Why the world did end on 2000 and why 9/11 will always be 11/9 to ed
I recall refusing to join in the ‘millennium’ celebrations 9 years ago for a few reasons. Firstly, I saw this as a subconscious global acknowledgment of the relative insignificance of alternative timelines that had contained and attributed meaning to quite a few non-Gregorian cultures. Secondly, it just wasn’t the millennium and wasn’t going to be so till 2001 - read 'astronomyBoy's' insightful views on this. Thirdly, what was being celebrated was the relegation of the significance of alternative histories and perspectives to the dustbin of history by this celebratory shrugging off of the vestments of cultural pasts antithetical to the spirit of capitalism.
So I couldn’t help shaking my head in disbelief in the face of people of so-called different cultures adorned in their respective cultural costumes whilst simultaneously shrugging off the possible global significance and relevance of their own timelines and the perspectives that gave life to it. Quite a paradoxical event I’m sure you’ll agree – the devil rules by paradoxes.
Objectivity went out the window by the masses following the pied piper that is the media and believing that it was the millennium because it looked like it – 2000 – even though it could mathematically and objectively be proven to be untrue. Poor Descartes. He may have been the father of western philosophy, but the west wherein he thrived is nowhere to be found as people these days are more amenable to the obvious as opposed to reason and detail. Secondly, the bigoted and exploitative uniformed banditry that fronted and promoted the basis and spirit of current ‘civilisation’ was whitewashed and the world was focused on what had been gained after a few hundred years had been spent lobotomising the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they could mistake the Ipod for progress per se. Thirdly, alternative and cultural streams of thought were rendered relatively irrelevant by this mass worship of a time borne of another perspective and wherein this other perspective makes sense of time within the work schedule within a grossly exploitative milieu.
So I suppose it is true that the world would end on the millennium. It certainly did. ‘Otro Mundo’ or ‘another world’ ended and took its rightful place in the British Museum or various episodes of Sliders. Everything that was past became anathema and this perspective manifested itself in the common mindset of the herd of humanity in terms such as ‘retro’, ‘cliché’, ‘old fashioned’, ‘passe’, ‘so last year’, amongst others. As dear ole Marx would say,
“…everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” – the Communist Manifesto
Click here to read chapter 1 of the aforementioned from whence this quote is extracted.Show
Then came what is known by Americans as ‘9/11’. And the whole world, thereafter, referred to it as ‘9/11’. Even the British and many others who, logically, or by force of habit, saw the date as ‘11/9’ stood up on their hind legs and returned a responsorial psalm chapter 9 verse 11. It was 9/11 because the American media said so, even if common subjectivity saw it as 11/9. In this, the subjectivity of the global mass was further subsumed into the subjectivity of the father of ‘modern’ civilisation – the yooo-nited states of America. Everyone was seeing it the American way. That is why nobody saw anything amiss in joining them in their so-called ‘war on terror’ which is synonymous with taking a truncheon to a flea that had bitten them whilst they were in the midst of devouring a herd of elephants. Nobody thought anything about the 400,000 children in Iraq whom had died because of American-sponsored embargoes when they joined forces against those whom had killed a few thousand people on American soil. In fact, the BBC even discounted claims that half a million children had died due to the said embargoes with a, ‘just 350,000’. But if anyone was to say, ‘just 3000’ with reference to the twin towers, they risked being hauled in by the anti-terrorist hoodies. From thereon, ee-ruq became eye-raq, arf-gunistarn became f-ganistan, because that was the way the perspectivally-challenged Americans pronounced it. Ever wondered why the Americans and everyone else around the world pronounce the ‘Champs Elysees’ the way the French would pronounce it whilst the same respect is not accorded the words emerging from ‘otro mundo’? I bet you didn’t. And I bet you also thought 2000 was the millennium.
Putting it all together, the ‘millennium’ celebrations illustrated the subsumption of global perspectival subjectivity, where it mattered, into the western capitalist ethos, and 11/9, oops sorry, 9/11, illustrated its gravitation toward an American centre within the western world. This is nothing short of the eviction of objectivity in the common mind and the monopolisation of global subjectivity.
The NWO must be pleased indeed.
