Ted, you insinuated I was a mentally debilitated paralytic and I suggested you might look into what a thread is about before commenting on it. It's not a very polite exchange but seems fair enough to me. We don't agree on much and it's actually not so interesting to dialogue.
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 7:47 PM Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian, the condescending signaling — finding this or that amusing, somehow > recalling something else, God forbid this and sorry about that, horror! > about something else, and most of all *assigning readings* — is a bad look. > You should cut it out. > > Nothing I said suggests that your interests or ideas are "illegitimate" or > anything like that; on the contrary, I said "those considerations might be > real, valid, or important." I believe that, and I learn a lot from you on > this list. I also argued that we shouldn't accept at face value the > quasi-transcendent pretensions of certain frames of reference or styles of > thought. That's just skepticism 101. > > Andre can speak for himself, but the only mention I made of conspiracies > related specifically to the right, which clearly doesn't include you. I'm > not sure why you'd focus on that rather than engage with a single thing I > actually did say. > > Here's an "assignment": go back and skim my mail for discussions that > might *specifically* apply to you. Part of one paragraph, arguably a bit of > another. The rest is about cops, courts, the feds, academia, the right, the > UK. More than that, it's an effort to understand how (not *why*) so many > leftists have gotten so tangled up in their theories that they end up > actively endorsing Russian imperialist aggression. If that doesn't apply to > you, great. > > Cheers, > Ted > > On 3 Mar 2023, at 15:55, Brian Holmes wrote: > > > I find it very amusing that a thread devoted to Germany's relations to > > China is conceived as a conspiracy theory that aims at covering up the > > reality of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. > > > > It seems to me rather *legitimate* to explore what might be happening > > between Germany, the US and China, at a time when the possibilities of a > > war between the US and China are being discussed in major news and > > international-relations publications across the world. God forbid, I even > > find it legitimate to explore what these tensions have to do with the > > Ukraine war, at a time the international relations experts are analyzing > > China's growing support for Russia, and worrying whether China might > > actually send arms to Russia, raising the spectre of - God forbid it > again > > - something like a "proxy war." (Sorry, the word and the thought are > taboo, > > I know.) > > > > Hmmm, I somehow recall saying very clearly in an earlier thread that I am > > in favor of NATO arming Ukraine, but simultaneously, I am wary of what > > comes next, the possibility of a larger conflict. Doesn't matter, > > conspiracy theorists always do that, it's not worth reading what they > > actually say. > > > > Speaking of reading, Andre and Ted, perhaps you guys have read the books > by > > Bruno Macaes, "Belt and Road" and "The Dawn of Eurasia", and surely you > > have verified the conspirational nature of that kind of thinking? I guess > > you would have to throw in reams of articles in publications like Foreign > > Affairs and so on, the kind of stuff that I consult before writing, known > > conspiracy theorists all. > > > > Ted, when you've finished The Dawn of Eurasia - go ahead, it won prizes > > back in 2016, and rightly so, because it predicted the current era of > > inter-civilizational conflict between Russia, China and the US - well, > when > > you've finished that, I am sure you will be convinced that Macaes, too, > is > > a conspiracy theorist, and surely a "leftoid" to boot (after all, I think > > he mentions Aleksandr Dugin in there, and only leftoids do that). After a > > little study you will be able to better analyze and trash whatever I > might > > come up with next. > > > > Just throw in Macaes' recent publications in The New Statesman, and it > will > > give you a very accurate picture of the paralyzing lack of agency that > you > > diagnose with such consummate precision. Go ahead, look at all that, take > > some time to put it all in the balance, and reconcile the results with > your > > horror at anyone who attempts a 'why' explanation of complex world > events. > > > > thoughtfully, Brian > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:10 AM Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Andre, you really nailed it. > >> > >> As some may have noticed, the US in particular is suffering from, let's > >> say, a *maldistribution of agency*. It's mostly imaginary, but like all > >> imaginaries, it functions