Vreedzame coëxistentie is een politieke theorie die, aldus Wikipedia, werd ontwikkeld en toegepast door:
the Soviet Union at various points during the Cold War in the context of primarily Marxist–Leninist foreign policy and was adopted by Soviet-allied socialist states that they could peacefully coexist with the capitalist bloc (U.S.-allied states). This was in contrast to the antagonistic contradiction principle that socialism and capitalism could never coexist in peace. The Soviet Union applied it to relations between the western world, particularly between NATO countries and the nations of the Warsaw Pact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_coexistence
De vreedzame-coëxistentie-doctrine voorkwam dat er een tweede Cuba Crisis zou uitbreken waarbij in 1962 de wereld-bevolking op het nippertje aan een nucleair armageddon ontsnapte. 'We lucked out,’ zei naderhand de toenmalige Amerikaanse minister van Defensie, Robert McNamara, die wist dat ‘The President does not know how long he can hold out against our generals,’ zoals John Kennedy’s, eveneens vermoordde, broer Robert tijdens een geheime ontmoeting de Sovjet-leiding had laten weten. President Kennedy zelf verklaarde achteraf: ‘We cannot expect that all nations will adopt like systems, for conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.’ Als opperbevelhebber van de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten was ook hij ervan doordrongen geraakt dat ‘vreedzame coëxistentie’ tussen grootmachten de enige mogelijkheid bleef om te kunnen overleven in een wereld van nucleaire, biologische en chemische wapens. Dertien dagen lang besefte hij dat de mensheid op de rand van een nucleair armageddon balanceerde, terwijl zijn broer Robert de Sovjet-leider Nikita Chroesjtsjov waarschuwde dat ‘an irreversible chain of events could occur against our will.’ Dit feit werd nog eens bekrachtigd door de toenmalige Amerikaanse minister van Defensie Robert McNamara die zich tijdens de crisis afvroeg of hij 'would live to see another Saturday night,’ en Dino Brugioni, lid van het CIA-team dat de Russische vrachtschepen met kernraketten in de gaten hield, geen andere uitweg meer zag dan 'war and complete destruction.' Op zijn beurt schreef Robert Kennedy:
Stond de wereld aan de rand van de totale vernietiging? Was het een dwaling? Een fout? Was er nog iets anders dat ondernomen had moeten worden? Of niet ondernomen was? President Kennedy had de loop der gebeurtenissen op gang gezet, maar kon deze niet langer meer beheersen.
Zowel de Amerikaanse- als de Sovjet elite realiseerden zich dat er een proces op gang was gekomen dat een eigen dynamiek kende en derhalve door niemand kon worden beheerst. In zijn memoires, die in 1970 uitkwamen, wees Nikita Chroesjtsjov erop:
that Robert Kennedy's message was even more desperate. 'Even though the President himself is very much against starting the war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will,' he warned. 'If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army could get out of control.’
U.S. Military leaders were furious when the crisis ended without an attack on Cuba. On several occasions, they had as much as accused Kennedy of cowardice for resisting their recommendations. McNamara recalled their bitterness at a meeting with Kennedy the day after the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles: 'The President invited the chiefs to thank them for their support during the crisis, and there was one hell of a scene. Curtis LeMay came out saying, ‘We lost. We ought to just go in there today and knock them off' (verpletteren. svh).
Als Chef Staf van de Amerikaanse Luchtmacht had LeMay onmiddellijk gesteld:
The Russian bear has alway been eager to stick his paw in Latin American waters. Now we've got him in a trap, let's take his leg off right up to his testicles. On second thought, let's take off his testicles, too. President Kennedy 'was shaken by LeMay's cavalier attitude toward the possibility of nuclear was.'
Het was dezelfde Curtis LeMay over wie oud minister van Defensie Robert McNamara naderhand verklaarde dat die na 1945 had gezegd:
‘If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
In de met een Oscar bekroonde documentaire The Fog of War (2003) wierp McNamara de vraag op:
Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.
