<nettime> The Era of Self-Deception

[human being <human@electronetwork.org>]

   The Era of Self-Deception                                                       
     human being <human@electronetwork.org>                                          

   Fwd: Note                                                                       
     human being <human@electronetwork.org>                                          


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:56:01 -0600
From: human being <human@electronetwork.org>
Subject: The Era of Self-Deception

Mr. David Brooks,

I have just read with great interest your article in the
online New York Times, entitled: The Era of Distortion
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html

It is often entertaining and insightful to read your views
and commentary on things, for a balancing vantage so
as to address the ambiguity of events, multiple views,
outcomes, and benefits. Yet it is also questionable
when your own writing is narrowed down into a
99.44% belief, shall we even call it certainty?, of
what Neoconservatism is in the United States today,
as a driving force of foreign policy, at the same time
you are not only distorting but offering up deception
that belief in this obvious influence is a view of an
anti-semite... This is disingenuous, and how you
can then transform an etymology of 'neo' to be
'Jewish' is beyond the pale. And, if anything it
was assumed 'neo' is actually, logically, related
to 'new' as in 'neo-traditional' or 'neo-modern' or
better yet, 'neo-medievalist' journalism in chains.

That there is an influence of 'new' Christian views
as part of public (sic) declarations of private belief
by Mr. Bush, is closer to what neoconservatism is,
at least as has been the case in less conspiratorial
quarters about the insufficiency of religious belief to
substitute for a constitutional and representative
government. If we are to believe your perspective,
alone, which itself could be distorted, that would
mean 99.44% of .US citizens are neoconservatives
as that, to date, is how .US foreign and domestic
policies have been so badly munged that Monty
Python may have to regroup to start the new skits.

Plus, human hunting by Mr. Cheney, heh. A real
tough-guy sharpshooter by buckshot of 400 or so
of the pheasantry, caged up, massacre-like and,
there is nary a moral or ethical twitch in such a
symbolic last stand of this ideology, as what is
said to be a neoconservative, Mr. Wolfowitz is
to be leaving the Iraq policy department if news
is to be believed- not yours on this issue though.

That there is a thing called 'right wing' extremist,
as real as 'left wing' extremist, should be beyond
question of reasonable, and 'fair and balanced'
accounting of .US politics today. That .US policy
is also suspect with regards to the Middle East,
not ambiguous but unambiguous, Gordian-knot-
like, aligned with what you do not name for your
own convenience, Israel's Likud party of Sharon's
government who's been blasting all throughout
the holidays-- is itself very suspect. It breeds a
type of distorted viewpoint that could in turn add
fuel to anti-semitism as an ideological excuse
for dissent of a horrible policy mechanism, not
based on shared ideas, but private beliefs. For
those who disagree with Likud-like politics in
the .US, if this is what you are actually referring
to, this is still not anti-Semitic it is believed, if it
is to question .US policy and its goals, as being
in the best interests of this country and its people.

The way you state your argument, to disagree
with you is to be an anti-semite and conspiracy
theorist whose logic rests on true belief and faith
in government. Some prefer checks and balances.
Not everyone who argues against neo-con, or even
many, may be anti-Semitic when doing so, either.
It is a weak insinuation and again conflates issues,
trying to confuse rather than enlighten, within the
post-reason era of language and mind games.

It is fine to find the neoconservative push of .US
policy despicable. It is unrepresentative. Though
maybe there are some good things that may, in
time, be realized, to offer an unambiguous and
celebratory igorance-is-bliss virtuoso performance
is truly something to behold in this 'public' space.
You've about 3,000 readers here online, some
of those you've critiqued. I've done my part in
placing your words in a context. Your views
could easily be dismantled and you are now
publicly invited to participate in a discussion
in this moderated forum to talk more about this
Le Monde and 'deep thinking German paper'
with the people who actually read and write
in such publications. Hopefully they oblige, to
join in this discussion, to bring some reason
to the missing 0.66 percent of issues that fill up
the gaps (that is, reality) in the surreal vision
you portray, dark glasses on, apparently so.

If you believe in your words you've written,
you should join democratic society and join
in a debate, get a little check and balancing
action to what is otherwise a racist diatribe.
Bring it on'-- the world is waiting, listening...

Hopefully you reconsider your argument.

And, your thinking is otherwise enjoyed for
getting at the ambiguity of full spectrum of
ideas, yet xenophobia is demonstrated by
your language, much more so than others.

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:01:52 -0600
From: human being <human@electronetwork.org>
Subject: Fwd: Note


From: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004  11:57:49  PM US/Central
To: human@electronetwork.org
Subject: Note

Dear friend,
   Thanks very much for sending a response to my column, positive or 
negative. I'm afraid I can't respond to each message. My editors would 
wonder why I have no time to write for the paper.
    But I do read every e-mail, and I frequently learn from them.
So, again, thanks,
David Brooks


------------------------------

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