www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> [ot] [!nt] \n2+0\ NATO - social swarms of western serfs
Martin Cosgrave on 30 Sep 2000 03:42:20 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> [ot] [!nt] \n2+0\ NATO - social swarms of western serfs



On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Kostunica’s immediate reaction was to reject participation in a run-off 
> election and demand that Milosevic concede defeat. Bill Clinton, Britain’s 
> Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and other NATO leaders who bombed 
> Yugoslavia in 1999 also demanded Milosevic concede.
> 

Damn, Clinton and Cook both wanted him out? Perhaps he should be in after
all... and perhaps there is another humanitarian crisis we could be could be
concerned about, perhaps one that Clinton funds, like Turkey perhaps?

I'm not trying to say that Molosevic is a good guy, by any means. Let's just
remember that the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia were much less than those
in other areas of the world where the turmoil is funded by the US *until* NATO
(==US) moved in.

> The first point for the whole international movement that opposed NATO 
> war against Yugoslavia to keep in mind is that the Yugoslav elections were 
> not “free and fair.” Imperialism stole the election through its blatant pressure, 
> bribery and interference.
> 

"Imperialism", or "mass media" as we call it these days, tends to steal all our
elections, even in the 'free west'

> The elections raise a vital question. Will Yugoslavia be turned over to the 
> Western banks and corporations? Will the assets of industrial enterprises be 
> broken up and sold off, as they have been in every other country in Eastern 
> Europe, Russia and the former Soviet Republics? Will the majority of the 
> population be relegated to living below the poverty line?

Inevitably Yugoslavia will be turned over to the Western banks and
corporations. These corporations have managed to subsume the West and now there
is nowhere to go except elsewhere. 'Elsewhere' includes a new country called
EMEA, recognised exclusively (AFAIK) by multinational corporations as "Europe,
Middle East and Africa". To the corporations, there are only three countries on
the Planet: US (including of course Canada and Latin America), EMEA, and AP -
Asia Pacific. From the evidence I have seen, these three acronyms are
extensively recognised amongst corporations.

> All the social gains of an independent country that had broken free of 
> imperialist enslavement and held out during years of encirclement and war 
> are now endangered.
> 

Agreed. But I wonder about the portrayed emotions in Prague and surrounds; when
footage of the recent events was shown on the BBC (Belligerent Behaviour
Control), the 'opposing view' was from a builder, who owned his own company,
obviously enamoured of his new capitalist freedom, complaining that the
protesters, having never experienced the tyranny of state communism, could not
understand the position of people 'freed into' the new society.

I would say to him:

"No mate, we understand; it's just that we also understand capitalism, your new
goal, and we don't like it."


> WESTERN INTERFERENCE DISTORTED ELECTION
> 

Well they manage to distort the elections in the west well enough that many ppl
feel disenfranchised and unwilling to vote. To these people I would say 'vote,
but vote marginal' - express your dissatisfaction with the system not by
excluding yourself from it, but by voting for someone who is unlikely to win.
But for (your) god's sake vote - the corporae would love you to so distrust the
process of government and "democracy" that you turn to *them* for governing,
having got used to them controlling every other aspect of your lives (and mine);
to this end they tend to foster anti-government views in the mass-media


> In this election the U.S. and European Union governments used every 
> possible dirty trick, corrupt practice and payoff, and then bragged about 
> them. Threats of bombing, promises to end nine years of sanctions, 
> intimidation and military maneuvers heightened the tension.
> 

In Britain they just use opinion polls and sitcoms on us. I guess we should
feel lucky.

> On election day the Pentagon and Croatia held their largest joint military 
> exercises ever--a joint landing on an island in the Adriatic near Montenegro, 
> part of Yugoslavia, to simulate an invasion. Fifteen British war ships have 
> now moved into the Mediterranean. A U.S. aircraft carrier in the Adriatic Sea 
> has moved closer to Montenegro.
> 

Hmm, now at whom is this propaganda aimed? Probably at the voters, as you
insinuate.

> The major media here—the New York Times on Sept. 20 and the Washington 
> Post on Sept. 19--have described in detail the exact amounts funneled into 
> the opposition parties, radio and TV stations and newspapers. The U.S. 
> Congress publicly voted on $77 million in open interference. Then on Sept. 
> 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to send another $105 
> million to aid anti-Milosevic forces in Serbia and Montenegro.
> 

If the two organs you mention described anything, I doubt that precise detail
was their goal and I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt;
particularly as they are examples of the mass media I so despise.

> These articles describe suitcases of cash handed over at the border, endless 
> supplies of computers, fax machines, cell phones and the trainers to use 
> them. These goods have been passed to the opposition through front 
> organizations, NGOs and media outlets. 
> 

The UK 'Sunday Sport' regularly depicts scenarios like 'Articulated truck found
in parking lot on the moon'. Since this rag is too vulgar even for most of the
British masses, its views remain on the fringe of British society. The
Belligerent Behaviour Control dept understands the psyche of the British people
better and is therefore much more accepted by them

My point being: are the media you mention really the ones to look to for an
independent analysis?

> Weeks before the election, Western-funded polling organizations announced 
> that Kostunica would win a sweeping victory. For the West’s media 
> monopoly beaming into Yugoslavia, there were only two options. Either 
> Milosevic would lose or there would be massive fraud. 
> 

Like I said, Clinton and Cook both want him out. To me, this suggests that we
should re-examine the events since I wouldn't trust either of those b*stards

> The U.S. State Department announced that even if Milosevic won by 
> overwhelming odds, Washington would refuse to accept the results. 
> 

Like I said...