Hoge militairen als Curtis LeMay handelden als gewetenloze psychopaten en daarvan was de voormalige opperbevelhebber van de Geallieerde Strijdkrachten in Europa, Dwight Eisenhower, zich maar al te goed bewust. Tijdens zijn afscheidsspeech als Amerikaanse president in januari 1961 sprak Eisenhower dan ook uit ervaring toen hij met klem waarschuwde voor de militarisering van de Amerikaanse samenleving. Het feit dat Washington de Russische inval heeft uitgelokt door Oekraïne uit te nodigen NAVO-lid te worden, is natuurlijk misdadig, aangezien ook nu weer ‘an irreversible chain of events could occur against’ de wil van degenen die de oorlog hebben geprovoceerd. Een schoolvoorbeeld van hoe onvoorspelbaar een agressieve politiek kan uitwerken voltrok zich tijdens de Cuba Crisis op 27 oktober 1962. Als gevolg van pure mazzel kroop de mensheid toen door het oog van de naald. Op die dag voer een B-59 duikboot van de Sovjet Unie, uitgerust met kernraketten, voor de kust van de VS. Omdat de Sovjet-onderzeeër door de Amerikaanse marine werd bestookt met dieptebommen, waarvan enkele niet ver van de romp van de onderzeeboot tot ontploffing kwamen, werd de duikboot gedwongen lang onder water te blijven. Volgens getuigen aan boord steeg de spanning:
Panic ensued. Commander Valentin Savitsky tried unsuccessfully to reach the general staff. He then ordered the officer in charge of the nuclear torpedo to prepare it for battle and shouted. 'Maybe the war has already started up there, while we are doing somersaults here. We're going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all — we will not disgrace our Navy.' Savitsky turned to the other two officers aboard for their approval. One agreed, but political officer Vasili Arkhipov refused to launch, single-handedly preventing nuclear war,
aldus het relaas in het boek van de Amerikaanse filmmaker Oliver Stone en de historicus professor Peter Kuznick, directeur van de Nuclear Studies Institute at American University.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/vasili-arkhipov-the-man-who-saved-the-world/
Omdat de polderpers uit allereerst commerciële motieven haar hetze tegen Rusland voortzet, kan zij geen aandacht besteden aan de mogelijkheden van rampzalige gevolgen. Bovendien moet zij de woorden van ’s werelds meest prominente geopolitieke deskundige, Henry Kissinger, blijven verzwijgen. De voormalige National Security Adviser en oud minister van Buitenlandse Zaken benadrukte dat:
A number of things need to be recognized. One, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine’s. So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe, not that close to Stalingrad and Moscow. In that context, one has to analyze how the Ukraine crisis occurred. It is not conceivable that Putin spends sixty billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization.
Gedwee volgt de polderpers de NAVO-propaganda, en weigert het feit te analyseren dat de elite in Washington en op Wall Street zich tevens voorbereidt op een oorlog met China. Twee jaar geleden al was 60 procent van de Amerikaanse marinevloot gestationeerd voor de kust van China, waardoor nu ‘U.S. Navy destroyers stalk China's claims in South China Sea.’ De reden is dat de Amerikaanse politiek ten aanzien van de Pacific Rim erop gericht is:
to ‘contain’ China, to limit China’s ability to project power in the waters off its southern coast, to bolster U.S. ‘hegemony’ or primacy in the East Asia maritime space.
Het ondenkbare is opnieuw denkbaar geworden, het onuitsprekelijke wordt weer uitgesproken. Daarom is van belang te weten dat vrijdag 5 augustus 2016 uitlekte dat het Amerikaanse leger de RAND Corporation opdracht had gegeven tot het ‘Thinking Through' van 'the Unthinkable.' Onder de schreeuwende kop ‘RAND CORPORATION LAYS OUT SCENARIOS FOR U.S. WAR WITH CHINA’ vernam de lezer:
A new study by the RAND Corporation titled ‘War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable’ is just the latest think tank paper devoted to assessing a US war against China. The study, commissioned by the US Army, provides further evidence that a war with China is being planned and prepared in the upper echelons of the American military-intelligence apparatus.
