Second Superpower

The Second Superpower

'Antiwar slogan coined, repurposed and GoogleWash?ed ... in 42 days'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30087.html

My point in posting the register link was as an interesting example of GoogleWash?ing (the application by WebLog's of MemicEngineering? to change the results for a key phrase search on Google in particular and search engines in general) for engineering memes. However, this discussion seems to be going a little off-track and rehashing the same tired tirades; that's Wiki I guess. However, before I refactor this page, I'd like to give people the chance to move there own comments to somewhere more appropriate WarOnIraq?.).'''

The name really suggests the page should be about the SecondSuperpower, not about how the use of the term and its relation to memetics. The contents of the page have altered accordingly, and will undoubtedly do so again whenever people take interest in the page. Might I suggest, then, that discussion about the GoogleWash?ing should go on a page with a more appropriate name?

"the global anti-war protests as the emergence of the second superpower"

is that some serious wishful thinking on the part of anti-war protesters.

No wonder they did not get taken seriously. -- Someone who takes Fox News seriously

References : 

 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/
 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html 
 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2003/04/01#a9 
 http://weblog.greenpeace.org/archives/000353.html
 http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/_v10/__show_article/_a000010-000713.htm
 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414&s=schell 
 http://www.ourpla.net/cgi/pikie?_AbbeNormal/001049924582.319598-BroadenTheSecondSuperpowerByNarrowingIt
Approach via WikiWiki: http://www.anewgo.com and http://www.whitescarver.com/wiki/index.php/AnewGo may give some answers to the idea of emergent democracy mentioned in the article.

Longing for: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html

"many people are longing for a second superpower that can keep the US in check."

A powerful movement: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2003/04/01#a9 and in general a movement ... powerful enough to be called a second superpower

Declaration of opposition an emergent SecondSuperpower? http://weblog.greenpeace.org/archives/000353.html

The NewYorkTimes took a look at the massive global protests against the war in Iraq and declared that world opinion was becoming a second superpower

Two way relationship with thousands: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/_v10/__show_article/_a000010-000713.htm

"If we each can succeed at being in a two-way relationship with 100s of thousands of people simultaneously, being able to meaningfully let them know what we want, and being able to meaningfully perceive what they want - that's when something truly new is likely to emerge in terms of democracy and spontaneous collaboration"

Defiance and Opposition: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414&s=schell

"The global peace movement ... makes its appeal to the will, but in a diametrically opposite spirit. It encourages people not to give up their beliefs in obedience to the dictates of force but to act on those beliefs in the face of force. The war, we are told, is being fought for freedom. But who, we may ask, are the free ones - those who knuckle under to violence or those who defy it?"

Defining by using the existing: http://www.ourpla.net/cgi/pikie?_AbbeNormal/001049924582.319598-BroadenTheSecondSuperpowerByNarrowingIt

"they prefer the traditional over the new, or privacy, security, or strong private property rights over the commons. In his descriptions of the second superpower, Moore .... often adds in some of his other values. Doing this will (indeed already has) lead to it being seen as simply another expression of some existing orientation." Note: saving you the trouble, the author has removed the .... for you

My point was that if one wants to define something that can include everyone (which Moore explicitly and Tyler implicitly do), it has to be a fairly MinimalCompact?. -- JohnAbbe

you now have the factual, rational, sensible, and reasonable following:

Instead, they built underground bunkers to protect someone or groups of someones, not the Iraqi People, they sold arms on credit and are now owed billions they may never collect, etc, etc, etc. You forgot to mention the Russians - we'll see what constructive action takes place on Saturday toward getting some of their billions and billions.

See: WhatIsLeadership LeadByExample HowToSolveIt

Erased By MarkRogers the Offending .... It belongs on a more appropriately named page DefiningPower

That is such crap, I'm amazed I'm not going to erase it. The USA created Saddam!

A few days back, the US army assassinated three independent journalists for saying the truth. That the US Conquest of Iraq is an exercise in mass murder and criminality against all humanity.

