The End of History Has Ended
By Amir Taaki
Foucault was interested not only in historical analysis, but the history of how historical analysis has changed. The process by which historians look for trends claims a kind of neutrality. They are merely exposing the timeless unseen forces driving history. But historians are not scientists, and even scientists are humans. Foucault showed that this analysis is shaped by their values and ideology, and the role of institutional power on the development of knowledge. So can we truly have a neutrality? Or is this a lie? If everything is a power, then what is this power advocating for? Power is not only at the point of the gun. Maybe in the beginning when one side is weak, but as they grow, they become institutionalised, embedded in societies' consciousness, and become the new status quo, merely defending themselves.
Now civil war has broken out in Southern Turkey, and everyday police and army are being killed by guerillas and city self defense forces. This was after the mayors of towns in Southern Kurdish areas of Turkey declared autonomy – that they no longer want to participate in the Kurdish elected state. Self defense councils run by the community, and organised with help from guerillas were formed. The mayors of the towns were elected through the Turkish state.
Everyday Turkish television is broadcasting scenes of crying parents. Coffins draped with the Turkish flag, a state funeral and shouting from the mother or father in anger over their son killed by the vicious terrorists. The state propaganda is relentless. An Islamist state ruled by Erdogan, a dictatorial fascist, who was good friends with Hekmatyar, a vicious Islamist terrorist. And the terrorists? Libertarians following the strategy of Bookchain's municipal autonomism aiming to create a society of direct democracy, gender equality, political pluralism, economic cooperatives, and preserve ecology.
America, the great bastion of global freedom, spreading the values of democracy and freedom now stands with the Islamist Turkish government against the libertarian PKK terrorists. A Turkish government which has also supporting Islamist groups in the Syrian civil war. Why has it become so fashionable to compromise on our ethics in global politics? Has the world ruling class become so paralysed with nihilism that the only way forward that they see is making huge ethical compromises so the bad guys don't take their throne? Or worse, is there is a conspiratorial plot to suck the world dry before the inevitable collapse due to an unsustainable system? Or is it that we've all blindly bought into an anti-ideological managerial belief of neutrality, driven by blind selfishness labouring under a globalised tragedy of the commons like autonoms in a giant machinery of slavery tearing ourselves apart? Whatever the cause, it's clear there is a seething hatred of discontent bubbling below the surface. The inability for the system to adapt is only antagonising this force which is unlike anything we've seen in history yet.
The transhumanists talk of a magical technological horizon we'll cross which will suck us deep into the well of acceleration which they worship as the transcending era of humanity. I instead see it more like an age of warfare, starvation and death from the ashes of which something new will soar and that we are participating in this. I wonder sometimes, how do the bureaucrats view us? These young wild-eyes idealists and whipper snippers who know nothing of the world, that want to rebel and reject politics? There's often a competing narrative on the one hand of a young electorate that has decided to reject voting because they're absorbed in iPads and PlayStations, and the other, of a young people that do not appreciate the great democracy that their great great grandparents fought to defend. "If only we can get them to engage in the system" they tell us, a system which doesn't want to listen to the inexperienced voices of new blood, or allow them to make mistakes. Audacious politicians even propose making laws to force people to vote.
And so politics has sunk into the guttertrash of spin and shoddy ethics for the greater good of tweaking the establishment: The rise in the last few years of opposition parties or people such as Ron Paul, UKIP, Podemos, SYRIZA and HDP is part of a new trend in which identity politics is on the rise. Although these parties or groups supposedly come from different parts of the spectrum, they share a lot in common in terms of form and not simply content or policy. Although they are still analysed through the classic lens of left/right politics, they together represent a new class of politics which is different from before. And really, I believe they are more similar than different because of how they engage the electorate.
General UK elections are Labour ('left') and Conservation ('right') punting the ball between each other every decade with the Liberal Democrats usually controlling a usual 10% minority. However in the last 2015 UK election, a new party, the UK Independence Party which campaigns for UK sovereignty and an exit from domination from Brussells gained 12.7% of the vote, and the LibDems gained only 7.9%. A surprising result, yet because of the crappy vote counting system in the UK (First Past the Post), UKIP got only 1 seat in parliament while the 2 main parties got 330 and 232, and the SNP with 8.6% got 56 seats in the national parliament. Now there is the Labour leadership elections. There's the usual predictable riff raff of plastic clones that say whatever they think is popular, but another guy Jeremy Corbyn has become very popular among youth and re-energised Labour politics.
He talks about crazy things like taking on the corporations, shutting down the nuclear program, or boosting the health service. He has a history of voting against most Labour policies including the war and is portrayed as a crazy old leftist and Marxist. Inevitably what all the talk about why he has suddenly become popular is still framed as left and right but misses the fundamental crucial point. He talks like a human being. He doesn't flip flop to carry favour. He has an ideology and a belief that guides his own thoughts and talks with conviction and charisma. He shows a humbleness, dressing modestly, and says that: “I have this desperately old fashioned point of view that policy making and decision making should not come from the top, passed down the food chain for the foot soldiers to go and knock on doors and release it on the unsuspecting public.”
