To whom it may concern,
the train endeavoring West can't but follow the tracks it helps construct. But let's not enter the debate on constructs. That would be full fledged philosophy and we are trying to deal with a sociological phenomenon here. Okay, I'll meet you half way and we call it the human condition we're discussing. However, it will takes some linguistics all the same. Here goes.
"Armed confrontation".
Let me spell it out for you:
C o n - f r o n t - ation. From the Latin: being at the front together, yet on opposite sides. In confrontations, parties involved, communicate to one another that communications have broken down. Don't you love paradoxes? Especially the lethal ones?
--- Okay, let's talk armed confrontations for a while and see where discours breaks down.
However:
Subject is subject to change
And let's delete the 'armed'-bit. Because it implies there could be means
of
confrontation, like there are means of production, and we all know by what sour
definition they can be owned... Armed confrontion? Confrontatation period!
Tell me I am going semantic again when I freely associate: armed confrontation - armed engagement - engagement...
Engagement , the French word for reciprocal involvement, based on mutual respect.
Engagement en garde....
I agree, this ain't logic.
It's absurd. Either which way. Take your pick...
--- Confrontation - let's deal with it, right here and now, without taking sides:
Both parties involved, claim that their historical and (therefore) logical rights (or vise versa for that matter) take precedent over the other's.
Let's rephrase that. Both parties involved, seek to dump their surplus of righteousness on one another.
Again, let's rephrase that. Both parties involved, attempt to make the other pay
for a presumed shortage.
Let's not even try to rephrase that one, but let's face the conclusions in the light ofthe already mentioned one stroke genius of history and logic:
In order for any system to survive (now please let's not go into the cosmological argument now and by the same token please forget about the lip service paid to the humanistic, universal quest for worldwide communcation between all people. Let's get real now:) in order for any system to survive, it needs parties outside the system.
Basically there are two options. Either: one party drags the other forcefully into the system, in which case the repressed group can be made to contribute to the accumulation of whatever is considered to be of ones interest. Or: the other party will forcebly be kept outside the system, in which case it can be burdened with the inherent shortages of ones system.
For a while we thought that the New World Order would include each and every
person on this earth. Even Pinkos turned Purperos. But by now we have figured out
that shortages are inherent to our sytem. The Market is like a train constructing
its own tracks. Only this time there ain't an individual at the controls, and it
is still speeding West. Towards a West that gets wilder and wilder. Or should we
say: such is life, and it gets sucher and sucher?
Why do I get babbling about The System? Don't we, Purperos, have individual responsiblities? We are autonomous, aren't we? And any dealings are dealings between human entities ...
Right ...
Stop thinking globally for a minute and act locally. Try and park your privately owned car in the public space. Or try and move the manure of your privately enterprised pigfarm in our institutionalized environment.
Parkeerproblemen en mestoverschot, meneertje!
Fine examples of structural shortages and surplusses, inherent to The System.
They signify the breakdown of the system, since they won't be dressed up as demand and supply, as dealings between individuals.
The shortages drain the individual; the surplusses don't contribute to the accummulation of the individual's wealth.
Liberal politicians in charge of parking in inner cities, or in charge of agriculture won't deny us our human rights to drive cars or to consume pork. Yet they admit: these human rights produce problems that cannot be solved in terms of dealings between human beings, i.e the problems aren't commodities on The Market.
Financial instruments, once the result of human behaviour, now are political
tools for alloting shortages and surplusses that are equally dragful. The system,
once sustained by forcebly maintaing the Outsider, now has no other option then
to burden its Insiders.
Some of its insiders, i.e. A New World Order? Yeah ...
The Brave New World is upon us. However the phenonemon isn't based on the
combined endavours of gene technology and humanistics gone beserk. The division
in A, B en C types is based on the allocation of shortages and surplusses.
The division in society is as evident as structural. The affront of a basically humanistic system rendered basically dehumanized, eventually is the greatest confrontation imagenable: to be in it together, yet on opposite sides.
It's a bloody shame, and nobody is to blame.
I'd rather have the good old clashing of the sword.
Reeks of class struggle too...
