integer on 4 Dec 2000 18:02:35 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] <nettime> Fw: Enemies of the Future

uuuuu - = m9nd aktivity on nettime. 
unlike the simply INFERIOR + ultra outdated gov fascist marioneta -


                                                meeTz ver!f1kat!ěn.     

Netochka Nezvanova     - dze futur = needz 01 or!g!n. 
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST  - romanticism = 01 kolonial disease
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >

>> I hope you did not lose all your assets, Mark. 
>Fear not . . . I've been in cash and collectibles for quite a while now.  
>I am looking to fund some real breakthrough NEW MEDIA technologies, however.  
>Got any? <g>
>> And I am curious what you thought of your 1996 prediction 
>> that Al Gore was going to become US president, eliminate 
>> democracy and install some kind of HG Wells regime.
>> Zero Growth after the Long Boom? Do you look back on 
>> own your future predictions?
>Ah, yes, I do look back . . . I do, I do . . . oh, yes . . .
>As I recall, the speech that I gave at MetaForum III in Budapest in 1996 was 
>about the possibility of a Crash scenario . . . which I still find much more 
>likely than a Boom-er, long or otherwise. <g>
>And, if memory serves, I was concerned way back then -- in that distant 
>century -- about the possiblity for a Gore election and for what it might 
>mean for a shift towards a substitution of "opinion-polling" for the present 
>systme of voting for representatives.  Or, if you like, a substitution of 
>"hyper-democracy" for the current "republican" form of government in the U.S. 
>and elsewhere.
>'Sfair to say that I still have that concern.  
>Hillary Clinton's (Gore's alterego) call for abolishing the Electoral College 
>and the widespread advocacy for "hyper-democratic" voting mechanisms should 
>probably be seen as threads in that still-unfolding tapestry.
>And, yes, Gore's anti-national-sovereignty foreign policy bias still appears 
>to me to be borrowed largely from Wells' 1928 "The Open Conspiracy" . . . 
>which, as you recall, pointed towards a "World State" which would be 
>administered by multi-national corporations . . . "who" as a result of the 
>widespread acceptance of international "Human Rights" conventions would be 
>considered as "virtual" individuals and, therefore, extremely difficult 
>(okay, impossible) to bring to justice.
>Regarding "Enemies . . .," you ask --
>> The question should be: Has the power of American 
>> corporations fallen with 50%? I don't think so.
>Of course not.  But, to identify these multinationals as "American" seems to 
>miss the point, doesn't it?  They are what they are precisely because they 
>have no specific "nationality."  They are ABOVE governments.
>And, to focus on their DOT.commie-ness is getting to be a very stale joke.  
>That's all.
>Just like in the time of H.G. Wells, the important MULTIS tend to go in for 
>the HARD stuff of oil, minerals, food and chemicals.  Like the Imperial 
>Chemical of Sir Alfred Mond (the model for Wells in "The Open Conspiracy" and 
>for Aldous Huxley's counter-thrust "Brave New World") or the Phelps-Dodge 
>(think Copper Cartel) of Wells' illustrious U.S. counterpart, "Bucky" Fuller.
>In economic terms we now live under conditions of what should probably be 
>called Global FASCISM (of the "Friendly" variety or what Wells called 
>"liberal fascism"), where the mulitnational heirs to I.G. Farben now 
>effectively dominate geo-politics . . . with the gratious assistance of 
>numerous "left" and "socialist" governments . . . and a rainbow coalition of 
>PoGOs to boot.
>Alas, and there really isn't anything that any "alternative culture" is 
>likely to do about it either.  <g>
>Mark Stahlman
>New York City

Nettime-bold mailing list