Corpse-Fucking Infidelity!

The Decagon Antiwar Amplification

One of the most obvious differences between the Vietnam antiwar protests and the Iraq antiwar protests is the foci of imagery. Vietnam images tend to highlight personalities, those individuals who were set on ending the conflict. Iraq images are of groups and slogans, more the message and the magnitude, the ambiguity and the diversity. The Vietnam antiwar movement was truly American, simply speaking to the unjust way we entered a foreign country to establish the first symbol of true USAn hegemony taking center stage within the cultural frequency of earth. The Iraq antiwar movement spoke to the established order 30 years in the making and still invasively broadcasting to nearly every corner of the planet.

The people representing each movement either reflected a straight  forward countercultural representation or a true unity of diversity, though both highly understated by USAn media. We tend to think our country is truly polarized during such moments, but again, our choice is dependent upon filtered information and strategic arrays of selection. We’re given this or that option, and once affiliated with either option, the array of goods, services, ideologies, and representational bodies step forth to take control or possession of the previously vacated positions. Liberals, conservatives, hippies, fascists, patriots, anarchists, and neocons become the new political and cultural groups one must bind to if considered to be taken seriously. After that, it’s a matter of all the economic, intellectual, religious and philosophical relationships filling in the blanks of what the media deem as our empty and uncertain lives.

In reality, many groups were mutually represented during the Iraq antiwar protests, and in many countries. The causes for entering the war were obvious, whether true or fabricated. But once the information became fact and fiction, those who believed faithfully ousted themselves and became honest once again. The same case can’t be made for Vietnam, as the two sides were clearly demarcated, or so we see now that the revolutionaries of the moment are able to market the arts, products and happenings of the time. Will our movement have the same generational amplification? Do the generations younger than us and not-yet-old enough to comprehend the fervent opposition understand its implications?

The 21st century, post-9/11 event has taken on a new flavor and some can feel the change of stimuli. There are new sights and sounds in the air, mostly of nature and silence. When the pollution is present, it’s easy enough to spotlight the culprit and know where their past allegiances lay and what transition is coming to them next. Our decagon is ten years in the making, but the form is still with us and the desperation of USA’s “other” is slowly fading and finding itself outdated and outmoded. Antinomously, there’s a capitalistic dilemma belaying a true movement to reach the ideological certitude of the antiwar movement. It faintly reeks of the late 70’s and early 80’s, post-Viet spectacle, whereby USA was symbolized as suffering yet was simply in a classic Friedmanite bunco for the entrance of another round of conservative politics aimed to destroy all the counter-cultural groundwork. The pattern is all too carbon and spam.

There are many of us in “it”, in this place of propositional transition, this ten-layered, ten-year shell, where we think it’s unsafe to label, yet without a particular identity, we might be lost as simply a moment. The machine, the force and the man or largest male sibling isn’t unmovable or irresistible, it simply has a name and easily attaches its modus operandi to the fear. We’re ready to take the pain and use it to be what once was to become the “know” generation. But knowledge is relative and pain tolerance is advantageous. This time we won’t lose a step because we’re better learned at how to survive with -less, yet all-the-more is out there for us to grasp at any moment. Though it doesn’t benefit anyone with -less to attract attention to haves, the undefended abundance is in plain sight. The “trickle down effect” of this generation’s segue out of massive ideological opposition becomes the “cultural collapse of the mainstream”. No more extra-ideological decision making, information retention, corporate intimacy or antiquated economic and political theories. No more corpse-fucking infidelity! We’re barricaded by the open, the spatial reference of nowhere and every place. With such freedom and so many sides to find a corner in, the division of half is pentad and outnumbered. It’s lost in the polygonal ratios of prime and we’re infinitely creative with the 1 and 0. We’re the first dual-digitized movement and our anniversary is upon us.

Cyclic Anarchaos Within Democratic Revolution

One of the prime examples of cyclical anarchaos in USA is the transition from post WWII to the 1960s and 1970s to the last two decades of USAn culture – the Age of Capitalist Terror. Exemplified in the BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares”, terrorism as the art of strategic communication can be treated to a political history lesson with such names as Leo Strauss, Sayyid Qutb, Lyndon Johnson, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden being recruited as the true perpetrators of globalist propagation. Including such ideas as The Great Society, jahiliyyah, Team B and neoconservatism, it not difficult to see order-out-of-chaos or complexity theory in action as deduced by Ilya Prigogine. The time frames differ from generation to generation but the effect is still the same. Albeit, when one has control of the expression of messages, complexity theory is merely an applicable facade for what is an often unpredictable cycle of social and political change.

Following what many consider a highly disordered and chaotic social period of terrorism during WWII, USA came out of the conflict with a great moral authority, stronger economy, and a newly found individualism invested in popular culture. This amounted from a fairly conservative approach to global politics via Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower during the 1940s and 1950s. From such great material prosperity arose a philosophical necessity to mend the ills of all social contract, hence the “great” liberal reforms of the 1960s. During this well-documented period, it is clear the aftershock of complete order shook foundational culture, leading to what many consider a dark time for USA, yet a thriving expression of counter-culturalism. The 1970s saw an attempt to revamp conservative morality, adopting underground movements as mass exposure yet not fulfilling the social adherence implicated within the popular eradication of oppressed opposition. Thus, the 1970s propagated terror on a civil level until media and politics could again control moral perpetuity via the Cold War and burgeoning capitalism. The 1980s and 1990s saw a drastic, ordered shift, though an undercurrent of disorder persisted. Currently, we are in a social state of disorder with a rehash of 1980s superficiality strangling the realism of a fully-charged chaotic period. The goal is to now bifurcate what was attempted in the 1940s and 1950s as a social and political unification project.