And today, idiots are celebrating that the Iraqis cheer for the US conquest of their country. I only have one question for them: do you think the Iraqis are stupid?? Do you think the Iraqis are stupid enough that they would badmouth the armed mass murderers standing right next to them??

The US/UK have been starving and thirsting(?) the Iraqi population for the past 12 years. Are the Iraqis cheering the end of those sanctions? You bet they are. The US/UK have been engaging in biological warfare against the Iraqi civilian population. Are the Iraqis cheering the end of US/UK bombing of their sewage treatment plants? Again: You bet they are.

Unlike the Americans, the Iraqis aren't stupid. Which is amply explained by the fact that it's the latter who are at ground zero.

But there's more:

I reserve my greatest disappointment for the Europeans. I dismiss the Americans out of hand since one can't expect much out of bloodthirsty children suffering through a psychotic episode (and I'm talking about people like KathyBracy, not Herr Shrub). It's France and Germany that are sane and rational. It's they that could have done many things to prevent the American conquest of Iraq, but did none of them. For instance:

And of course,

Instead, the citizens of France and Germany, with universal agreement and government support, chose to do absolutely nothing that would have an actual chance of preventing war.

The SecondSuperpower? Come back to me with it when it's actually accomplished some good.

...invade the West Bank to free the Palestinian people from Israel's tyranny.

This is mostly rhetoric, right? This is somewhat equivalent to invading north Iraq to free the Kurds, and if that were a good thing in and of itself, then the absolute best thing Europe could have done was invade Iraq in place of the Americans. I always figured that it was because they were sane, rational countries that they didn't do stuff like this.

Invasion is not necessary. Peace is enough. When Palestinian Arabs abandon the idea of destroying Israel, Arab state in Palestina will become reality soon. Then they can live in their own tyranny.

Of course that's a lie since most of the water Israel "requires" is in the West Bank and that's why Israel will never voluntarily give it up under any circumstances. No matter how magnanimous and benevolent Palestinians might be.

In fact, one of the many reasons for the US conquest of Iraq is so that an Israel-friendly regime in Iraq won't complain when Turkey diverts Iraq's rightful water, as secured by international treaty, towards rapacious Israel.

It's nice that free speech survives on this wiki enough for a blatant racist ("they can live in their own tyranny") to not get censored.

This is mostly rhetoric, right?

As much as I'd enjoy seeing it, so is the nuking of Washington. Waging an economic war to sink the USA into depression isn't. Since the USA is the world's biggest debtor and would knuckle under pretty quick.

This is an interesting idea:

<snip>

Since the USA is the world's biggest debtor ...

Huh. Let's run with this for a bit on the US side:

That would never happen because the USA is a heavily militaristic state. And even if it did, the money saved would have to be spent on something else (not tax cuts) in order to prevent the reduced government spending from kicking the US economy in the balls. And even if all of that happened, the reduced military and economic influence of the USA worldwide (its military bases affect local economies) would weaken the US economy by making it unable to get such lucrative deals overseas.

If the US responded by defaulting on its debt, and I never expected otherwise, this would merely bolster the argument that third world countries owe it nothing.

If the US government bailed out American investors, the US dollar's exchange value would collapse. That's because the USA would keep the same amount of debt as before, assuming the USA is "owed" as much as it owes to the rest of the world, but have lost all of its credit. As a result of the USD's collapse, all imports into the USA would cease overnight. This would in turn cause a complete collapse of the USA's real economy, not merely of its paper economy.

This would require decades to accomplish. And in the meantime, massive economic depression.

Again, genuine investment is something that occurs on a scale of many years or decades, whereas financial games like collapsing the US economy can be played out in a matter of days. In the meantime, extreme misery for the American people.

If Europe ever collapsed the US economy, only one of two things could happen. First, the US government would attack Europe militarily. Second, either a popular or fascist revolt would wipe the US government off the board.

On the European side (OK, so this is overboard. Whatever.):

It's just fascinating how someone can describe stopping a bloodsucking leech as "decimating" oneself.

In fact, the elimination of the US export market would decimate Europe's finances, its paper economy, but strengthen its real economy. Because suddenly European businesses would find themselves with too many products to dispose of and European citizens with too little cash to buy them.