This is not a backing of a political candidate. I simply want to better understand the forces guiding change here. Watch that video I posted above, and compare it with the stark contrast of the Jeremy Corbyn campaign. You have the professional politicians wish an established way of creating election campaigns, spreading their marketing message, making spin campaigns, carefully controlled and managed public appearances. And it stinks, everybody knows it stinks of garbage. This system only serves the ethically devoid: Liz Kendall profile: 'I don’t want to protest. I want to get into power.'
Then Corbyn is this old man in a sweater that is not caring to answer critics who attack him, simply pushing his ideas, doing interviews on YouTube and making large public rallies that are packed and a campaign funded by donations through the internet. Quote from the Guardian: "Long-Bailey described Corbyn as “everything a stereotypical careerist politician isn’t.” She said she had encountered two kinds of MP in Westminster: conviction politicians and “consensus” ones. She had no time for the latter, describing them as the sort of people who think changing the world “is all a very good idea in principle but they like to put their efforts into tweaking an existing consensus and appealing to what’s popular in the media at the time.”" His appeal has even made Tony Blair, universally despised and hated in England, come out against him, as well as all of the current Labour leadership in the pockets of corporations. Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics, says Tony Blair in final plea.
Their argument is that for the good of the Labour party, and being able to make real change, the general election is God. And that unless the Labour party is a party of appeasement, they will not win. Therefore they must play the game. This is the crux of the main argument, and one which rests on "the means justify the ends". Among all the excitement and energy which is revitalising the youth and giving them hope, are bureaucrats from the dead age clinging to what they know and calling on them to listen to logic. Tony Blair says Corbyn’s supporters are operating in a “parallel reality” which rejects evidence and reason, and says their leftwing choice for leader will be an electoral disaster. It goes further, and something is let out which betrays who morally bankrupt and corrupted these snakes which hold our chains actually are. As Tony Blair goes on to validate himself and why plastic politicians desperate for power willing to sell themselves to power are a good thing, Blair admits that he does not fully understand the forces that are stoking what he calls “Corbynmania”. As in, he does not understand what are the forces behind this. We'll have to keep an eye on exactly his intent behind this phrasing. As another Labour candidate said Corbyn’s popularity “reflects a deep disillusionment” with Westminster politics. But I'm sure that Tony Blair already understands this. And that his opposition has more to it, than simply winning an election. The Guarian says: "Tony Blair sees Corbynmania as part of a trend across western democracies that has seen movements from right and left, including the SNP in Scotland, suddenly prosper off the back of disillusionment with traditional politics and a resulting desire to “fight back against the system”." … "However, he says such movements provide a “refuge from reality” rather than a means of confronting it." Tony Blair: “It is a vast wave of feeling against the unfairness of globalisation, against elites, against the humdrum navigation of decision-making in an imperfect world. It persuades itself that it has a monopoly on authenticity. They’re ‘telling it like it is’; when of course they’re telling it like it isn’t.”
Despite all the talk they bang on about democracy, you really sometimes get an opportunity to see deep into the soul of these people. It reminds me of an article I read when the Conservatives were campaigning against changing the UK vote counting system to a fairer method, one of their MPs said that the country needs to have someone with their hand on the steering wheel.
For all their talk of free markets (the Conservatives), I don't think they actually believe in market economics steering politics. And when you have the guys in charge telling us no, this cannot happen because party X won't get into power which represents you better than party Y but then their actions show that on some deeper level they are even more compromised than they present to us. That we're being lied to by pretenders that claim to share our values. Pretenders that justify to themselves, they are experts and professionals to the throne, despite claiming not to fully understand the global forces at work. Against an inevitability of change, they are fighting against it claiming that the change will not happen therefore we need to stop the change.
And why do we respect these people? Is it because they wear a suit or have good propaganda? We all know their technological legislation is rubbish, that they understand nothing. Why do we think they understand anything at all? If you watch the interviews of Ashton Carter or Obama on VICE News about the Islamic State, the things they say are hopeless. They still talk about eliminating 'the leadership' and haven't even begun to grasp the ideological aspect that gives this movement its power. They created the Iraqi government, with the best weapons but without an ideology, with a claimed neutrality that crippled it and they just run away from battle and corruption is massive. And yet IS which is the enemy of everyone is thriving with a strong court system that challenges corruption, and a successful economy. We can listen to the propaganda or study real sources. I can't find the article, but it was the Telegraph or some newspaper talking about how the IS raises money through 'extortion of businesses' in their terroritory. In other words: taxes. Funny the double standard from a press that pretends to be neutral.
Jeremy Corbyn poses national security threat, says George Osborne, an MP from the same Labour party now takes it to the next level. This guy is now an international danger which he calls "an unholy alliance of Labour’s leftwing insurgents and the Scottish nationalists" because he wants to scrap the UK nuclear weapon system. This is the power defending the power. With this also comes a new announcement to renew the program for £500m. That it will create thooouussands of jobs! There is many interesting things we can see here, about the formation of power and how the structure feeds itself.
So what happens after we bomb IS out of existance? The world will return to normality right? "There is no alternative" said Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, and in the 90s after communism fell, an author wrote a very popular book called 'The End of History and the Last Man' which said: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."