In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger believed in the principle of interdependence as a way to “look back to all this turmoil as the birth time for a more creative, better system” for USA and USSR. The neoconservatives of the 1970s – Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle and Dick Cheney – were able to convince Gerald Ford to forgo Richard Nixon’s “detente” with USSR, citing it was still producing weapons which could threaten the future of USA. To support this message, an outside expert group known as Team B was lead by Wolfowitz. As we now know, this type of fictional strategic plan has been underlying every administration from Ronald Reagan’s through George W. Bush’s. Even Bill Clinton was not exempt from such use of fear tactics developed by Straussian conservatives. He was able to function outside of it at moments but was swept up by its efficiency, and its personal solicitation of him and the USAn people.

How did Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and neoconservatives convince such politicians to follow their message? Were and are such people of weak nature from the start?

Anwar El Sadat is a key example of obstructed mentality outside of anarchaotic recollection. During the 1970s, the relations between USA and Egypt were quite prosperous, with western culture invading the Nile River Valley and exploiting Muslim religion and its accompanying culture. With his “open-door” policy, many believed Sadat was overcome with USAn mental mange, no longer attempting to appease his constituency and people but rather providing Kissinger’s parasitism with a faux-peace perspective by meeting with Israelis. While the obvious implications of such psychological persuasion are rooted in ideological attainment and greed, Sadat had gone so far as to not see the outcomes inherent in anarchaotic living, thus being killed by gunfire. Out of such superficial order among Arabs arrived Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Hence, USA’s supposed order-out-of-chaos was rearranged into chaos-out-of-order by other opponent nations. Surreptitiously, USA fell back into its terrorist stance with Ronald Reagan, omitting the possibility it might benefit from its own reversal of complexity theory.

Instead, just as the Islamic world was being guided to religious revolution by Khomeini in Iran and Zawahiri in Egypt, Reagan neoconservatives and bible-toting Christians began a like process in response. Without so much as taking a breath of the anarchaotic realism within a text such as the bible, USAns began blind support for the moral order and clarity offered by a righteous government with evangelical allegiance. The major goal was to rehash the Neil McCarthyism of the 1950s – fight and eradicate potential communism within USA and do so with a simple idea from Claire Sterling’s “The Terror Network” in mind – an all-global anti-American sentiment originating in USSR. A similar strategy for Team B was seen to originate from black propaganda singularity – the driving force of neoconservatism.

Again the question arises: how did the Republican neoconservatives recruit the allegiance of USAs fundamentalist Christian preachers and politicians alike?

The obvious answer resounds in the denial of a true anarchaotic existence, understanding society and culture as too dynamic to be controlled by predetermined order. When such stability is impressed upon an unaware population, the behavioral result amounts to disorder because of the mental incapacity for understanding civic roles. When such disorder becomes social chaos, the neoconservative doctrine is to reinstitute social singularity in place of a natural individualism resulting from sever homogenous mono-typing. What USA has failed to observe thus far is the cyclic avoidance of anarchaotic reality – with mathematical and theoretical evidence – eventually leading an unpredictable dynamism to a new cycle which re-envelopes the old. No longer can USA function globally with a “let freedom ring” mantra as democratic revolution within the country is devoid and retarded.

The union of USA and mujaheddin of Afghanistan in the the battle against USSR during the 1980s further solidified the desperation of democratic revolution. Abdullah Azzam was as much a USA citizen as he was a freedom fighter attempting to concretize Qutb’s jahiliyyah for Muslims. There was a reciprocal solicitation of hallucination on each group’s behalf in order to retain symbolic ideological power over interested parties. That schizoid representation persisted through the 1990s and 2000s, conserved by players originating in the 1970s and has burgeoned to full-blown schizophrenia.

Being a part of post-9/11 USA, it is not necessary to further understand the bombardment of mentally-debilitating propaganda of the traditional neoconservative and USAn democratic revolution. Democratic revolution is still precedent today, as it has affected the mentalities of recent politicians including our current president Barack Obama. USA still believes it can aid the uprisen success of rebellions in other countries as a response to oppression, as with its own history of religious and political persecution freed of British avolition for retention. What is often missed in such a narrow viewpoint of global succor is the self-awareness of personal and social identity. If one is narcissistic enough to evade responsibility of character and action, then one cannot see the entanglement of mandatory natural and civil upheaval rooted in successful propagation as anarchaos psychology provides. Having a transient consciousness with the ability to frame microscopic, or internal, and macroscopic, or external, events allows a nourished flourishing of noospheric levels not yet adopted or adapted to. The strategic process of arriving to the point is nearly beyond periodization, yet the upper echelon of social informatics remains personally-interested in a cyclical, democratic mythology of the vanguard.