That the paper emerges from the RAND Corporation has a particular and sinister significance. Throughout the Cold War, RAND was the premier think tank for ‘thinking the unthinkable’ — a phrase made notorious by RAND’s chief strategist in the 1950s, Herman Kahn. Kahn devoted his macabre book ‘On Thermonuclear War’ to elaborating a strategy for a ‘winnable’ nuclear war against the Soviet Union.
According to the preface of the new study, released last week, ‘This research was sponsored by the Office of the Undersecretary of the Army and conducted within the RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army.’
The paper is a war-gaming exercise in the Kahn tradition: weighing the possible outcomes of a war between two nuclear powers with utter indifference to the catastrophic consequences for people in the United States, China and the rest of the world.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/08/05/pers-a05.html
http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/the-us-china-perception-gap-in-the-south-china-sea/
RAND CORPORATION AND PENTAGON SIMULATE US-CHINA WAR OVER TAIWAN: CHINA WINS EVERY TIME
In hun boek The Untold History of the United States (2013) schreven Oliver Stone en Peter Kuznick over het gevaar van een Derde Wereldoorlog nadat Chef Staf van de Amerikaanse Luchtmacht LeMay meteen aan het begin van de crisis had gesteld:
The Russian bear has alway been eager to stick his paw in Latin American waters. Now we've got him in a trap, let's take his leg off right up to his testicles. On second thought, let's take off his testicles, too. President Kennedy 'was shaken by LeMay's cavalier attitude toward the possibility of nuclear was.'
Onder de kop ‘Society of Spectacle’ stelde op 13 juni 2022 de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse auteur en journalist Chris Hedges:
The far right, which believes vaccines cause autism, angels exist, a cabal of satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children that run a global child sex trafficking ring are trying to destroy Trump, and the inerrancy (onfeilbaarheid. svh) of the Bible, is far more entertaining, even as it accelerates the solidification of corporate tyranny. If the republic is dead, do you want to watch Joe Biden mumble his way through another press conference or the burlesque of Rand Paul chain-sawing the tax code in half and Ted Cruz accusing Barack Obama of trying to provide ‘expanded Medicaid’ to ISIS? Do you want to wake up to the newest rhetorical outrage by Trump, who when he campaigned for president accused Obama of founding ISIS, suggested Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, argued that noise from windmills cause cancer and recommended ingesting disinfectant to fight Covid, or pay homage to a set of values long ago discarded (ingewisseld. svh) by the ruling class for lies, corruption and greed?
In short, since the system has betrayed and fleeced you, why not take it down with the vulgarity and crudity it deserves? Why not be entertained by political arsonists? Why engage in the polite civility and political decorum demanded by those who destroyed our communities, wrecked the nation, looted the US Treasury, oversaw a series of costly military debacles and took away our ability to make an adequate living, as well as our childrens’ future?
In 1924, the government of Weimar Germany decided to get rid of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazis, by trying Hitler for high treason in the People’s Court. Hitler was clearly guilty. He had tried to overthrow the elected government in the botched 1923 ‘Beer Hall Putsch,’ which, like the January 6 riot, was as much farce as insurrection. It was an open and shut case. The trial, however, backfired, turning Hitler into a national martyr and boosting the political fortunes of the Nazis.
The reason should have been apparent. Germany, convulsed (stuiptrekkend. svh) by widespread unemployment, food riots, street violence and hyperinflation, was a mess. The ruling elites, like our own, had no credibility. The appeal to the rule of law and democratic values was a joke.
There was a revealing moment in the hearings when Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards, who suffered a concussion during the storming of the Capitol, related an exchange she had with Joseph Biggs, a leader of The Proud Boys who was indicted, along with four other Proud Boy leaders, for seditious conspiracy in connection with the storming of the Capitol.
