 2015 17:15, "Julia Tourianski" <juliatourianski@???> wrote:

> I'd like to publish this on my site. Well said
> On Aug 31, 2015 8:38 AM, "Amir Taaki" <genjix@???> wrote:
>
>> Foucault was interested not only in historical analysis, but the history
>> of how historical analysis has changed. The process by which historians
>> look for trends claims a kind of neutrality. They are merely exposing
>> the timeless unseen forces driving history. But historians are not
>> scientists, and even scientists are humans. Foucault showed that this
>> analysis by historians is shaped by their values and ideology, and the
>> role of institutional power on development of knowledge.
>>
>> So can we truly have a neutrality? Or is this a lie? If everything is a
>> power, then what is this power advocating for? Power is not only at the
>> point of the gun. Maybe in the beginning when one side is weak, but as
>> they grow, they become institutionalised, embedded in societies'
>> consciousness and become the new status quo merely defending themselves.
>>
>> Now civil war has broken out in Southern Turkey, and everyday police and
>> army are being killed by guerillas and city self defense forces. This
>> was after the mayors of towns in Southern Kurdish areas of Turkey
>> declared autonomy - that they no longer want to participate in the
>> Kurdish elected state. Self defense councils run by the community, and
>> organised with help from guerillas were formed. The mayors of the towns
>> were elected through the Turkish state.
>>
>> Everyday though Turkish television is broadcasting scenes of crying
>> parents. Coffins draped with the Turkish flag, a state funeral and
>> shouting from the mother or father in anger over their son killed by the
>> vicious terrorists. The state propaganda is relentless. An Islamist
>> state ruled by Erdogan, a dictatorial fascist, who was good friends with
>> Hekmatyar, a vicious Islamist terrorist. And the terrorists?
>> Libertarians following the strategy of Bookchain's municipal autonomism
>> aiming to create a society of direct democracy, gender equality,
>> political pluralism, economic cooperatives, and preserve ecology.
>>
>> America, the great bastion of global freedom, spreading the values of
>> democracy and freedom now stands with the Islamist Turkish government
>> against the libertarian PKK terrorists. A Turkish government which has
>> also supporting Islamist groups in the Syrian civil war. Why has it
>> become so fashionable to compromise on our ethics in global politics?
>> Has the world ruling class become so paralysed with nihilism that the
>> only was forwards that they see is making huge ethical compromises so
>> the bad guys don't take their throne? Or worse even is there a
>> conspiratorial plot to suck the world dry before the inevitable collapse
>> from an unsustainable system? Or is it that we've all blindly bought
>> into an anti-ideological managerial belief of neutrality, driven by
>> blind selfishness labouring under a globalised tragedy of the commons
>> like autonoms in a giant machinery of slavery tearing ourselves apart.
>>
>> Whatever the cause, it's clear there is a seething hatred of discontent
>> bubbling below the surface. The inability for the system to adapt is
>> only antagonising this force which is unlike anything we've seen in
>> history yet. The transhumanists talk of a magical technological horizon
>> we'll cross which will suck us deep into the well of acceleration which
>> they worship as the transcending era of humanity. I instead see it more
>> like an age of warfare, starvation and death from the ashes of which
>> something new will soar and that we are participating in this.
>>
>> I wonder sometimes, how do the bureaucrats view this? These young
>> wild-eyes idealists and whipper snippers who know nothing of the world,
>> that want to rebel and reject politics. There's often a competing
>> narrative on the one hand of a young electorate that has decided to
>> reject voting because they're absorbed in iPads and PlayStations, and
>> the other of a young people that do not appreciate the great democracy
>> that their great great grandparents fought to defend. "If only we can
>> get them to engage in the system" they tell us, a system which doesn't
>> want to listen to the inexperienced voices of new blood, or allow them
>> to make mistakes.
>>
>> Audacious politicians even propose making laws to force people to vote.
>> And so politics has sunk into the guttertrash of spin and shoddy ethics
>> for the greater good of tweaking the establishment:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19W8uunIsw
>>
>> The rise in the last few years of opposition parties or people such as
>> Ron Paul, UKIP, Podemos, SYRIZA and HDP is part of a new trend in which
>> identity politics is on the rise. Although these parties or groups
>> supposedly come from different parts of the spectrum, they share a lot
>> in common in terms of form and not simply content or policy. Although
>> they are still analysed through the classic lens of left/right politics,
>> they together represent a new class of politics which is different from
>> before. And really, I believe they are more similar than different
>> because of how they engage the electorate.
