It now seems that 30 or more British people have been killed in Tunisia. This is an outrage.
I visited Tunisia about six years ago, I strolled the back streets and talked to the locals. When the talk turned to politics there was absolutely no doubt that they were hostile to the "west". The Tunisians were largely polite to me but in the back streets of Tunis my wife was slapped on the calves by a gang of young men who thought her knee-length dress was too short. So, we have an odd situation: it was blindingly obvious that fervent Islamism was widespread in Tunisia even years ago yet the British Government issues no warnings. This is the second major massacre of tourists in Tunisia this year yet tourism goes on as normal!
David Cameron has said that "we" must develop a narrative to oppose the narrative used by ISIS. He has declared that any people who support ISIS in any way are beyond the pale and should be excluded from any debate. This idea of "narratives" and polarization is the hallmark of postmodern philosophy. Cameron is declaring that this is a war between people with his postmodern values and Islamic extremism.
The problem with this war is that Cameron has not truly described what "we" are fighting for or even who "we" are. He seems to have a vision of a Britain that is composed of people from all parts of the world and belonging to the European Union. Since 2014 the EU has responsibility for foreign policy so by "British" he means "EU" or even a larger grouping. According to Cameron this nebulous "Britain" should encourage elections to ensure that the moderate, ordinary people of the Middle East select their governments. He then supports the removal of the elected government if, as in Egypt, it does not comply with his values.
But what are Cameron's "values"? As a postmodern politician who has been selected by a cabal of bankers, his principal values are the expansion of the power of those who possess the most power in the "West". This power is based upon taking a percentage of every transaction. Maintaining power involves maintaining a very high transaction rate in the economy. This is Cameron's main "value". Being postmodern he invents a "narrative" to justify it. The narrative is simply a story to make him popular with friends and voters. On the postmodern political spectrum his main opponents are postmarxists (Labour) who use a narrative that appeals to a different sector of society to gain power.
Cameron is proud of the fact that British planes have flown 5% of the sorties against ISIS. In doing this he has committed the British people to a state of war with ISIS. However, to ensure that his values apply, Cameron and his pals have not cordoned off any of the nations that contain ISIS supporters except IS itself, in fact he has encouraged the opposite and extolled continuing tourism and trade with these nations. The objective of this approach is to internalize conflicts within the "West", those areas that share "western values" so that any conflicts anywhere outside IS are dealt with by increased security and surveillance rather than warfare.
What Cameron desires more than anything is to hear people say "this could happen anywhere" because then he and his pals have the authority to extend a police state everywhere. Once the network of security and surveillance is strong enough Cameron hopes that any threat to his values can be defeated. It may be claimed that "trade prevents war" but a global police state that enforces the values of Cameron and his pals over the entire globe is, perhaps, too great a price to pay.
Contrast Cameron's approach to war with that of previous generations. In the past people had beliefs rather than narratives. These beliefs translated into a particular way of life. This diversity of ways of life created a rich and varied pattern of humanity across the globe. If there were conflicts one nation would oppose another and potential fifth columnists would be interned or deported. No-one would be encouraged to go on holiday in a conflict zone.
Where does Cameron's idea of warfare originate? In the twentieth century ideologists (Internationalist Socialists and Nationalist Socialists) managed to gain control of the governments of nations. They formed an alliance and embarked on expanding their spheres of influence by starting the Second World War although the National Socialists attacked the Internationalist Socialists in 1941 so depriving the ideologists of victory. The Nation States won the war, not the ideologists. In the occupied communist countries, where the ideologists remained in power, they embarked on a program of internalising conflict so that all protest became a protest against communist "values" and imposed a huge security and surveillance structure to oversee their empire.
The "West" - which now means those with shared postmodern values - has embarked upon an empire by stealth using techniques learnt from the Internationalist Socialists. Instead of openly conquering countries they enwrap them in their economy and intelligence and security infrastructure and call them "western". Any armed opposition to this treatment is called "terrorism". Any intellectual opposition is called "radicalization".
We are at a crossroads in Europe, America and the Middle East. We can have Nation States that cooperate with each other but internally have quite different ways of life or we can have a global hegemony of a thousand billionaires and people of influence who run a postmodern media to control the population for, mainly, their own advantage, with perhaps, occasional revolutions in which postmarxist pedagogues replace the billionaires. We can have a world of sustainable Nations governed for their people and culture or a world where power is the only objective and those in power use their media to misinform the people with "narratives".
See postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism.
I visited Tunisia about six years ago, I strolled the back streets and talked to the locals. When the talk turned to politics there was absolutely no doubt that they were hostile to the "west". The Tunisians were largely polite to me but in the back streets of Tunis my wife was slapped on the calves by a gang of young men who thought her knee-length dress was too short. So, we have an odd situation: it was blindingly obvious that fervent Islamism was widespread in Tunisia even years ago yet the British Government issues no warnings. This is the second major massacre of tourists in Tunisia this year yet tourism goes on as normal!
David Cameron has said that "we" must develop a narrative to oppose the narrative used by ISIS. He has declared that any people who support ISIS in any way are beyond the pale and should be excluded from any debate. This idea of "narratives" and polarization is the hallmark of postmodern philosophy. Cameron is declaring that this is a war between people with his postmodern values and Islamic extremism.
The problem with this war is that Cameron has not truly described what "we" are fighting for or even who "we" are. He seems to have a vision of a Britain that is composed of people from all parts of the world and belonging to the European Union. Since 2014 the EU has responsibility for foreign policy so by "British" he means "EU" or even a larger grouping. According to Cameron this nebulous "Britain" should encourage elections to ensure that the moderate, ordinary people of the Middle East select their governments. He then supports the removal of the elected government if, as in Egypt, it does not comply with his values.
But what are Cameron's "values"? As a postmodern politician who has been selected by a cabal of bankers, his principal values are the expansion of the power of those who possess the most power in the "West". This power is based upon taking a percentage of every transaction. Maintaining power involves maintaining a very high transaction rate in the economy. This is Cameron's main "value". Being postmodern he invents a "narrative" to justify it. The narrative is simply a story to make him popular with friends and voters. On the postmodern political spectrum his main opponents are postmarxists (Labour) who use a narrative that appeals to a different sector of society to gain power.
Cameron is proud of the fact that British planes have flown 5% of the sorties against ISIS. In doing this he has committed the British people to a state of war with ISIS. However, to ensure that his values apply, Cameron and his pals have not cordoned off any of the nations that contain ISIS supporters except IS itself, in fact he has encouraged the opposite and extolled continuing tourism and trade with these nations. The objective of this approach is to internalize conflicts within the "West", those areas that share "western values" so that any conflicts anywhere outside IS are dealt with by increased security and surveillance rather than warfare.
What Cameron desires more than anything is to hear people say "this could happen anywhere" because then he and his pals have the authority to extend a police state everywhere. Once the network of security and surveillance is strong enough Cameron hopes that any threat to his values can be defeated. It may be claimed that "trade prevents war" but a global police state that enforces the values of Cameron and his pals over the entire globe is, perhaps, too great a price to pay.
Contrast Cameron's approach to war with that of previous generations. In the past people had beliefs rather than narratives. These beliefs translated into a particular way of life. This diversity of ways of life created a rich and varied pattern of humanity across the globe. If there were conflicts one nation would oppose another and potential fifth columnists would be interned or deported. No-one would be encouraged to go on holiday in a conflict zone.
Where does Cameron's idea of warfare originate? In the twentieth century ideologists (Internationalist Socialists and Nationalist Socialists) managed to gain control of the governments of nations. They formed an alliance and embarked on expanding their spheres of influence by starting the Second World War although the National Socialists attacked the Internationalist Socialists in 1941 so depriving the ideologists of victory. The Nation States won the war, not the ideologists. In the occupied communist countries, where the ideologists remained in power, they embarked on a program of internalising conflict so that all protest became a protest against communist "values" and imposed a huge security and surveillance structure to oversee their empire.
The "West" - which now means those with shared postmodern values - has embarked upon an empire by stealth using techniques learnt from the Internationalist Socialists. Instead of openly conquering countries they enwrap them in their economy and intelligence and security infrastructure and call them "western". Any armed opposition to this treatment is called "terrorism". Any intellectual opposition is called "radicalization".
We are at a crossroads in Europe, America and the Middle East. We can have Nation States that cooperate with each other but internally have quite different ways of life or we can have a global hegemony of a thousand billionaires and people of influence who run a postmodern media to control the population for, mainly, their own advantage, with perhaps, occasional revolutions in which postmarxist pedagogues replace the billionaires. We can have a world of sustainable Nations governed for their people and culture or a world where power is the only objective and those in power use their media to misinform the people with "narratives".
See postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism.
Comments