There are obvious answers to that, such as destroying the surplus products (the function of the Pentagon in the US economy), giving them away (perhaps to the Third World), printing more money so citizens can buy the products, or reduce the work-week in order to produce fewer consumer goods.

That assumes Europeans feel the need for a military force at all. We aren't in the days of the Cold War anymore, in case you hadn't noticed!

As for the US military's alleged "stabilizing military presence"; that is such a patently idiotic claim, contrary to all facts of history, that ... words simply fail me, no insult seems sufficient to describe the magnitude of your error.

Thereby inviting a second Holocaust. I'm sure sufficiently many Jews in Israel would be horrified by this that there would be an instant popular uprising against the Israeli government, wiping it off the board as well.

Sounds like a good time to be in the Western Hemisphere?

[another author] No. Your description of the European side is completely unrealistic, and the idea that the US military is all that's keeping Europe from war is laughable. They would have an economic turn down, and so would America. The question is under what circumstances the two groups would be willing to suffer through such a thing. If there was ever a real threat of Europe leading such a campaign, America would probably make a fair bit of concessions before allowing its prosperity to be damaged in this fashion, and vice versa. I like how you portray propping up Israel as somehow helping its enemies.

Ah, good. Not one for sarcasm and hyperbole? Fine. Realism was certainly not the intent; the description of events is as ludicrous as the "France threatening to nuke Washington if the US invades Iraq" concept. I see from responses that most agree that following such a path, no matter the instigator, would have unfortunate global impact.

Given this, we have created a world where isolationism no longer seems viable. The world's premier industrial nations have invested heavily in each other and none can easily afford to sever such ties. This has a stabilizing effect (quite a bit more so, one would hope, than any amount of soldiers or tanks or aircraft), but seems to breed a kind of resentment of foreign influence in domestic issues. However, this foreign presence can easily be manipulated by political leaders on both sides, especially in poor economic times.

No matter how popular the French stand against the US seems, it certainly was not made on moral grounds. All sides have a vested economic interest in the region; France, Germany, and Russia have made working around UN sanctions against Iraq quite profitable. The US has made, and will make, military action in Iraq profitable. France encourages international action to occur within the arena where it has the greatest power: the UN security council. The US does not deem such an arena necessary, given its own military capabilities. It should be obvious that each nation is simply playing to its own strength.

Even if the French stand was done for temporal reasons, it was still done on a moral basis, and I am not convinced that the existence of the former means that it was dominant. France is a democracy, and as such its government is supposed to do what the voters want, of which I expect relatively few were more interested in a political power play than in the fate of a nation. Are you really saying that all democracies are necessarily shams?

If he lives in the USA, he may well believe this to be the case. Then again, I don't live there and I also believe that.

But what is the fate of a nation but politics?

What I'd like to counter is his dangerous, implicit, contention that if one is acting in one's self-interest then one is automatically not motivated by concern for peace and justice. In fact, if one is rational enough to act in one's interest, then one must be concerned with peace and justice.

This is a fair point, but it is a generalization of the statement. Though it cannot be proven empirically what anyone is thinking, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the involved parties were acting more out of self-interest than morality. It is becoming apparent that the Opposition 3 were involved in considerable trade with Iraq that violated several UN resolutions that each supported.

The US Conquest of Iraq is not motivated by any sort of rational self-interest. It's motivated by a desire for domination. That kind of domination is evident in a person who'd lose their legs in order to kill their neighbour. Even when their neighbour has done absolutely nothing to be a threat.

The US Conquest of Iraq is motivated by unreasoning paranoid hatred. The kind of hatred that leads to chants of "kill kill kill" (US Marines).

The unfortunate necessity of being a soldier is killing. Many soldiers play rude psychological tricks to divest themselves of this reality, and some fail. Some never recover. War is atrocious. In a way, the technology of modern warfare does war a disservice: it really should be so nauseating that we go to great measures to avoid it. For the Iraqis, it certainly is. For those left behind in the US and the UK, it certainly is. However, when peaceful diplomacy fails and peoples wage war, killing is inevitable.