In sum,
To recognise 9/11 as 11/9 on the basis of this reasoning is a paradoxical practice of objectivity within subjective conditions. On the one hand, we are refusing to recognise that things ought to be otherwise just because a lauded other says so. Even if this means that we are choosing to be subjective and stick to what we are used to - which is a bad thing - we are simultaneously saying that we aren't going to do something without a valid and logical reason. In this, our generic logical propensities are themselves strengthened and this can be used to subject our own subjectivity to such scrutiny. But to not do this is to undermine the said generic foundations for objective thought in itself or contract it's relevance to include purely immediate concerns whilst the overarching sense we make of things belongs to the whims and fancies of a lauded other. In a nutshell, that is the reason why 9/11 will and must always be 11/9 to ed.
according2,
ed
So I couldn’t help shaking my head in disbelief in the face of people of so-called different cultures adorned in their respective cultural costumes whilst simultaneously shrugging off the possible global significance and relevance of their own timelines and the perspectives that gave life to it. Quite a paradoxical event I’m sure you’ll agree – the devil rules by paradoxes.
Objectivity went out the window by the masses following the pied piper that is the media and believing that it was the millennium because it looked like it – 2000 – even though it could mathematically and objectively be proven to be untrue. Poor Descartes. He may have been the father of western philosophy, but the west wherein he thrived is nowhere to be found as people these days are more amenable to the obvious as opposed to reason and detail. Secondly, the bigoted and exploitative uniformed banditry that fronted and promoted the basis and spirit of current ‘civilisation’ was whitewashed and the world was focused on what had been gained after a few hundred years had been spent lobotomising the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they could mistake the Ipod for progress per se. Thirdly, alternative and cultural streams of thought were rendered relatively irrelevant by this mass worship of a time borne of another perspective and wherein this other perspective makes sense of time within the work schedule within a grossly exploitative milieu.
So I suppose it is true that the world would end on the millennium. It certainly did. ‘Otro Mundo’ or ‘another world’ ended and took its rightful place in the British Museum or various episodes of Sliders. Everything that was past became anathema and this perspective manifested itself in the common mindset of the herd of humanity in terms such as ‘retro’, ‘cliché’, ‘old fashioned’, ‘passe’, ‘so last year’, amongst others. As dear ole Marx would say,
“…everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” – the Communist Manifesto
Click here to read chapter 1 of the aforementioned from whence this quote is extracted.Show
Then came what is known by Americans as ‘9/11’. And the whole world, thereafter, referred to it as ‘9/11’. Even the British and many others who, logically, or by force of habit, saw the date as ‘11/9’ stood up on their hind legs and returned a responsorial psalm chapter 9 verse 11. It was 9/11 because the American media said so, even if common subjectivity saw it as 11/9. In this, the subjectivity of the global mass was further subsumed into the subjectivity of the father of ‘modern’ civilisation – the yooo-nited states of America. Everyone was seeing it the American way. That is why nobody saw anything amiss in joining them in their so-called ‘war on terror’ which is synonymous with taking a truncheon to a flea that had bitten them whilst they were in the midst of devouring a herd of elephants. Nobody thought anything about the 400,000 children in Iraq whom had died because of American-sponsored embargoes when they joined forces against those whom had killed a few thousand people on American soil. In fact, the BBC even discounted claims that half a million children had died due to the said embargoes with a, ‘just 350,000’. But if anyone was to say, ‘just 3000’ with reference to the twin towers, they risked being hauled in by the anti-terrorist hoodies. From thereon, ee-ruq became eye-raq, arf-gunistarn became f-ganistan, because that was the way the perspectivally-challenged Americans pronounced it. Ever wondered why the Americans and everyone else around the world pronounce the ‘Champs Elysees’ the way the French would pronounce it whilst the same respect is not accorded the words emerging from ‘otro mundo’? I bet you didn’t. And I bet you also thought 2000 was the millennium.
Putting it all together, the ‘millennium’ celebrations illustrated the subsumption of global perspectival subjectivity, where it mattered, into the western capitalist ethos, and 11/9, oops sorry, 9/11, illustrated its gravitation toward an American centre within the western world. This is nothing short of the eviction of objectivity in the common mind and the monopolisation of global subjectivity.
The NWO must be pleased indeed.
In sum,
To recognise 9/11 as 11/9 on the basis of this reasoning is a paradoxical practice of objectivity within subjective conditions. On the one hand, we are refusing to recognise that things ought to be otherwise just because a lauded other says so. Even if this means that we are choosing to be subjective and stick to what we are used to - which is a bad thing - we are simultaneously saying that we aren't going to do something without a valid and logical reason. In this, our generic logical propensities are themselves strengthened and this can be used to subject our own subjectivity to such scrutiny. But to not do this is to undermine the said generic foundations for objective thought in itself or contract it's relevance to include purely immediate concerns whilst the overarching sense we make of things belongs to the whims and fancies of a lauded other. In a nutshell, that is the reason why 9/11 will and must always be 11/9 to ed.
according2,
ed
Comments
Post a Comment
The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.
Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.