Fahrenheit 9/11 independent intervention in world politics
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Subject: Fahrenheit 9/11 independent intervention in world politics
[ From: MichaelP <pap...@peak.org>
[ Date: 24 Aug 2004 03:27:17 -0500
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1289430,00.html
The beginning of history
Fahrenheit 9/11 has touched millions of viewers across the world. But
could it actually change the course of civilisation?
The Guardian (London) Tuesday August 24, 2004 John Berger *John Berger
is a novelist and critic
Fahrenheit 9/11 is astounding. Not so much as a film - although it is
cunning and moving - but as an event. Most commentators try to dismiss the
event and disparage the film. We will see why later.
The artists on the Cannes film festival jury apparently voted unanimously
to award Michael Moore's film the Palme d'Or. Since then it has touched
many millions across the world. In the US, its box-office takings for the
first six weeks amounted to more than $100m, which is, astoundingly, about
half of what Harry Potter made during a comparable period. Only the
so-called opinion-makers in the media appear to have been put out by it.
The film, considered as a political act, may be a historical landmark. Yet
to have a sense of this, a certain perspective for the future is required.
Living only close-up to the latest news, as most opinion-makers do,
reduces one's perspectives. The film is trying to make a small
contribution towards the changing of world history. It is a work inspired
by hope.
What makes it an event is the fact that it is an effective and independent
intervention into immediate world politics. Today it is rare for an artist
to succeed in making such an intervention, and in interrupting the
prepared, prevaricating statements of politicians. Its immediate aim is to
make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November.
To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting
(deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a
permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle
reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast.
Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.
This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of
silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make
connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are
normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as
saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the
former.
Ever since the Greek tragedies, artists have, from time to time, asked
themselves how they might influence ongoing political events. It's a
tricky question because two very different types of power are involved.
Many theories of aesthetics and ethics revolve round this question. For
those living under political tyrannies, art has frequently been a form of
hidden resistance, and tyrants habitually look for ways to control art.
All this, however, is in general terms and over a large terrain.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in
a political programme on the programme's own ground.
For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award
and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a
significant part in creating the event.
To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn't deserve
the attention it is receiving. It's simply to remind ourselves that within
the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily
wall of lies and half-truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity
which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions -
as if they'd been waiting for it.
The film proposes that the White House and Pentagon were taken over in the
first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should
henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations: a stark
scenario which is closer to the truth than most nuanced editorials. Yet
more important than the scenario is the way the movie speaks out. It
demonstrates that - despite all the manipulative power of communications
experts, lying presidential speeches and vapid press conferences - a
single independent voice, pointing out certain home truths which countless
Americans are already discovering for themselves, can break through the
conspiracy of silence, the atmosphere of fear and the solitude of feeling
politically impotent.
It's a movie that speaks of obstinate faraway desires in a period of
disillusion. A movie that tells jokes while the band plays the apocalypse.
A movie in which millions of Americans recognise themselves and the
precise ways in which they are being cheated. A movie about surprises,
mostly bad but some good, being discussed together. Fahrenheit 9/11
reminds the spectator that when courage is shared one can fight against
the odds.
In more than a thousand cinemas across the country, Michael Moore becomes
with this film a people's tribune. And what do we see? Bush is visibly a
political cretin, as ignorant of the world as he is indifferent to it;
while the tribune, informed by popular experience, acquires political
credibility, not as a politician himself, but as the voice of the anger of
a multitude and its will to resist.
There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is
to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is
on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than
either of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates
colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing
poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented
foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires
ceaseless war.
Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared
end of history, one of the main theses of Marx's interpretation of history
again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the
catastrophes being lived.
It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11
announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer?
There is no future for any civilisation anywhere in the world today which
ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what
it became. It's a film that deeply wants America to survive.
End of forwarded message from MichaelP <pap...@peak.org>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
Richard
wrote:
A little snippet about Mr. Berger:
In 1952 Berger began writing for London's New Statesman, and quickly
became an influential Marxist art critic.
Another @#$@@# leftist commie.
Scum.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
wra...@aol.com (WRabkin) posted:
> >In 1952 Berger began writing for London's New Statesman, and quickly
> >became an influential Marxist art critic.
> >
> >Another @#$@@# leftist commie.
> >Scum.
> >
>
> well as an excellent screenwriter.
>
> But because you are an ignorant moron who knows nothing besides your political
> prejudices, you can write him off a leftie commie scum.
>
> What a waste of oxygen you are. Go out and actually accomplish something, then
> come back and criticize. Or read "Ways of Seeing" and then report back on why
> it's a terrible book.
>
> But don't come to this newsgroup and trash important writers because their
> politics don't match yours.
>
> You are the scum, and you're not wanted here.
>
> Pig.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Eric Garcia" <er...@ericgarcia.com> posted:
>> Or read "Ways of Seeing" and then report back on why
>> it's a terrible book.
