Author`s name zamiralov tech

The Loud Cries for the Evidence of Lies in America

Lately, I hear the gossip about "the lies." It says the American government lied to the public in order to bring Bush's America to the war with Iraq. In fact, there are now increasingly vociferous mouths from within the media giants and many articles that claim to a committed search for the truth


I read one written by an American socialist. You will see, almost immdiately, how devious the arguments for and against the conduct of the war are, but no argumentation seems as simple as a killing of defenseless people is by the so-called liberated technology, as if it were to reflect the technical easing of life and death.  If the anti-war argmuent  is to contitue its initial vision and momentum, however, it is necessary to keep the conceptual line of principle straight against the war; a sheer abstract negation of domination and power is not enough to break through this objective context of delusion. In this regard, I appreciate the attitude of, the Rusian thinking, which seems more comprehensive of the perspective whole than on the petty issue of lies; the Russian proverb says, "One can't see the forest for the trees."


Having so stated, I feel necessary to point out two major elements regarding to the nature of this war and the American occupation in Iraq and in other countries as well.

1) the fear of nuclear threat, which is international, not the threat of the communist domination any more.

2) the militarization of Capitalist system for the security of the status quo.


From the first follow a couple of consequences:

a) the fear and anxiety pervades to the consciousness of all peoples, borderless and boundless: hence the globalization and the sanctification of the Superpower technology.

b) this bloody conflict or the "war" is not to protect the American soldiers. It would be absurd, even fictitious to assume a victory free of American casualties in such a violent occupation. The world has heard the Commander in Chief saying, "Bring them on," and it sounded as if the violent occupation were a mere training of military masochism. Let it be clear that these soldiers of 160, 000 well equiped men and women are not there in Iraq to exercise on a fake target of a military training (as if the Iraqis happened to be), but they mean to kill and destroy and are meant to be killed by oath and by command. Therefore, it matters little whether the Saddam Hussein's regime had the weapons of mass destruction or not. It is not the objective on which the American-led war can be judged yes or no depending upon the casualties as the critics are falsely led to pacify the unpacified whole. Being international in character, the concept of the war itself invites all peoples to judge based on facts. To judge the war is to judge its concept, not the American people who are not identical with the concept as the ruling clique would have it. For it stands on this deceptive particularization of the universal fear in an irrational form of "the war on terrorism", just as the false identity of society and individual is coerced upon the world by the globalization of the industrial society.


Just for the sake of argument, suppose the invasion forces have indeed discovered the WMD in Iraq, then what? I told you so, the survivors would be hearing, and every conscious individual must now go on the business as usual or? It is equally pointless to argue, as some anti-war critics wallow, that the supporters are in delusion, deceived by the fabrication of the WMD in Iraq and therefore, the Bush administration in entirety stands on a false representation of the deliberate "lies" as truth. This points to the prevailing notion of democracy, which is in truth incapable of the distinction between lies and truth to the extent that today's language in discoure is indifferent to the differentiation of information and message. The fact that we face today is the credibility of human logos is damaged.


In this way, however, the alien world is made virtually nonexistent, or else it is likened to the Self of American Power, as the system of one gigantic analytical judgment, in which the like proceeds knowing itself only through like, like the rules of democracy and freedom. Thereof the conceptual efforts against the war, the voice lending to suffering would have been useless and sacrificed. In either case, the result would be the same world that would have enjoyed the sanctified rhythm of destruction and production as it does now. In which the outsider, the alien, even in thought no longer counts, even where its existence suggests the transformation of what is merely given for a leap. But as the blindness of this war indicates it however self-unconscious, precisely because of it, the unlike (e.g. the Muslim culture) would be prehistoric, undisciplined and finally identified with the terror of evil power as the threat to peace and security of the like, i.e. the ratio of the status quo, for which the world has designated the Superpower. This particular setting is however no more than the product of particular interest, from which reason escapes. This means the rise of militarism, which seems accompanied by the stagnation of economic power as if to rescue it from sinking. For instance, Japan as the world economic power that is to change its uniform to a formidable military power in Asia on the front in "the war on terror." But it is important to note a particular aspect, essential for the anti-war argument to be aware, because it is the structural changes taking place in Japan, which show the real content in both wars against terrorism and Nature completely incorporated into exchange economy. The Japanese as the work force is vanquished by the very domination over Nature; the natural processes have been absorbed into the rhythm of labor to the verge of a condensation point, not allowing any further leap forward but the repetition of fate in cycle: hence the recoil into the security of the status quo. But the subsequent militarization of the society is not so much the dictate of decaying economic influence as is the danger of the saturated alienation from Nature. This has begun turning back on its people, the vanquished. This is a sort of Nature's revenge on the society in the sense that in the process, the recurrence of Nature becomes the symbol for the permanent presence of social pressure. The society has eliminated the unlike out of fear, just as the objective of the New Empire of America aims to achieve: hence the uniformity of controlled mimesis as the order of society. The ancient festival 'Omatsuri' in Japan, for instance, has become an escape from the coercive mechanism to the sense of prehistoric chaos: the premonition of a total collapse for the vanquished. As a whole, this shows us the insight that the likelihood of the like, the fullness of being so and not otherwise, is delimited and restricted by the appearing of the unlikely, by the possibility of nonbeing from within, for it opens up the men’s only resource of that which is not. This war is the sabotage against the power of human progress.


David D.Yun
Berkeley, California USA