The brief exchange highlighted the yawning gap between the haves and the have nots, which, if not addressed, will turn Trump, his supporters, Biggs, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers into martyrs.
Congress is a cesspool (beerput. svh). Corrupt politicians whore for the rich and get rich in return. This reality, which the hearings ignore, is apparent to most of the nation, which is why the hearings will not bolster the flagging fortunes of the ruling political class, desperate to prevent displacement.
https://scheerpost.com/2022/06/13/hedges-society-of-spectacle/
De westerse politiek is een show, inhoudsloos entertainment, propaganda. Niets is meer wat het lijkt. Televisie vervormd alles, en aangezien steeds meer mensen afhankelijk zijn van televisiebeelden raakt ook de visie van de burger/consument vervormd. De virtuele werkelijkheid is als drijfzand, een dodelijke vermomming, als je erin vast komt te zitten zuigt het je naar beneden zodat je verstikt. In zijn boek Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) waarschuwde de Amerikaanse communicatiewetenschapper en cultuurcriticus Neil Postman dat:
met als gevolg dat:
When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility.
To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple.
I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed.
Television screens saturated with commercials promote the utopian and childish idea that all problems have fast, simple, and technological solutions. You must banish from your mind the naive but commonplace notion that commercials are about products. They are about products in the same sense that the story of Jonah is about the anatomy of whales… most important of all, there is no subject of public interest — politics, news, education, religion, science, sports — that does not find its way to television. Which means that all public understanding of these subjects is shaped by the biases of television.
De Amerikaanse historicus hoogleraar en schrijver, die van 1975 tot 1987 directeur was van het Library of Congress, Daniel Boorstin, beschreef deze ontwikkeling al in 1962 in The Image. A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America:
Nowadays everybody tells us that what we need is more belief, a stronger and deeper and more encompassing faith. A faith in America and in what we are doing. That may be true in the long run. What we need first and now is to disillusion ourselves. What ails us most is not what we have done with America, but what we have substituted for America. We suffer primarily not from the vices or our weaknesses, but from our illusions. We are haunted, not by reality, but by those images we have put in place of reality.
To discover our illusions will not solve the problems of our world. But if we do not discover them, we will never discover our real problems. To dispel the ghosts which populate the world of our making will not give us the power to conquer the real enemies of the real world or to remake the real world. But it may help us discover that we cannot make the world in our image. It will liberate us and sharpen our vision. It will clear away the fog so we can face the world we share with all mankind.
Dit niveau van denken kan de mainstream-pers nooit in zijn volle diepte doorgronden, deze analyse is niet politiek genoeg voor de ‘corporate press’ om te gebruiken in haar ééndimensionaal mens- en wereldbeeld. Boorstin’s inzicht is niet in een simpele soundbite samen te vatten voor een doorsnee journalist en zijn onwetende publiek dat een simplistische politieke oplossing eist voor in wezen diep verankerde illusies. In plaats van dat de opiniemakers het publiek informeren, doen ze in feite met al hun pedanterie precies het tegenovergestelde. Het publiek verneemt doorgaans alleen de officieel gesanctioneerde versie van de werkelijkheid waarbij nauwkeurig wordt gelet op de grenzen van de consensus, de zogeheten ‘Overton window,’ dat wil zeggen:
the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that time.
Net als in de voormalige Sovjet Unie kunnen journalisten, de woordvoerders van de macht, nooit het systeem van de gevestigde neoliberale ‘orde’ fundamenteel ter discussie stellen. Het is precies zoals de Amerikaanse historicus Daniel Boorstin schreef:
The efficient mass production of pseudo-events — in all kinds of packages, in black-and-white, in Technicolor, in words, and in a thousand other forms – is the work of the whole machinery of our society.