>
> I don't know why it took me so long, but I only read "Ways of Seeing" about
> two years ago, after a friend loaned me a VHS tape with the original BBC
> series on it. What I was taken with, more than anything else, was that
> although Berger's ideas in WoS are decades old and now, to some degree,
> ingrained in modern art criticism and appreciation, they still seemed fresh
> and possibly even more timely when I was seeing and reading it for the first
> time in 2002.
>
> I suspect you're wasting your (metaphorical) breath telling our trolling
> friend to read it, Bill. Knee-jerk neo-conservatism is just as quick and
> deadly as knee-jerk neo-liberalism, and I'd imagine he's not interested in
> actually learning anything that goes against his established beliefs,
> whatever they may be. Few people are, on either side of the idelogical
> fence, and I'm thinking he's no different.
>
> And though Ways of Seeing is about static visual art -- and primarily about
> static visual art from centuries ago -- I think it says a lot about what we
> do in writing for a moving visual medium, and how we may or may not
> influence control over our subjects and the perception of them.
>
> Okay, great, the more I think about it, the more I remember how much I liked
> it, and now I gotta go read it again. Thanks for adding to my list of things
> to do, Mr. Rabkin.
>
> emg
Original distribution restored.
Richard
wrote:
>In article <20040824220618...@mb-m24.aol.com>,
The fellow's credentials as an art critic are WORTHLESS since he's an
admitted communist. Communists subvert ALL to their system
and propagandizing for Moore's commie film nullifies any claim
the author had to being an objective reviewer. Stalin and Hitler BOTH
subject ALL media to their censors AND their propaganda machine
because they were communists/fascists.
-Rich
trotsky
rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/25/04 4:01 PM:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:06:26 GMT, use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <20040824220618...@mb-m24.aol.com>,
>> wra...@aol.com (WRabkin) posted:
>>>> In 1952 Berger began writing for London's New Statesman, and quickly
>>>> became an influential Marxist art critic.
>>>>
>>>> Another @#$@@# leftist commie.
>>>> Scum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> John Berger is one of the most important art critics of the last century, as
>>> well as an excellent screenwriter.
>>>
>>> But because you are an ignorant moron who knows nothing besides your
>>> political
>>> prejudices, you can write him off a leftie commie scum.
>>>
>>> What a waste of oxygen you are. Go out and actually accomplish something,
>>> then
>>> come back and criticize. Or read "Ways of Seeing" and then report back on
>>> why
>>> it's a terrible book.
>>>
>>> But don't come to this newsgroup and trash important writers because their
>>> politics don't match yours.
>>>
>>> You are the scum, and you're not wanted here.
>>>
>>> Pig.
>
> The fellow's credentials as an art critic are WORTHLESS since he's an
> admitted communist.
If you're so worried about communism, what are you doing about all the trade
with China?
Richard
Not buying from Walmart.
But I'm in Canada, and we have a huge trade surplus, with nearly every
country so the flip side is that while we undoubtedly suck up to
commies (our liberal government LOVES that) and there are Chinese and
Cuban goods available, there is a greater value of our products over
there, unlike in the U.S. where your trade deficit ($1 billion + with
China?) is massive.
But, how can you convince people to spend $100 on a golf shirt instead
of $20? Seems that ideological barriers break down once money is
involved.
-Rich
George Washington Hayduke
>The fellow's credentials as an art critic are WORTHLESS since he's an
>admitted communist.
<laughing> Ah, from the mouths of Republicans. <smile>
+--+
|George W. Bush is a deserter: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
|Fascist War Criminal to stand trial: http://www.PeopleJudgeBush.org
|Hezbollah endorses George W. Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/
|"You can take my gun when you pry it out of my child's cold dead fingers"
+--+
trotsky
rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/25/04 8:03 PM:
Wait, you're in Canada now? When you spend morning, noon and night talking
about the American political landscape? Don't you find that a wee bit
disingenuous?
and we have a huge trade surplus, with nearly every
> country so the flip side is that while we undoubtedly suck up to
> commies (our liberal government LOVES that) and there are Chinese and
> Cuban goods available, there is a greater value of our products over
> there, unlike in the U.S. where your trade deficit ($1 billion + with
> China?) is massive.
Your point?
> But, how can you convince people to spend $100 on a golf shirt instead
> of $20? Seems that ideological barriers break down once money is
> involved.
No doubt. And the Republicans aren't doing dick about it.
Richard
Americans of all political stripe buy cheap foreign goods with gusto.
You think Kerry is going to try to put a kink that?
-Rich
trotsky
rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/26/04 11:03 AM:
No, what I think Kerry will do is take steps away from the largest deficit
in the history of mankind, bring jobs back to American soil, make health
care more acheivable and affordable, stop leaving children behind, work
toward ending American deaths in Iraq, re-establish a foreign policy, start
respecting the environment, stop the Orwellian doublespeak of stuff like
"the Patriot Act" and the "Clear Skies Initiative" (read: lies),
re-establish the U.S. as something other than a laughing stock for the rest
of the world, develop new energy sources, have a V.P. that isn't an asshole,
respect gay people and gay rights, move forward with stem cell research--you
know, stuff like that.