This war may be motivated by a desire for domination and hatred, but it is neither entirely unreasoned nor paranoid. There are individuals, groups, and nations who seek to harm or destroy the US, its inhabitants, and its institutions; it would be naive to act otherwise. They have brought war onto its shores and into its skies. It was a sobering experience: war had not been truly experienced there in some time. Most Americans could not connect to the pictures of war they saw on TV until 11 September, 2001. Many still cannot, so separated are they from those places in the world where this is a daily experience. Even the bombing of a government building some years before (by a citizen, no less) was regarded more as an act of an insane man than of terrorism. Perhaps this is an extension the same delusion that parents of a violent child must endure: "Not my little, innocent child." It should not come as a surprise that the attacks of 11 September would inspire hatred in her people. This does not mean that the justification for war is good, complete, or infallible. But it is the same rhetorical venom of "kill kill kill" to claim that the reasons for waging war are motivated by evil men with evil intent.

There are two problems with this argument. One is that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, beyond Hussein saying he approved of them. The claim that he has supported Al Qaeda has been repeated until it has become an unquestionable fact for many people, but really the two come from widely separated ideologies and hate each other, and there has been no evidence of such a link beyond both being supported by the same superpower. The idea that Iraq poses a threat to the US has been laughable, and the evidence for weapons of mass destruction varied from specious to fabricated. Yet the hatred inspired by the September 11 attacks has been directed against Iraq anyways. The second problem is that the US has been out to get Iraq for years - aside from the direct military activities, they have been starving the populace (or more technically, encouraging Hussein to starve the populace), as well as destroying critical aspects of infrastructure like water and sanitation.

So in short, we have civilian war occurring before some completely unrelated people brought (a relatively small amount) of war to America. That this should be portrayed as a necessary means of self-preservation is hard to call anything other than paranoid hatred. Especially when it is exactly what causes things like the aeroplane attack to occur in the first place - as someone said above, losing one's legs to kill their neighbor. Note that this is not evil in the sense of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others, so much as of violent delusions.

Be realistic - we no longer live in a world which encapsulates itself into self-contained, self-sufficient entities. We live in a global village, and the touting of regional, secular interests as having premier position in the governance and interactions with the rest of the world will prove to be self-destructive. The childish, "If you do this, I'll do that", "My big brother can beat up your big brother", "I, mine, You, yours" is inappropriate among mature, realistic and rational human beings. There are trade-offs and efficiencies of land, labor and capital which come about when reasonable and practical plans and actions are exercised. To waste one's effort in maintaining the regional or local "status quo" is counterproductive and subtractive. We should instead channel our energies toward efforts which improve the circumstances of all humankind. -- MarkRogers

How is that realistic? What species do you have us confused with? -- EricHodges

I said "we should instead". This means a change, which I think is realistic. Those who think that change is not realistic are not of another species, they just live in a different timeMindSet. I use the word "we" as a collection of like-minded individuals, not the total. -- MarkRogers

But you share the planet with people who won't change. Protecting regional interests serves them and their families well. Change all you want, they will still shoot you if you step on their property. -- EricHodges

We live in a global village, and the touting of regional, secular interests as having premier position in the governance and interactions with the rest of the world will prove to be self-destructive [....] To waste one's effort in maintaining the regional or local "status quo" is counterproductive and subtractive.

YES! Down with the USA!

No! I think it would be better to say "Up with All humankind" -- MarkRogers

You can chant global village until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't stop globalization from being a losing proposition for citizens of most industrialized nations. There is only so much pie(wealth/resources/etc). Currently said nations possess a pretty hefty chunk of it. Suppose it were possible to evenly distribute it. Instead of curing poverty, we'd simply spread it world-wide. I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in a world without borders, but I doubt any of us will live to see it. -- DavidRegan?

CategoryOffTopic CategoryRant CategorySociety CategoryLeadership CategoryLeadershipPatterns CategoryProblemSolvingStrategy CategorySociety

EditText of this page (last edited April 26, 2006) or FindPage with title or text search