Wally Keeler wrote:
> […] happen to regard Thomas von der Osten-Sacken"s
> caveats seriously. He has been there. He is a
> humanitarian. Similar to George Orwell, he is a leftist
> critical of leftists.
(yay!)So did anyone else on the list actually bother to read the interview? or is everyone happy enuf just taking Wally's bait… Thomas von der Osten-Sacken is well worth reading; rare is the occasion where one can find him in translation.
Here's an excerpt from the end of the interview for those who might have omitted to scroll down:
[excerpt]
"The moment this anti-globalization ideology brings together Hamas, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, nationalistic movements in the Balkans, the Zapatists in Mexico, and the neo-Nazi right wing, which is very active in the anti-globalization movement, it means they are not fighting for universal freedom, liberation and emancipation, but are reproducing anti-universalist, anti-Semitic stereotypes that are only leading to barbarism. Rosa Luxemburg once said that the question is socialism or barbarism, and that question is still valid. But at the moment, I think the fight is to defend the Western world against those who would like to be its successors. These people are also, dialectically, the products of the Western, capitalistic world. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden grew out of the bad politics of the U.S. and Europe in the Middle East. They didn't fall from the moon.
"But at the moment, I think one has to support the West, which means in this case America, Britain and Israel, in its battle against its own creations. Then you can think again of how to create a much better world. The questions the anti-globalization movement raises are very important - issues like the environment, world hunger and the enrichment of a very small minority of people while the vast majority become poorer. But with the Ba'ath Party and Hamas as your actors, you will not change anything. They are not the historical subjects who are carrying the idea of emancipation.
"In extremis, you have a constellation that reminds one of the '30s. On the one hand, you have Britain, the U.S. and Israel - the Jews are always in the metaphysical center of these conflicts. This side is fighting for a capitalistic Western ideology. Then you have these National Socialist, self-determination ideas, which are always led by the Germans. In 1939, the Germans said that they were fighting universal capitalism and for self-determination in the Third World. They had a very anti-colonialist phraseology. You can find the same words and the same phrases as are being used today in the '40s when the Germans were supporting India's and the Arabs' revolt against the British. Even France is again in the same position - supporting Britain and the U.S. half-heartedly.
"Ten years ago, everyone thought Germany was a close ally of the U.S., supporting its policy. But no. In this conflict, Germany is signaling that it is standing on the other side. Everywhere in the Middle East, in the Syrian press, in the Hezbollah press, in the Baghdadi press, Germany is being praised for taking the same side they did 50 years ago. So people understand what the Germans are doing. And I think that that is quite interesting - and quite horrifying."
[end]
original url:
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/infocus/?disp_feature=dhaE3y.var
Precisely.
At this moment I do not support a full invasion of Iraq, however, I do
support a regime change, with violence if necessary, but with the caveat
that Thomas von der Osten-Sacken presents == that the USA & Allies seriously
address the aftermath, that they will be committed to establishing the
foundation of a multi-party democracy. This is a long long commitment. If
the West commits to imposing Western democracy (yes, imposing democracy).
However, it should be noted that all of the sultanates, monarchies, and
dictatorshits (smd's) that the USA has been playing footsie with, should
definately be worried about instability. No wonder the smd's loudly whine
about instability – they are worried about their princely perqs.
—– Original Message —–
From: "joy garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Vicious circles closing in [Re: Pussies…]
> Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> > […] happen to regard Thomas von der Osten-Sacken"s
> > caveats seriously. He has been there. He is a
> > humanitarian. Similar to George Orwell, he is a leftist
> > critical of leftists.
>
>
>
> (yay!)So did anyone else on the list actually bother to read the
interview? or is everyone happy enuf just taking Wally's bait… Thomas von
der Osten-Sacken is well worth reading; rare is the occasion where one can
find him in translation.
>
>
> Here's an excerpt from the end of the interview for those who might have
omitted to scroll down:
>
> [excerpt]
> "The moment this anti-globalization ideology brings together Hamas, Saddam
Hussein, Osama bin Laden, nationalistic movements in the Balkans, the
Zapatists in Mexico, and the neo-Nazi right wing, which is very active in
the anti-globalization movement, it means they are not fighting for
universal freedom, liberation and emancipation, but are reproducing
anti-universalist, anti-Semitic stereotypes that are only leading to
barbarism. Rosa Luxemburg once said that the question is socialism or
barbarism, and that question is still valid. But at the moment, I think the
fight is to defend the Western world against those who would like to be its
successors. These people are also, dialectically, the products of the
Western, capitalistic world. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden grew out of
the bad politics of the U.S. and Europe in the Middle East. They didn't fall
from the moon.
>
> "But at the moment, I think one has to support the West, which means in
this case America, Britain and Israel, in its battle against its own
creations. Then you can think again of how to create a much better world.
The questions the anti-globalization movement raises are very important -
issues like the environment, world hunger and the enrichment of a very small
minority of people while the vast majority become poorer. But with the
Ba'ath Party and Hamas as your actors, you will not change anything. They
are not the historical subjects who are carrying the idea of emancipation.
>
> "In extremis, you have a constellation that reminds one of the '30s. On
the one hand, you have Britain, the U.S. and Israel - the Jews are always in
the metaphysical center of these conflicts. This side is fighting for a
capitalistic Western ideology. Then you have these National Socialist,
self-determination ideas, which are always led by the Germans. In 1939, the
Germans said that they were fighting universal capitalism and for
self-determination in the Third World. They had a very anti-colonialist
phraseology. You can find the same words and the same phrases as are being
used today in the '40s when the Germans were supporting India's and the
Arabs' revolt against the British. Even France is again in the same
position - supporting Britain and the U.S. half-heartedly.
>
> "Ten years ago, everyone thought Germany was a close ally of the U.S.,
supporting its policy. But no. In this conflict, Germany is signaling that
it is standing on the other side. Everywhere in the Middle East, in the
Syrian press, in the Hezbollah press, in the Baghdadi press, Germany is
being praised for taking the same side they did 50 years ago. So people
understand what the Germans are doing. And I think that that is quite
interesting - and quite horrifying."
> [end]
>
> original url:
> http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/infocus/?disp_feature=dhaE3y.var
>
>
> + tripe .^`` X333CV/^
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php