> HOW SHOULD MOVEMENT EVALUATE THESE EVENTS?
> 
> Those who opposed NATO bombing in 1999 and all the militant activists 
> who have taken on the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, 
> globalization and sweatshops have a stake in what happens next in 
> Yugoslavia. 
> 

Actually, I would guess that Yugoslavia is relatively unimportant on the world
stage, since so much media attention is/has been focussed upon it. As I say,
there are other countries in the world, fuelled by arms from the US, that are
practicing far greater atrocities on their populace *today*. As Chomsky says,
all we (all the West) need to do to stop these atrocities happening is to stop
participating.

> Are they ready to stand in solidarity with whatever steps are necessary to 
> keep another country from being forced under the boot of the IMF and 
> World Bank?
> 

Well they'll stand in solidarity, and then get beaten and teargassed in
solidarity, and then the mass media will portray it as a riot.

Just like all of the other protests.

That isn't to say that the protests aren't effective, though...

> Washington, London, Paris and Berlin have openly intervened and bragged 
> of it. In the face of these admissions, those in office in Yugoslavia have 
> every right to void the elections and disqualify the opposition.
> 

As long as big business doesn't mind.

> In the United States, France, Britain or Germany, would such an election have 
> been allowed to continue? In the United States no political organization is 
> permitted to accept funds from another government for political purposes 
> unless it publicly registers as an agent of a foreign power. The U.S. ruling 
> class is determined that only it should control the electoral process.
> 

erm yes, such elections are not only allowed to continue but are subjected to
massive propaganda from the media. In Britain, the two main contending parties,
the Conservatives (Tories) and "Labour" (and I really use that term with
massive irony) are so similar today that the business backers don't really care
who wins, but they'll cycle the Labour / Tory duopoly for as long as they can
manage it. 

> Any U.S. politician found accepting contributions, bribes or payments of any 
> kind from a foreign government is disgraced, attacked and could face criminal 
> indictment.
> 

<sarcasm>Yeah, right.</sarcasm>

> Just the allegation that the Clinton administration accepted a contribution 
> from an ethnically Chinese businessperson who might have had contact with 
> China sent every politician running for cover. 
> 

I wonder if there was any other news that day?


> The masses have every right to go into the streets and denounce the 
> opposition parties and publications as agents of a foreign power.
> 

and get teargassed and beaten for the privilege... having been on the receiving
end of some admittedly minor applications of this I wonder if this is really
the best way


> Kostunica, until now a minor politician considered a Serb nationalist with a 
> long history of anti-Communism, consistently maintains that he has not 
> accepted any money from the West. He has even criticized the NATO 
> bombing and sanctions. No Yugoslav politician could win significant votes if 
> seen as a NATO stooge. 
> 
> It may be true that he personally has not pocketed any money. But 
> Kostunica has surrounded himself with political parties and organizations 
> that are toadies to the NATO countries. His whole campaign has been 
> publicized by radio and television stations and newspapers wholly and 
> openly financed by grants from Washington and Berlin. 
> 

Well Milosevic won't do what they say! NATO, Europe and the US will happily
support compliant dictatorships as has been well demonstrated in the past.


> U.S. ENGINEERED COUPS AND COUNTERREVOLUTIONS 

(the old tactic)

> The big U.S. monopolies and banks and Washington itself have never 
> accepted an election as “free and fair” if it put their class interests in danger 
> or brought the masses onto the scene. Since the end of World War II the 
> U.S. has organized the overthrow of more than 50 governments.
> 

They have a balance of trade deficit, they have to sell *something*; and arms
get used up pretty quickly in a war...


> ‘FREE ELECTIONS’ IN A COUNTRY UNDER SIEGE?
> 
> Yugoslavia, like Nicaragua, illustrates the dangers of holding an election in 
> the midst of an unrelenting war, sanctions and occupation of part of the 
> country by foreign armies. With their dominance of the world media, the lure 
> of material goods, the bribes and the threat of further punishment, these 
> powers were able to reach right into the country. 
> 

except that the author of this piece has it the wrong way round: the
governments don't control using a tool called 'world media' - the world media
control using a tool called 'government'.

> President Milosevic was trying to get a mandate by calling a vote when the 
> opposition seemed divided, weak, discredited. But the imperialists quickly 
> strengthened them using tactics refined over decades of interventions.
> 
> Yugoslavia, a small, beleaguered country maneuvering to survive, has 
> allowed dozens of openly pro-imperialist parties to maintain offices, staff, 
> publish newspapers, organize and to participate in elections. These 
> concessions have only further emboldened the enemies of the Yugoslav 
> workers.
> 
> Even though the imperialists complained that they were not allowed to 
> monitor the elections, hundreds of foreigners did come in as election 
> observers and certified that they were “free and fair”--that the government 
> honestly and legally abided by all election procedures. But this shifted 
> attention from the actual fraud taking place: the massive intervention and 
> intimidation by imperialism.
> 

Blimmin 'eck.... 'imperialism' is such an old-fashioned word. Any such
utterance is bound to induce cynicism thereof. Even the more appropriate term
'capitalism' suffers from this type of interpretation. Perhaps it's time for a
new description; perhaps "power-elitism" (inspired by the fantastic Bilderberg
expose site: http://www.bilderberg.org/ )



martian
http://marsbard.com/

#  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: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net