Re: <nettime> Fw: Enemies of the Future

[Newmedia@aol.com]

Geert:

> I hope you did not lose all your assets, Mark. 

Fear not . . . I've been in cash and collectibles for quite a while now.  

I am looking to fund some real breakthrough NEW MEDIA technologies, however.  
Got any? <g>

> And I am curious what you thought of your 1996 prediction 
> that Al Gore was going to become US president, eliminate 
> democracy and install some kind of HG Wells regime.
> Zero Growth after the Long Boom? Do you look back on 
> own your future predictions?

Ah, yes, I do look back . . . I do, I do . . . oh, yes . . .

As I recall, the speech that I gave at MetaForum III in Budapest in 1996 was
about the possibility of a Crash scenario . . . which I still find much more
likely than a Boom-er, long or otherwise. <g>

And, if memory serves, I was concerned way back then -- in that distant century
-- about the possiblity for a Gore election and for what it might mean for a
shift towards a substitution of "opinion-polling" for the present systme of
voting for representatives.  Or, if you like, a substitution of
"hyper-democracy" for the current "republican" form of government in the U.S.
and elsewhere.

'Sfair to say that I still have that concern.  

Hillary Clinton's (Gore's alterego) call for abolishing the Electoral College
and the widespread advocacy for "hyper-democratic" voting mechanisms should
probably be seen as threads in that still-unfolding tapestry.

And, yes, Gore's anti-national-sovereignty foreign policy bias still appears to
me to be borrowed largely from Wells' 1928 "The Open Conspiracy" . . .  which,
as you recall, pointed towards a "World State" which would be administered by
multi-national corporations . . . "who" as a result of the widespread
acceptance of international "Human Rights" conventions would be considered as
"virtual" individuals and, therefore, extremely difficult (okay, impossible) to
bring to justice.

Regarding "Enemies . . .," you ask --

> The question should be: Has the power of American 
> corporations fallen with 50%? I don't think so.

Of course not.  But, to identify these multinationals as "American" seems to
miss the point, doesn't it?  They are what they are precisely because they have
no specific "nationality."  They are ABOVE governments.

And, to focus on their DOT.commie-ness is getting to be a very stale joke.
That's all.

Just like in the time of H.G. Wells, the important MULTIS tend to go in for the
HARD stuff of oil, minerals, food and chemicals.  Like the Imperial Chemical of
Sir Alfred Mond (the model for Wells in "The Open Conspiracy" and for Aldous
Huxley's counter-thrust "Brave New World") or the Phelps-Dodge (think Copper
Cartel) of Wells' illustrious U.S. counterpart, "Bucky" Fuller.

In economic terms we now live under conditions of what should probably be
called Global FASCISM (of the "Friendly" variety or what Wells called "liberal
fascism"), where the mulitnational heirs to I.G. Farben now effectively
dominate geo-politics . . . with the gratious assistance of numerous "left" and
"socialist" governments . . . and a rainbow coalition of PoGOs to boot.

Alas, and there really isn't anything that any "alternative culture" is likely
to do about it either.  <g>

Best,

Mark Stahlman
New York City

#  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