Re: Why doesn't the world act against the US?

Greetings,

A new ideology which has its roots in early modern racism is growing into a full-blown hegemonic rule within Europe and US. The simple and elementary aim of this racism which has its core among 2% of US and EU population is to uproot physically the world population which are mainly in the Third World Countries and create a free planetary space for these two percent so called superior race. They are not either jews, christians or anything like that but racists in its most deepest sense of the world. It would be a mistake to think that Afghanistan was the last or Irak would be the final targets of this group which happens to reside mainly in US and EU. The target is decrease the world population based on the ideology of the best race which happens to be a mixture of white-balck-yellow and to cut it short  a new breed of man or superman. The ideology of racism is not out in the open and one is mistaken to think that there are any legal institutions which are able to stave off the hegemony of this new ideology and new ideologists. People like Kofi Annan or alike are only window dressing and spreading the opium to the masses and ask them resgin and accept your inferiority. As many postmdern issues the very concept of Race has gone many transformations so it is not a matter of black verus white or yellow versus red. The question is what should be done and how should it be done? The least one can say is that start from home first and ...

Kind

Kafkazli Seyed

---

On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone

--- Begin Message ---

For those interested in taking (economic) action against the United States, please go to:

 

www.adbusters.org

 

Join and support the Boycott Brand America Campaign

Chanzo Greenidge

 

 

>From: Trichur Ganesh

>To: "Maximilian C. Forte" , Trichur Ganesh , wsn@csf.colorado.edu, threehegemons@aol.com

>Subject: Re: Why doesn't the world act against the US?

>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:47:41 -0500

>

>Dr.Maximilian, you raise some interesting points for discussion. There are a

>few things here, which I would like to point out as partial response(s):

>(1) The US today is the space of concentration of weapons of mass destruction

>(the most effective means of coercion in short, lie in the US).

>(2) The "pre-emptive war(s)" that is being waged today is being waged at least

>partly to ensure that no other space is capable of containing comparable

>concentration of weapons of mass destruction.

>(3) The point of doing so, I would argue, is to bring to the fore the question

>of scarcity of protection supply and to thereby raise protection costs. The

>monopoly in the ownership of the means of violence would ensure a continuing

>role for the US in a world order that is no longer ordered under the post-World

>War II regime of accumulation of capital and means of violence-production.

>4) Surely one of the most glaring forms of world inequality today, I argue, is

>the effect(s) of the glaring disparity in the concentration of "effective" (i.e.

>technologically sophisticated as in the ways in which Paul Virilio speaks of

>"war at the speed of light") means of coercion in the US (in particular, and in

>the spaces of the North in general) and the "rest" (the South). Another form of

>the same disparity - outside of the US - is the State apparatuses everywhere and

>their ownership of the means of coercion versus the unarmed citizens (exception

>being the US).

>(5) The effects of this global anomaly(ies) have not however prevented mass

>demonstrations and protests from declaring that despite this imbalance in the

>ownership of means of violence, contemporary states everywhere are

>illegitimate. (6) How will this crisis of legitimacy be resolved? This is the

>question of the moment, Maximilian. For it is indeed a question of the crisis

>of global democracy and global terror unleashed by US power and reactionary

>Islamic (and other) fundamentalisms.

>(7) Which states will take up arms for Iraq? I doubt if any of the Gulf states

>will do so - the interests of the ruling classes there are very closely tied up

>with US power. The problem of the Middle East, I argue, is the problem of a

>common resource(oil) which has high scarcity value, but which is being

>squandered for the most ignoble of uses - in the West for the maintenance of

>high levels of automobility, in the Middle East for the maintenance of high

>levels of consumption among the upper classes there. There is in short no unity

>among the Arab states other than the fundamentalist unity supplied by Islam.

>What about Europe? No European state can by itself or in combination with any

>other - like Germany and France - match the unparalleled military might of the

>US. Moreover all European states are tainted by their history of colonial

>adventures. As Rumsfeld and others rightly remark they are indeed an "old

>Europe", old in the sense that all the way until the 20th century, they have had

>histories of colonial exploitation for reasons not so dissimilar from the ones

>that the US is embarking upon. The hypocrisy of the whole venture! The

>hypocrisy of all that is! No one cares, my Maximilian, for the poor. There is

>no morality in contemporary politics or in any other politics for that matter.

>Issues of intervention have to be measured in terms of a cost-benefit calculus.

>Who can afford a costly war? Who can afford to go to war against the US?

>However, having said that, it is important to mention the undeniable presence of

>a threshold: it is the point beyond which no one will stand for aggressive

>interventionism of the US-type. That threshold, unfortunately, is not perhaps

>in the immediate vicinity. In the meantime, it is important to express

>solidarity with the protesters whose actions are equally unprecedented, equally

>historic, and bound to have lasting effects on the contours of the possible.

>Sincerely, Ganesh.

>

>"Maximilian C. Forte" wrote:

>

> > It may be more personal rage than rationality, but I am at a loss at how

> > once the war began, states opposed to the US action seem to have done very

> > little, while protesters seem resigned to simply protest some more (as vital

> > as that is, I certainly don't want to diminish the global protests by any

> > means). I totally agree with virtually everything Iraq's ambassador to the

> > UN said yesterday at the Security Council, and the UN which itself was a

> > party to genocide in Iraq, has a great deal to answer for.

> >

> > As far as I can see, Iraq today is in the role of Kuwait in 1990 (a victim

> > of aggression and invasion), while the US today is playing the role of Iraq

> > in 1990. So who is going to even try to put a stop to this? No calls for

> > trade sanctions against the US? No embargo? No troops sent to intervene and

> > try and put up a wall against further US incursion? Are protesters not

> > calling for worldwide boycotts of American products, or are all such actions

> > still highly localized?

> >

> > I am currently in Trinidad and Tobago where, though most seem disgusted with

> > US bullying, and already began to lose confidence in their Mecca (New York

> > City) when they saw the towers of the master nation collapsing, there have

> > been no protests and certainly no calls for any action. In the meantime, US

> > citizens can enter without any passport, while Trinidadians still line up tp

> > pay $600 TT for visas when most of them are turned down. Therefore, please

> > forgive me if I seem exasperated with what, at my end, seems like feckless

> > actions or inaction.

> >

> > If "terrorism" increases, I don't see that it will simply be a result of US

> > actions. I think it will also have to do with frustration many will feel

> > over the inability of anyone to do anything to oppose the US. Why all of the

> > fighting has to fall on Iraqi soldiers alone is beyond me. I would love to

> > hear of any movements, anywhere, that at least are engaged in trying to

> > foster a worldwide boycott of American goods and services.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Max.

> >

> > Dr. Maximilian C. Forte

> > Editor

> > CARIBBEAN AMERINDIAN CENTRELINK

> > http://www.centrelink.org

> > Editor

> > KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology

> > http://www.kacike.org

> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>

>

---

MSN Messenger: converse com os seus amigos online. Instale grátis. Clique aqui. --- End Message ---