like a mass-magic spell: its very unreality > >> makes it that much more real. > >> > >> The left — not a good name for it, but that's a discussion for another > >> time — has been consumed with efforts to "give agency to" or "empower" > >> its various grassroots constituencies for decades. I happen to support > >> those liberationist struggles, *and* I can also see the myriad ways > >> those cultural activities are inextricably intertwined with the left's > >> plainly obvious inability to effectively occupy governmental entities > >> and functions at *any* level. The right, which has been supremely > >> effective at subsuming government functions — whether by simply taking > >> them over or by rewriting the laws and media that construct them — is > >> consumed with growing imaginary allegations of excessive agency: > >> conspiracies, "the gubmint," "globalists," various insidious "agendas," > >> "cancellations," "false flags" (i.e., misattributed agency), and > >> ridiculous "lizard people"–style nonsense (i.e., allegations of infinite > >> agency to entities that look like they don't have agency *because they > >> look like us*), etc, etc > >> > >> More: US police forces are increasingly consumed by their sense of > >> helplessness and even fragility, even as their numbers skyrocket, their > >> budgets and powers expand uncontrollably, and the quantity and "quality" > >> of their weaponry — as well as their willingness to use it on the > >> slightest pretext — has metastasized. > >> > >> US courts have become little more than a forum for rightists to > >> adjudicate ways to destroy ideas and facts developed by the left. But > >> the courts can't *do* anything directly — all they can do is direct > >> other branches not do or not do this or that. So they too are acutely > >> aware of their lack of agency and power, even as they grow by the day. > >> > >> And the US federal government, with almost undisputed military and > >> financial power, is suffering from some sort of collective aphasia, > >> unable to effectively *name* the abuses tearing people's lives to > >> pieces: "insurrection" and "coup," the "mass murder" of gun violence, > >> "criminal negligence" (like public beta tests of allegedly self-driving > >> cars on the public at large), mass "disenfranchisement" through > >> gerrymandering and worse, the "indentured servitude" of student debt and > >> the "slavery" of so much employment, the "price-gouging" and > >> "profiteering" of corporations, large-scale "fraud" and "theft" by > >> networks of grifters. The state's undisputed power to *name* things is > >> dissolving into endless scholastic debates and procedural formalisms, > >> resulting in inexplicable paralysis. It's a prime example of how *seeing > >> like a state* — which is more about naming than seeing — both works and > >> doesn't work: if you can't name it you can't do anything about it, so if > >> you don't want to do anything about just don't name it. > >> > >> I could go on with this list, but there's no need because they're all > >> variations on the same paradoxical misapprehension of agency. People, > >> institutions, forces see it where it isn't, can't see it where it is, > >> imagine they have none and others have it all. > >> > >> No realistic or effective analysis of agency or power can come from this > >> mess. > >> > >> The funny-not-funny thing about this is that the left has the conceptual > >> tools it needs to sort this out this, but (wait for it...) can't seem to > >> use them. For example, if someone were to apply theories of > >> intersectionality — a staple of leftist thinking that comes from (cue > >> the horror-movie soundtrack) CRT and therefore for domestic use only — > >> to Ukraine and its people, lo and behold, their struggle could be seen > >> in both/and rather than either/or terms: as part of a cynical > >> geopolitical strategy *and* a legitimate struggle for autonomy, as > >> politically problematic *and* morally right, as terrifyingly risky *and* > >> worth the risk, etc. But acknowledging that might mean supporting their > >> struggle, however awful the consequences. > >> > >> And that support would violate Rule #1: it would be *inconsistent*. > >> Inconsistent, that is, with other stances and beliefs - pacifism or > >> commitment to nonviolence, say. And so we can see that one major > >> obstacle to support often has little or nothing to do with actual > >> Ukrainians, their actual lives, their actual country. Instead, it stems > >> from a reluctance to make exceptions on whatever grounds, to hold > >> incompatible beliefs, to recommend one thing in one context and its > >> opposite in another. To do that, to take the personal authority of > >> believing things that don't fit together easily or clearly, is a > >> sovereign act: it asserts priority over the