Alles kan verkocht worden, van potten pindakaas tot presidenten, iedereen verzint zijn eigen rol en zijn eigen feiten, zodat in het kleine Nederland een hoogleraar jarenlang feiten kon verzinnen zonder dat dit onmiddellijk opviel. Bedrog en zelfbedrog, de keizer zonder kleren is een wereldwijd fenomeen, zoals blijkt uit Boorstin’s opmerking dat:
Demanding more than the world can give us, we require that something be fabricated to make up for the world’s deficiency. This is only one example of our demand for illusions.
Een levendig beeld kan een vale realiteit overschaduwen. De consument wil alle dagen theater, spektakel, sporthelden, entertainers, schrijvers, talkshows. Grootse gebaren wil de consument van zowel de politici als de opiniemakers die succesvol moeten zijn ‘in reducing great national issues to trivial dimensions,’ en dat alles in een tijdsbestek van een paar minuten, onderbroken door geklets en de herrie van reclameblokken. Van de cultuur en zeker de bestseller-schrijver wordt verwacht dat ze ‘hoop’ produceren die in zo simpel mogelijke bewoordingen wordt overgebracht en zonder een bredere context. In het geval dat de auteur niet weet hoe, is er altijd nog de mediatrainer die zijn kunstjes leerde via de babbelbuis. De schijn heeft zo de werkelijkheid vervangen. ‘As individuals and as a nation, we now suffer from social narcissism,’ constateerde Boorstin al zes decennia geleden. Hij lichtte dit als volg toe:
How can we flee from this image of ourselves? How can we immunize ourselves to its bewitching conceitful power?
This becomes ever more difficult. The world of our making becomes ever more mirror-like. Our celebrities reflect each of us; faraway ‘adventures’ are the projections of what we have prepared ourselves to expect, and which we now can pay others to prepare for us. The images themselves become shadowy mirror reflections of one another; one interview comments on another; one television show spoofs (parodieert. svh) another; novel, television show, radio program, movie, comic book, and the way we think of ourselves, all become merged into mutual reflections. At home we begin to try to live according to the script of television programs of happy families, which are themselves nothing but amusing quintessences of us.
Our new New World, made to be an escape from drab reality, itself requires a predictable monotony from which there seems no escape. This is the monotony within us, the monotony of self-repetition. Our tired palates will not let us find our way back. When we look for a ‘natural’ flavor all we can find is one that is ‘non-artificial,’
aldus één van de grootste en wijste geleerden die de VS in de twintigste eeuw heeft voortgebracht. Boorstin had gelijk: het is ‘narcisme’ dat overal voortdurend weerspiegeld wordt. Zo is de massa het rijk van de kitsch binnengetreden. Boorstin:
A juvenile critic recently said that television was ‘chewing gum for the eyes.’ In the late nineteenth century a bitter critic called cheap novels ‘the chewing gum of literature, offering neither savor nor nutriment, only subserving the mechanical process of mastication.’ But chewing gum (an American invention and an American expression) itself may have a symbolic significance. We might say now that chewing gum is the television of the mouth. There is no danger so long as we do not think that by chewing gum we are getting nourishment. But the Graphic Revolution has offered us the means of making all experience a form of mental chewing gum, which can be continually sweetened to give the illusion that we are being nourished.
More and more accustomed to testing reality by the image, we will find it hard to retrain ourselves so we may once again test the image by reality. It becomes ever harder to moderate our expectations after experience, and not vice versa. For too long already we have had the specious (misleidende. svh) power to shape ‘reality.’ How can we discover the world of the uncontrived (het niet artificiële. svh)?
De vraag is inderdaad hoe we afkomen van het door de mainstream verzonnen nepbeeld. Hoe bevrijden we ons van al dat narcisme, al die ijdelheid van kleine mensen die ‘wish to lead others, when they should be led,’ omdat ze verloren zijn geraakt in dwaasheid die ‘an endless maze’ heeft gecreëerd, zoals William Blake in The Voice of the Ancient Bard stelt? Nogmaals Daniel Boorstin:
Our problem is complicated by the fact that the prescriptions which nations offer for themselves are also symptoms of their diseases. But illusory solutions will not cure our illusions. Our discontent begins by finding false villains whom we can accuse of deceiving us. Next we find false heroes whom we expect to liberate us. The hardest, most discomfiting (onaangename. svh) discovery is that each of us must emancipate himself. Though we may suffer from mass illusions, there is no formula for mass disenchantment (ontgoocheling. svh). By the law of pseudo-events, all efforts at mass disenchantment themselves only embroider our illusions.