>>
>> General UK elections are Labour ('left') and Conservation ('right')
>> punting the ball between each other every decade with the Liberal
>> Democrats usually controlling a usual 10% minority. However in the last
>> 2015 UK election, a new party, the UK Independence Party which campaigns
>> for UK sovereignty and an exit from domination from Brussells gained
>> 12.7% of the vote, and the LibDems gained only 7.9%. A surprising
>> result, yet because of the crappy vote counting system in the UK (First
>> Past the Post), UKIP got only 1 seat in parliament while the 2 main
>> parties got 330 and 232, and the SNP with 8.6% got 56 seats in the
>> national parliament.
>>
>> Now there is the Labour leadership elections. There's the usual
>> predictable riff raff of plastic clones that say whatever they think is
>> popular, but another guy Jeremy Corbyn has become very popular among
>> youth and re-energised Labour politics. He talks about crazy things like
>> taking on the corporations, shutting down the nuclear program, or
>> boosting the health service. He has a history of voting against most
>> Labour policies including the war and is portrayed as a crazy old
>> leftist and Marxist.
>>
>> Inevitably what all the talk about why he has suddenly become popular is
>> still framed as left and right but misses the fundamental crucial point.
>> He talks like a human being. He doesn't flip flop to curry favour. He
>> has an ideology and a belief that guides his own thoughts and talks with
>> conviction and charisma. He shows a humbleness, dressing modestly, and
>> says that:
>>
>> “I have this desperately old fashioned point of view that policy making
>> and decision making should not come from the top, passed down the food
>> chain for the foot soldiers to go and knock on doors and release it on
>> the unsuspecting public,”
>>
>> This is not a backing of a political candidate. I simply want to better
>> understand the forces guiding change here. Watch that YouTube video I
>> posted above, and compare it with the stark contrast of the Jeremy
>> Corbyn campaign. You have the professional politicians wish an
>> established way of creating election campaigns, spreading their
>> marketing message, making spin campaigns, carefully controlled and
>> managed public appearances. And it stinks, everybody knows it stinks of
>> garbage. This system only serves the ethically devoid:
>> Liz Kendall profile: 'I don’t want to protest. I want to get into power':
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/10/liz-kendall-profile-power-labour-leadership-election
>>
>> Then Corbyn is this old man in a sweater that is not caring to answer
>> critics who attack him, simply pushing his ideas, doing interviews on
>> YouTube and making large public rallies that are packed and a campaign
>> funded by donations through the internet.
>>
>> Quote from the Guardian:
>>
>> "Long-Bailey described Corbyn as “everything a stereotypical careerist
>> politician isn’t.” She said she had encountered two kinds of MP in
>> Westminster: conviction politicians and “consensus” ones. She had no
>> time for the latter, describing them as the sort of people who think
>> changing the world “is all a very good idea in principle but they like
>> to put their efforts into tweaking an existing consensus and appealing
>> to what’s popular in the media at the time.”"
>>
>> His appeal has even made Tony Blair, universally despised and hated in
>> England, come out against him, as well as all of the current Labour
>> leadership in the pockets of corporations.
>> Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics, says Tony Blair in final
>> plea
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland
>>
>> Their argument is that for the good of the Labour party, and being able
>> to make real change, the general election is God. And that unless the
>> Labour party is a party of appeasement, they will not win. Therefore
>> they must play the game. This is the crux of the main argument, and one
>> which rests on "the means justify the ends". Among all the excitement
>> and energy which is revitalising the youth and giving them hope, are
>> bureaucrats from the dead age clinging to what they know and calling on
>> them to listen to logic. Tony Blair says Corbyn’s supporters are
>> operating in a “parallel reality” which rejects evidence and reason, and
>> says their leftwing choice for leader will be an electoral disaster.
>>
>> It goes further, and something is let out which betrays who morally
>> bankrupt and corrupted these snakes which hold our chains actually are.
>> As Tony Blair goes on to validate himself and why plastic politicians
>> desperate for power willing to sell themselves to power are a good
>> thing, Blair admits that he does not fully understand the forces that
>> are stoking what he calls “Corbynmania”.
>>
>> As in, he does not understand what are the forces behind this. We'll
>> have to keep an eye on exactly his intent behind this phrasing. As
>> another Labour candidate said Corbyn’s popularity “reflects a deep
>> disillusionment” with Westminster politics. But I'm sure that Tony Blair
>> already understands this. And that his opposition has more to it, than
>> simply winning an election.
