SUBHEAD: This rule requires them to strictly adhere to a fictional, toy version of the world and of the role of the President of the US within it.
By Dmitry Orlov on 23 October 2012 for Club Orlov -
(cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-limits-of-language.html)
![]()
Image above: Two candidates reach out with little daylight between them. From (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/22/163443479/horses-bayonets-and-other-takeaways-from-the-final-presidential-debate).
Since this is the height of the political season, I have decided that it would make sense for me to say something about politics which, of course, doesn't matter. And that, obviously, is a political statement.
This last Monday was the third and final round of what are commonly believed to be debates involving the two presidential candidates. What was said is not very interesting or surprising at all, except in one respect: the two contestants played their role in accordance with a certain unwritten and unexpressed rule of discourse.
This rule requires them to strictly adhere to a fictional, toy version of the world and of the role of the President of the US within it. We did not see two candidates campaigning to be elected into a position of leadership, but two actors auditioning for the role of President in a play that takes place strictly in the past.
Now, in a normal course of events, if one candidate started carrying on like that, the other candidate would be a fool to not try to score points by pointing this fact out to the electorate. But this situation is different: here, both candidates know with absolute clarity that they are auditioning for a ceremonial role, nothing more, and that bringing even the tiniest bit of reality into it would only jeopardize their chances of being elected.
You see, they are auditioning for the role of someone who pretends to be “running” a country (whatever that means) that is itself not exactly running. It is by now defined by just two things: unstoppable inertia in the wrong direction, and a long list of broken promises.
The federal government over which, if elected, they will pretend to “preside” (whatever that means) has two remaining choices: continue with the strategy of hemorrhaging debt and collapse in a few years once that strategy stops working, or don't continue with that strategy, and collapse now.
For more visit here.
.
By Dmitry Orlov on 23 October 2012 for Club Orlov -
(cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-limits-of-language.html)
Image above: Two candidates reach out with little daylight between them. From (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/22/163443479/horses-bayonets-and-other-takeaways-from-the-final-presidential-debate).
Since this is the height of the political season, I have decided that it would make sense for me to say something about politics which, of course, doesn't matter. And that, obviously, is a political statement.
This last Monday was the third and final round of what are commonly believed to be debates involving the two presidential candidates. What was said is not very interesting or surprising at all, except in one respect: the two contestants played their role in accordance with a certain unwritten and unexpressed rule of discourse.
This rule requires them to strictly adhere to a fictional, toy version of the world and of the role of the President of the US within it. We did not see two candidates campaigning to be elected into a position of leadership, but two actors auditioning for the role of President in a play that takes place strictly in the past.
Now, in a normal course of events, if one candidate started carrying on like that, the other candidate would be a fool to not try to score points by pointing this fact out to the electorate. But this situation is different: here, both candidates know with absolute clarity that they are auditioning for a ceremonial role, nothing more, and that bringing even the tiniest bit of reality into it would only jeopardize their chances of being elected.
You see, they are auditioning for the role of someone who pretends to be “running” a country (whatever that means) that is itself not exactly running. It is by now defined by just two things: unstoppable inertia in the wrong direction, and a long list of broken promises.
The federal government over which, if elected, they will pretend to “preside” (whatever that means) has two remaining choices: continue with the strategy of hemorrhaging debt and collapse in a few years once that strategy stops working, or don't continue with that strategy, and collapse now.
For more visit here.
.
2 comments :
Since the predicted outcome is the same, just the time element is different, let's have the collapse now. Why? Because crisis is followed by rejuvenation. This will allow several states to secede from the United States and declare their own independence and follow their unique path for rebuilding their new country just like the former Soviet republics did when the Soviet Union collapsed.
This is particularly true in the case of Hawai'i. A nation that continuously feels the weight of foreign occupation and oppression will come to the moment to realize: either we do it or we die. None of the current candidates have the courage to say clearly and unmistakeably: "I stand for the full independence of Hawai'i" even if it would be his winning slogan amongst native Hawaiians. And that's the candidate we need to ignite the fire that will clear the field for the new growth and rejuvenation.
Aloha Janos,
Check out the series that John Michael Greer has written "How it Could Happen" - http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-1.html -
One really good reason to face dismantling the system we have, besides its oppression, is that it is killing the planet.
I'm all for "Degrowth!"
Juan
Post a Comment