While we have given others great power to deceive us, to create pseudo-events, celebrities, and images, they could not have done so without our collaboration. If there is a crime of deception being committed in America today, each of us is the principal, and all others are only accessories. It is dangerously tempting to treat our illusions by compounding them. To try to cure the ills of advertising by creating a more favorable image of advertising. To salve mediocrity by mediocre appeals for ‘excellence.’ To drown our illiteracy in illiterate appeals for literacy. To hide our individual purposeless in the purposelessness of a committee fabricating an attractive image of national purpose.
De mainstream voorstelling van zaken waarbij impliciet dan wel expliciet ervan wordt uitgegaan dat een beschavingscrisis op te lossen is door politieke besluiten berust op een absurd Vooruitgangsgeloof, waarbij alles in het universum als een machine voorspelbaar functioneert en te beheersen is. De gedachte dat de massamaatschappij van bovenaf te besturen is, zoals een buschauffeur zijn voertuig door het verkeert laveert, is een illusie. In werkelijkheid werkt deze beheersing nooit zoals gepland, en wel omdat men te maken heeft met het ingewikkelde individu, en met nog gebrekkig begrepen natuurwetten. Dit betekent niet dat er geen poging gedaan kan worden, maar dan niet allereerst op politiek niveau. De bewustwording moet vanuit de samenleving zelf komen, op individueel niveau. Daniel Boorstin:
Each of us must disenchant himself, must moderate his expectations, must prepare himself to receive messages coming in from the outside. The first step is to begin to suspect that there may be a world out there, beyond our present or future power to image or to imagine. We should not worry over how to export more of American images among which we live. We should not try to persuade others to share our illusions. We should try to reach outside our images.
Dit besef van een culturele leegte ontwikkelde Daniel Boorstin in dezelfde tijd dat voor Geert Mak ‘in de provincie Amerika een droomland [was], met een losse levensstijl waarvan een enkele keer een flard over de oceaan kwam zeilen,’ in de vorm van onder andere ‘Donald Duck die op een herfstdag opeens in de bus viel,’ en ‘pakjes kawgum, mooi ingepakt, met een los plaatje van een filmster.’ Meer dan een halve eeuw later is die achterstand nog steeds niet ingelopen, als we afgaan op Reizen zonder John. Op zoek naar Amerika. Ik vrees dat die achterstand nooit meer in te halen zal zijn, omdat de mainstream opiniemaker behoefte heeft aan een ‘geheime liefde,’ aan een ‘droom,’ die alleen via een virtueel beeld kan worden vorm gegeven. Boorstin in The Image. A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America:
One of our grand illusions is the belief in a ‘cure.’ There is no cure. There is only the opportunity for discovery. For this the New World gave us a grand, unique beginning.
We must first awake before we can walk in the right direction. We must discover our illusions before we can even realize that we have been sleepwalking. The least and the most we can hope for is that each of us may penetrate the unknown jungle of images in which we live our daily lives. That we may discover anew where dreams end and where illusions begin. This is enough. Then we may know where we are, and each of us may decide for himself where he wants to go.
Maar zover is de bevolking van de VS nog lang niet. Intussen wordt de wereld geconfronteerd met een moreel en financieel failliete grootmacht, die tot de tanden toe bewapend is, een levensgevaarlijk, meedogenloos, op hol geslagen imperium dat zichzelf niet kan stoppen, maar er nu wel in is geslaagd Europa met zich mee te trekken richting de afgrond. Meer daarover de volgende keer.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten