A few days ago, one of our readers asked Philippe Grasset for an interview, based on the theme covered in dde.crisis du March 25, 2010 on the annihilation and dissolution of politicians by the system of communication.
This interview was published yesterday 6 April 2010 on the site OWNI.com. We reproduce it today.
Question: Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama were both elected on a strong hope for change, followed by disappointment and a rapid loss of steam. How are their similar paths symptomatic of the state of our political system?
Philippe Grasset: We don't live in a diversified world, not even in a globalized world, not even in a world at all. We live under the sway of a system which has acquired, thanks to its power, complete autonomy, to the point where one can wonder whether it is not a phenomenon in itself, a universal artefact, which no human entity has mastered and which undoubtedly has an automatic thought, or perhaps even more, moreover quite nihilistic in its ambitions. Two forces govern this system: one is the system of technologism, this dynamic of an extraordinary power which is dispensed by technologies and animates the essence of these things which one persists in calling “politics”. The other is the system of communication, which governs a flow of information which most often takes the form of instructions whose purpose is to “dress” in a way suitable for the mind the effects of the system of technologism. , so as to protect it from any fundamental attack and criticism.
In this set, the "politicians", those who speak and seem to be there to accredit the idea that there are still diversified "politics", are necessarily creatures of the communication system, otherwise they would not be where they are. They are not, however, homogenized; some are smart, some are cynical, some are sentimental, some are very corrupt and some are less so, and so on. But one thing brings them together at the time of the passing exam (election, or appointment to a management position, etc.): the need to go through the communication system.
The communication system is very diverse and very skillful. Thus it can arouse appearances of criticism against certain effects of the system of technologism by blurring the circuit of cause and effect, so as to avoid central criticism. So politicians can use, in terms of communication, arguments of an extremely strong criticism of the present situation, but which must remain extremely vague so as not to go to the fundamental criticism of the system. It is therefore implicitly radical “reform” for Sarkozy, implicitly revolutionary “change” for Obama.
But we have described the system in its ideal situation. Alongside this there is reality, and reality is characterized by two facts: on the one hand, this system is in deep crisis, because it is reaching the maximum of its power, that is to say the maximum of the oppression it exercises over us when it needs “us” to maintain an appearance of legitimacy (elections, democracy, freedom of speech, etc.); and, on the other hand, the “we”, that is to say you, me, the peoples, etc., subsist, undergo this systemic oppression and support it less and less. This is why candidates advocating implicitly radical “reform” and implicitly revolutionary “change” are elected, and they are immediately the object of deep disaffection. The promise tactically authorized by the communication system cannot be kept for a single second when the politician, installed in power, finds himself under the sway of the system of technologism.
To succeed in breaking this infernal chain, at the moment where we are, we would need a Gorbachev, that is to say a man who plays the game of the system to come to power and who, at a given moment, while he is in power, goes into dissidence, “takes the maquis” if you want, and attacks the system from the outside, outside the system, using means from the inside that gives him the power he holds, just like Gorbachev did. Because Gorbachev, consciously or not for his final goal, it doesn't matter, acted exactly like that, already in the fall of 1985, six months after his election as General Secretary of the CP of the USSR in March 1985, after placing his first men to him (Shevardnadze in place of Gromyko in Foreign Affairs) as early as May 1985. All those who give you an institutional description of Gorbachev's action, only from 1987, have understood nothing of the historical essence of his action, in general because they remained anti-communist even after the death of communism and cannot imagine that a communist could be so fed up with communism as to consider killing it. Again, whether or not he willed the final effect of his action does not matter; Gorbachev was a formidable instrument of history against the Soviet system, a "dissident" of the system, a "guerrilla" undertaking actions of destabilization completely outside the norms of the system, intervening with groups of citizens and inciting them to cause and then accuse the bureaucracy—for that, great man, no doubt. We thought Obama could be this “American Gorbachev”, but, so far, we have been notably, if not irremediably, disappointed.
Note that I'm speaking in constant time, "at the moment we are", because I believe that the situation is evolving at an absolutely confusing speed, which takes the system itself by surprise, not to mention those animated things that we call “politicians”. The pressure of the communication system on the mythologies, in particular, is considerable, and as it is often exerted in the direction of a tactical criticism to avoid the fundamental criticism, it constantly plays with the danger for the system of opening the scope for an uncontrolled escape from psychology towards this fundamental critique. Agitations like movement Tea Party in the USA, the tumbles in the polls of a Sarko, etc., are also the perverse effects (for him) of the communication system. It is quite possible, if not probable, that in 2012 – it will be a famous year because, in addition to the Mayan calendar, we will have the Russian, French and US presidential elections in a few months – the situation will be notably different, and very different things may manifest. The truth is that we are in all areas in a situation of maximum tension, both of the system, and of the collective mythologies constrained by the system. It is absolutely impossible to predict what tomorrow – say 2012, for that matter – will bring.
