wade tillett on 19 Mar 2001 20:32:38 -0000

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

[Nettime-bold] Re: Armor, Amour

"China is the biggest market, not the biggest threat to the U.S.," Premier Zhu told business leaders in Washington. "The China-threat theory should be the 

China-opportunity theory." 
(feer) (http://www.feer.com/9904_22/p12foreign.html)

> tbyfield@panix.com (Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:48:59 EST)

> because they don't address specifically *american* 
> configurations of atavism, nationalism, and pre-modernism. and,
> in fact, those kinds of hallucinatory modes are counterproductive
> in a pretty funny and 'complicit' way, because they continue the
> long and exalted tradition of citing china in an entirely imagin-
> ary way. and the nuclear relationship between the US and china
> is a very strange business; but with SDI it becomes a very real
> business.

***with SDI it becomes a very *real* business....***
-which is a *real* strategy of SDI. an increased cold war style weapons production with china is not simply a negative effect of the missile shield. it is in 

fact, one of the main reasons for its creation. as was previously mentioned, SDI is a reaganite cold war strategy of economic warfare. a strategy of 

deterrance (see virilio) is proposed; an attempt to force an either/or: either china enters into a weapons race, i.e. economic war - cold war, or china does 

nothing, thereby conceding its weakness and vulnerability, whereby we would see (more) massive infiltration of american economic product, corporations, 

technology, and other aspects of the capitalist propaganda machine. military and media.

is such a strategy still valid? 

how has it been revised?

how will china respond?

>michael.benson@pristop.si (Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:16:02) 

>the only way to
>establish the truth here is to "follow the money."

this is true, but i think that sdi translates into money outside of the us through expansion of us interests. even if sdi is/was a total bluff, there is a 

political game at work. the political game of american interests expanding into china. after all, the billions of people 'walled off' in china represents 

trillions of dollars. 

"Here is a number that never ceases to intrigue me. The Chinese like to take pictures. But the average mainland Chinese household shoots only about half a 

roll of film a year. If everybody in China who now has a roll of film in a camera finished it and started a new roll this year, worldwide sales of Kodak film 

could double." (wired7.03) (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.03/entertain.html)

and this is no secret to the multi-national corporations, who, by now have presumably implemented a groundwork for the viral tentacles of capitalism to eat 

at the heart of china while the interior economic system is turned inside out in order to provide a wall to keep the outside out, until a collapse occurs. 

"Microsoft chairman Bill Gates on Wednesday unveiled a new operating system designed to bring affordable Internet access to homes in China. /Microsoft's 

Venus operating system would allow Chinese electronics firms to combine a Web browser, low-end personal computer, and video compact disc player in a single 

box to sit atop televisions for people who cannot afford a PC, Gates said. /"Our goal is a very aggressive goal, and that is to introduce millions and 

millions of people to computers and to the Internet," Gates said at a news conference in China's southern city of Shenzhen."(wired) 


was SDI's non-implementation previously an indication that china was previously too closed for such a strategy to work? is this now an indication that the 

groundwork is laid *within* china to facilitate such an economic war? have not the years that have passed since the original proposal of SDI have allowed 

massive de-regulation of multi-national corporations and a world-stage of trade treaties has dramatically altered the accessibility of corporations to the 

far depths of potential consumers everywhere. a cold war stratagem relied on a government funded drain of the economy into weapons production, while 

facilitating the spread of a capitalist propaganda from the inside-out. which brings us to the next point:

> > pit@klubradio.de (Thu 03/15/01 at 01:57 AM +0100):
> > try to fence-in the US cyberspace, and it is a mission impossible
> > because so much of the us economic activity is already spread all
> > over the planet. by territorializing the internet along national
> > borders, it will get literally split into parts and other states
> > will follow the example, a renationalization and reoccupation of
> > a space which is no space can only lead to serious misunderstandings.
> > but maybe its more like a media campaign, to americanize cyberspace,
> > side effect is lots of money to be spent....

'to americanize cyberspace'???
this is the exact opposite of what is being attempted. this argument only follows the common and pervasive fallacy that has been extended and perpetuated 

(quite happily) by western interests of media, tech, finance, etc. cyber'space' needs no americanizing. its technical and cultural infrastructure is 

'american' already. in that it furthers western interests of media, tech, finance, etc abroad. ('western' interests as a whole are increased, but american 

interests specifically stand to benefit the most.) the medium/media/technology is the message/commodity/warfare (economic). the perceived freedom of 

cyberspace is simply an extension of economies set up previously:


cyber'space' fulfills all three of these economies.

one of the reasons the us won the cold war with the ussr was that the entire american economic system propelled itself, through the promise of self-gain, to 

a massive and unprecedented production of propaganda. all parties which wished to make economic gains sold their own form of propaganda (media/advertising). 

while the ussr was more reliant on a government-backed propaganda machine.
this was *not* pro-democratic propaganda, but was rather pro-capitalist propaganda, which was the system the united states really wanted to expand anyway. 

the implied justification and legitimization of the american capitalistic product was that it somehow furthered democracy, but whether or not this was true 

was fairly unimportant.

as with previous massive weapons deployment, a dual strategy allows an american government to extend the economic and cultural infrastructure through the 

private enterprise of advertising, technology, media, while the weapons production weakens the government by eating at an enclosed economic system.
so, with regards to china, the purpose of sdi is more to challenge the strength of the chinese government and force the issue of opening their borders. a 

longer or a shorter route to economic infiltration. either way, china must fall. the question is how.

a few other links

theater missile defense system (miis) (http://cns.miis.edu/research/neasia/tmdchron.htm)

"Why are Republicans so trigger-happy when it comes to China? Several reasons -- the first of which is baldly political. Nothing has done more to damage the 

unity of political conservatism than the end of the Cold War.... And a new Cold War would help Republicans in innumerable ways.... When a candidate goes 

before a conservative audience, China is an applause line." (salon) (http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/03/15news.htm)

russian responses to sdi (cia 1983)

Nettime-bold mailing list