Richard
So you DO think he'll try to re-patriate jobs lost to overseas foreign
markets? You have no idea how international economics works,
it's evolutionary and you can't stop it, no more than they could stop
the production of electonic goods from going to Japan in the 1960s.
The only thing Kerry could possibly do is erect trade barriers
which is highly unlikely, since they are generally only used to punish
other countries and Kerry like Clinton will suck up to China.
Trade barriers will only be used in highly specific areas and will not
effect the flight of jobs to China and India.
However, Kerry may do what Clinton did, eliminate 1 million highly
technical aerospace jobs while creating millions of low-paying service
industry jobs. After all, Clinton had to make sure his dot.com
millionaires got their coffee on time, before the thing crashed to
the ground, that is.
Both the Republican and Democrat leaders are firm believers
(rhetoric aside) in a World economy because that is what
the multinationals who own them want. Kerry's phony
"keep jobs here" will NEVER lead to the implementation of
anything that effects large corporations. So, outsourcing will
be the buzz-word for the next few years, until all the production
and clerical jobs are gone.
-Rich
trotsky
rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/26/04 8:06 PM:
Hey, can you tell us about your credentials in international economics,
Rich? After you've done that, can you show us how where goods are produced
have anything to do with jobs being lost? Japan may have started producing
electronics, but they didn't take away jobs, they merely created a market
where none had existed before. Hey, here's a thought: if you make it
expensive to ship jobs to other countries, companies will stop doing it.
> The only thing Kerry could possibly do is erect trade barriers
> which is highly unlikely, since they are generally only used to punish
> other countries and Kerry like Clinton will suck up to China.
> Trade barriers will only be used in highly specific areas and will not
> effect the flight of jobs to China and India.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Kerry is addressing the issue, and Bush is fucked in
the head as usual.
> However, Kerry may do what Clinton did, eliminate 1 million highly
> technical aerospace jobs while creating millions of low-paying service
> industry jobs. After all, Clinton had to make sure his dot.com
> millionaires got their coffee on time, before the thing crashed to
> the ground, that is.
Yeah, Clinton was famous for his loss of jobs and loss of revenues to
workers. Oh wait, that's Bush. Any other revisionist history you feel the
need to discuss?
> Both the Republican and Democrat leaders are firm believers
> (rhetoric aside) in a World economy because that is what
> the multinationals who own them want. Kerry's phony
> "keep jobs here" will NEVER lead to the implementation of
> anything that effects large corporations. So, outsourcing will
> be the buzz-word for the next few years, until all the production
> and clerical jobs are gone.
Wow, Rich, you have more wisdom than Confucius. And to think I just thought
you were just another asshole posting on internet newsgroups--who knew you
had all the answers to the world's geopolitical and economic issues?
Richard
It's plain to see for anyone who cares to look. One of the hottest
branches of growth with tech companies (for e.g.) is outsourcing.
You don't seem to understand that the process has an inertia
that cannot be overcome and neither Bush nor Kerry or any other
conceivable leader of the two main parties is crazy enough to
try to interfere with it.
-Rich
trotsky
rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/26/04 10:34 PM:
That's another lie. You were already wrong about Japanese electronics in
the 60's.
One of the hottest
> branches of growth with tech companies (for e.g.) is outsourcing.
Right, and we're losing jobs in Hoover like numbers. Put two and two
together without coming up with "five".
> You don't seem to understand that the process has an inertia
> that cannot be overcome and neither Bush nor Kerry or any other
> conceivable leader of the two main parties is crazy enough to
> try to interfere with it.
Tariffs have a long standing history in legislation. *You* don't seem to
understand *this.*
trotsky
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:BD54A97D.B3E9%gms...@email.com...
> in article hpati0t2tgcn13gor...@4ax.com, Richard at
> rande...@rogers.com wrote on 8/26/04 10:34 PM:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:55:46 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >> Wow, Rich, you have more wisdom than Confucius. And to think I just
thought
> >> you were just another asshole posting on internet newsgroups--who knew
you
> >> had all the answers to the world's geopolitical and economic issues?
> >
> > It's plain to see for anyone who cares to look.
>
>
> That's another lie. You were already wrong about Japanese electronics in
> the 60's.
That's another lie. You were already right about Japanese electronics in
the 60's.
>
>
> One of the hottest
> > branches of growth with tech companies (for e.g.) is outsourcing.
>
>
> Right, and we're losing jobs in Hoover like numbers. Put two and two
> together without coming up with "five".
Wrong, and we're gaining jobs in Hoover like numbers. Put two and two
together and I come up with "five" since I don't know how to add.
>
>
> > You don't seem to understand that the process has an inertia
> > that cannot be overcome and neither Bush nor Kerry or any other
> > conceivable leader of the two main parties is crazy enough to
> > try to interfere with it.
>
>
> Tariffs have a long standing history in legislation. *You* don't seem to
> understand *this.*
>
Tariffs have a long standing history in legislation? *I* don't seem to
understand *this.*