>>
>> The Guarian says:
>>
>> "Tony Blair sees Corbynmania as part of a trend across western
>> democracies that has seen movements from right and left, including the
>> SNP in Scotland, suddenly prosper off the back of disillusionment with
>> traditional politics and a resulting desire to “fight back against the
>> system”."
>> ...
>>
>> "However, he says such movements provide a “refuge from reality” rather
>> than a means of confronting it."
>>
>> Tony Blair:
>>
>> “It is a vast wave of feeling against the unfairness of globalisation,
>> against elites, against the humdrum navigation of decision-making in an
>> imperfect world. It persuades itself that it has a monopoly on
>> authenticity. They’re ‘telling it like it is’; when of course they’re
>> telling it like it isn’t.”
>>
>> Despite all the talk they bang on about democracy, you really sometimes
>> get an opportunity to see deep into the soul of these people. It reminds
>> me of an article I read when the Conservatives were campaigning against
>> changing the UK vote counting system to a fairer method, one of their
>> MPs said that the country needs to have someone with their hand on the
>> steering wheel. For all their talk of free markets (the Conservatives),
>> I don't think they actually believe in market economics steering
>> politics. And when you have the guys in charge telling us no, this
>> cannot happen because party X won't get into power which represents you
>> better than party Y but then their actions show that on some deeper
>> level they are even more compromised than they present to us. That we're
>> being lied to by pretenders that claim to share our values. Pretenders
>> that justify to themselves, they are experts and professionals to the
>> throne, despite claiming not to fully understand the global forces at
>> work. Against an inevitability of change, they are fighting against it
>> claiming that the change will not happen therefore we need to stop the
>> change.
>>
>> And why do we respect these people? Is it because they wear a suit or
>> have good propaganda? We all know their technological legislation is
>> rubbish, that they understand nothing. Why do we think they understand
>> anything at all? If you watch the interviews of Ashton Carter or Obama
>> on VICE News about the Islamic State, the things they say are hopeless.
>> They still talk about eliminating 'the leadership' and haven't even
>> begun to grasp the ideological aspect that gives this movement its
>> power. They created the Iraqi government, with the best weapons but
>> without an ideology, with a claimed neutrality that crippled it and they
>> just run away from battle and corruption is massive. And yet IS which is
>> the enemy of everyone is thriving with a strong court system that
>> challenges corruption, and a successful economy. We can listen to the
>> propaganda or study real sources.
>>
>> I can't find the article, but it was the Telegraph or some newspaper
>> telling about how the IS raises $$ through 'extortion of businesses' in
>> their terroritory. In other words: taxes. Funny the double standard from
>> a press that pretends to be neutral.
>>
>> Jeremy Corbyn poses national security threat, says George Osborne
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-poses-national-security-threat-george-osborne
>>
>> An MP from the same Labour party now takes it to the next level. This
>> guy is now an international danger which he calls "an unholy alliance of
>> Labour’s leftwing insurgents and the Scottish nationalists" because he
>> wants to scrap the UK nuclear weapon system. This is the power defending
>> the power. With this also comes a new announcement to renew the program
>> for £500m. That it will create thooouussands of jobs! There is many
>> interesting things we can see here, about the formation of power and how
>> the structure feeds itself.
>>
>> To put the icing on the cake, I'm going to leave you with the latest
>> Islamic State video, titled:
>>
>> "Return of the Gold Dinar"
>>
>> Starring interviews from Ron Paul, information about the corrupt banking
>> system that supports wars and control, and unveiling the release of the
>> new Islamic State monetary system: gold, silver and copper coins.
>>
>> Much of the content of this video is libertarian philosophy.
>>
>> https://ia601503.us.archive.org/32/items/ROTGD_201508/ROTGD.mp4
>>
>> Pictures:
>>
>> http://imgur.com/a/LcAlj
>>
>> The dominations will be worth around: 640€, 130€, 10€, 5€, 1€, 10ct, 5ct
>>
>> Ron Paul:
>>
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNmVgtvUEAEsAfR.png
>>
>> So what happens after we bomb IS out of existance? The world will return
>> to normality right?
>>
>> "There is no alternative" said Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, and in the
>> 90s after communism fell, an author wrote a very popular book called
>> 'The End of History and the Last Man' which said:
>>
>> "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the
>> passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of
>> history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological
>> evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
>> final form of human government."
>>
>> Idiot.
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>