systems of thought that > >> constrain agency. > >> > >> Doing that, being inconsistent, doesn't go well these days, because much > >> of our mediated landscape — and therefore much of our conversational > >> landscape, at every level — is devoted to "holding people accountable" > >> for being, saying, or doing inconsistent things. Your career prospects > >> will tank, your credit score will plummet, and your insurance rates will > >> skyrocket. Your puritanically consistent friends will (as we've seen > >> here) denounce you as hypnotized by the "media" or "propaganda," or just > >> a "troll," or some will suspect you must've taken some colored pill — > >> red, blue, black, it doesn't matter which, as long as it can explain > >> away your sense of agency. Academia, consumed by nonsense about > >> ever-narrower job titles, consistent patterns of consistent publication, > >> application of consistent "methodologies," will banish you. And if > >> anyone pays too much attention, the media will treat you variously as > >> "mavericky," a "personality," or part of — that is, consistent with — > >> some subculture organized around either (a) the assertion of raw > >> privilege that consists entirely and only of being completely > >> incoherent, or (b) some boutique model of hyper-consistency applied to > >> anything without regard for others' humanity — for example, incels on > >> the one hand, long-termists on the other. > >> > >> And so it's no surprise to see, basically, white male leftists receding > >> into the ether of world-systems theory — again, consumed with dreams of > >> finding some consistency. That is, taking a view (which implies > >> occupying a position, however imaginary) whose theoretical > >> sophistication and breadth of considerations are matched only by a > >> complete lack of engagement with the simple truth: one country — which > >> as you say, has a broken political environment — ruthlessly invaded > >> another country and has rained total destruction on it for a year now. > >> So, again as you say, we imagine Ukrainians are, or at least should be, > >> *like us*: NPCs — that is, no agency. And the recommendation is that > >> they should accept *being like us* by submitting to an inexorable and > >> incoherent system of power. If they'd just do that, everything would be > >> fine. For us. But they won't, so we should stop helping them to be > >> different from us. > >> > >> The solipsism you point out is really astonishing. And it certainly > >> affects the UK, but someone else who knows more would have to make that > >> argument. But, clearly, the UK suffers from dynamics that are all too > >> similar: a lunatic series of Tory governments that have systematically > >> plundered all things public and rewritten the fabric of everyday life at > >> every level — all so they could, in their own way, *be like us*, and not > >> like those awful people on the continent who don't suffer quite so much > >> from problems of agency. > >> > >> If people want to object specifically and concretely to support for > >> Ukraine's fight for independence, that's a conversation worth having. > >> But grounding opposition in imaginary terrains whose defining qualities > >> are abstraction — systemic, theoretical, historical — that negates what > >> anyone with eyes and ears can see, no. Those considerations might be > >> real, valid, or important, but if weighing them *necessarily* results in > >> paralysis — a lack of agency that seeks to deny others' agency — that's > >> not a conversation worth having, because it's not really a conversation. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ted > >> > >> > >> On 1 Mar 2023, at 5:37, Andre Rebentisch wrote: > >> > >>> An interesting pattern - also in conspiracy theory type imagination - > is > >> to imagine your own government as a capable, acting party that in a way > >> starts or controls developments. Basically one ensures that the > >>> main narration is its capability to lead action, good or evil. > >>> > >>> Here we have a uthless invader of Ukraine and a broken political > >>> environment in Russia, but instead one talks about the West. and > >>> Ukraine supposedly did something wrong but not on its own but as a > >>> proxy that distracts Europe from its smarter geopolitical choices, > >>> whatever they are, something Chinese, Tianxia. > >>> > >>> You know, like there is no Vietnamese perspective in the Vietnam war > >> narrative complex, all are NPC. It is all about US faults, suffering, > >>> politicians, soldiers, veterans, protests. > >>> > >>> One does not leave it to Russia to do wrong and for Ukraine to suffer > >> and others to react, the initiative needs to be claimed for "us" who > >> allegedly orchestrate it to go wrong. > >>> > >>> -- A > >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