Question: How do you explain that their mastery of the media, so strong during their campaigns, seemed to abandon them after the last election?
Philippe Grasset: The media that I call “official”, the traditional media, responding to the conformism of the economic powers, certainly follow the instructions of the system; but they essentially answer, in this system, much more to the ministry of the system of communication than to the ministry of the system of technologism. We have seen that the winning candidates respond to the communication system and that in addition they have the flattering role of the reformist, even of the revolutionary, so they are supported. They are the candidates for change. Once in power, they depend on the system of technologism, they are the executors of “the Party line”. The media, which still depend on the Ministry of Communication, began to fire red balls against the candidates who became presidents.
Admittedly, there are occasional corrections, but generally speaking, in the context of the crisis, the trend is more and more marked. The journalists of the system do not escape the vertigo given to them by the communication system, the role of which is a constant pressure on psychology, generally in the sense of "the Party line", but which also implies a excitement of psychology in general for the tactical adjustments of which I spoke above. It gives them, those beautiful souls who hold their virtue high, the excitement of the belief that they can write freely. Each time, they're like teenage virgins going on a first date.
The system is certainly at the height of its unleashed power, but it is also, at the same time, as I pointed out above, the paroxysm of the crisis generated by this power which destructures everything. It is not order that results, but more and more disorder. The excited psychology of the journalists of the system loses more and more often the direction of the instructions, as the weakening, the wear and tear of the triumphant candidates who have become presidents in an accelerated phase of dissolution. So these mythologies yield more and more often to the intoxication of the pen, and pass more and more willingly to the criticism of those whom they have been constrained by their own psychology to adore. Especially since all this appeals to the public, which is still the factor that brings in the benefits.
If I describe this situation to you as full of contradictions and paradoxes, it is because things are moving at an extraordinarily rapid speed, and the power of the system's crisis is increasingly countering the explosion of the system's power. It is, before our eyes, a titanic battle. My general interpretation is that this crisis is due to the confrontation of the system at the end of its explosion of power with the great forces of History which rise up more and more against the system. I generally define, in the present situation which is that of an ultimate confrontation, the forces of the system as destructuring, the forces of History as structuring.
Question: Will this situation, which already affects several countries considered as advanced democracies, spread to other countries?
That time has passed. Extension situations are accomplished. The invasion of the system is globalized, its crisis is too. All the countries are more or less in this situation described, of growing confrontation and chaos in the battle of communication, and we can no longer analyze the situation in national terms because it is a general situation and transverse; but there are national differences depending on the country, more or less aware of their situation, of the general crisis situation, more or less ready for revolt.
The concept of "advanced democracies" is outdated and I would rather speak, precisely, of "outdated democracies", where the idea of democracy has become a kind of porridge for the cats, which is neither a system of general laxity nor a system of police power, but a chaotic mixture of all that and attempts in all directions, all boiling in the derisory proclamation by the last parrots of the system of "moral values" reduced to the rank of rubbish destined for the garbage cans of what remains of history. The situation described for France and the USA affects in various ways all the countries of the Americanist-Westernist central bloc, with the boiling heart of the matter in the USA itself, of which no one knows what to think more precisely for the imperative reason that this monster is in the process of transforming before our eyes into something else – no one yet knows what… (My idea is that the monster will decompose, the famous danger of secession, of bursting, but I say straight away that it's more of an intuitive belief than a rational forecast. Yet there are signs. If it happens, it will be the biggest event since the American (and for good reason) and French Revolutions, something that will upset our mythologies as a cosmic earthquake can with death from the evil influence of theAmerican Dream, which has guided and policed all our political imagination for two centuries.)
Question: On the contrary, in countries which are not necessarily considered as democracies in good and due form, Russia for example, the political class continues to be concerned about legitimacy...
Indeed, there are countries that I designate as “both inside and at the same time outside” (of the system). Countries that retain certain attributes of strong political regimes, such as Russia and China, retain both a certain identity and a certain legitimacy. They are not infected by this ultimate disease of our dying civilization, which is called "democracy", as we speak of Guignol or a mafia organization, or rather as the organization of organized crime, the Cosa Nostra in the USA, which would be torn apart by a war between gangs, or between different “Families” according to the vocabulary of this sort of organization.
These countries like Russia and China are not alternatives, they do not present an alternative system. They preserve what can be to face what is the inevitable general crisis of Western civilization which is indisputably global. They have a certain lucidity. It is certainly among the Russians, educated by the collapse of the USSR and with an innate sense of the apocalypse, that we find the most precise analyzes of the collapse of the USA and the Westernist system.
Curiously, and despite what we see of the current situation, I think that France is quite close to these countries, because it is also a country “both inside and at the same time outside”, thanks to its powerful historical tradition of “the Great Nation”, its very strong transcendental identity. The population, the French, and a certain number of politicians know very well, better than in any other country of the Westernist system, that this system is a calamity which must be destroyed.
Question: Do you think that off-system media such as analysis sites or social networks can influence this development?
Without a doubt, the answer is overwhelmingly positive. They have already had effects of extraordinary power, although this cannot yet be counted. The phobia of 9/11 “conspiracy theories”, largely fueled by specific elements, is a cancer that devours the communication system of the general system. The important thing is not to prove the conspiracy but that there is, since 9/11, the devastating doubt on this affair, - and I would say, the doubt is even more devastating than if there were recognized proof of the conspiracy, who would send a few lamp-lighters to the lantern and would give added virtue to the system for having rid itself of its rotten branches. (Operation of this kind succeeded with Watergate in 1974.) It is the alternative networks that have created this cancer of doubt, which devours the system and deprives it of all legitimacy.
There are a multitude of other cases, even more precise and, them, carried out. I have always been closely following the case of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), this program of more than $300 billion which is the biggest scandal in the history of military aviation and military power. short, which is perfectly an artefact of the system, and which is shaking the power of the Pentagon itself, to a point which can lead to the collapse of this system. Internet, alternative networks are 100% the cause, without a doubt, of the outbreak of the scandal as a public affair from 2008, while the reality would have appeared no doubt 2 or 3 years later, with an infinitely less devastating effect for the system. The networks prevented the system, which had not yet noticed anything, from taking measures to cover up, of covering up the scandal. We can trace the milestones of the networks' intervention in this affair to the very dated articles on the networks, and we can trace the moments when they forced the authorities, the industry and the Pentagon, to recognize that there had a tremendous problem, in September 2008 to be precise, – well, when Wall Street was collapsing… Today, the system, distraught, powerless, is torn about the JSF. They will leave their panties there, starry of course.
The formidable scare that alternative networks create at the heart of the system is an equally formidable factor of pressure on the system. It imposes terrible limits on the action of the communication system, for fear of errors exploited by the alternative networks; the system fears its revelations, hypotheses, accusations. The hatred of official journalists vis-à-vis the networks is something formidable and fascinating at the same time, like the hatred of institutionalized mediocrity in the face of external attack. Networks play the role of friendly underground opposition in the USSR from the 1970s, which largely contributed to the collapse of the regime. But they are a thousand times, a million times more powerful than the friendly ; it must be said that, in ignominy and imposture, our system is a thousand times, a million times worse than that of the USSR, if we have the courage to count things in historical terms, of causes, of consequences , of indirect effects, of devastation of an entire civilization, of lowering and intoxication of the spirit, of culture...
Another strength of the networks is the fact that certain forces in the system use the networks to defend their own interests, to the detriment of the general balance of the system. The networks played this role with General Petraeus during the recent and, in my view, very enduring estrangement between Obama and Netanyahu. They played a vital role in what could be the tremendous event of the shaking of Israel's influence on US politics, especially the US military.
From the point of view of the state of mind, the Americans are ahead of us, I mean the Europeans and especially the French. They, who are at the heart of the oppressive system, believe in the power of networks as the only weapon of serious resistance. With the networks, they are able to mount a huge thing like the movement Tea Party, which has already resulted in the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts by-election in January and which has caused a tremendous mess in Washington, and as much for the Republicans as for the Democrats. The French do not believe in it enough, whereas they have mortally wounded institutional Europe with their referendum of May 2005, where the French “no” won thanks to the Internet. They take the networks too little seriously, considering them from a “citizen” point of view, vaguely anarchist, simply as a means of expression with the romanticism of “citizen democracy”, a way of expressing one's mood, one's disgust, etc Not at all, it's much more than that, it's a force of influence, a real one! And it is perhaps the greatest force of influence today! It is on the networks that we find today the best journalists, the best commentators, and by far – in the USA, it is absolutely indisputable, names and examples abound. Writers can free themselves from the system, on the networks, and historians too, and even scientists. The only thing lacking in the networks, in Europe and especially in France, is the awareness of their general, constant, organized power, and not only as a means where one can sometimes make blows. In the USA, it is already done. They know very well that the only way to demolish the system, the only real dissent, are the alternative networks. It's the equivalent of the barricades and the riot becoming revolution in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, of this riot and this revolution that we can no longer have in the streets today. It is the supreme tool and the only tool of general revolt.
Original article on dedefensa.org
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments