Re: [-empyre-] disrupting the right-right

[sam-de-silva <sam@media.com.au>]

hi

> But maybe that contentious CAE position isn't so far away, for the
> sake of discussion, from the kind of embittered exhaustion
> circulating in the wake of last february's unprecedented global
> mass protests against the invasion of iraq. I nearly wrote 'uprising'
> instead of 'protest' there, but clearly we rose nowhere,  overthrew
> no-one, averted no war.

does this mean that 'public opinion' has no impact? 

john howard has gotten away with a lot of lies. no one seems to really care. 
can prime ministers be impeached?

what about the cash for comments and david flint, etc... where's the follow 
up? why wasn't he sacked? 

what about the letter of 'friendship' that a liberal minister sent to alan 
jones via the wrong fax machine? why aren't the friendships and close 
association between big media influencers and politicians interrogated 
further?

where does the problems lie? is it with the media for being gutless and not 
willing to follow through with investigations? is it with the institutions 
for self-censoring themselves. there's mortgages and private school 
educations at risk i guess.

sometimes politicians need to make unpopular decisions also. how does that fit 
in to unprecedented global protest? are the masses always right? 

> I think this leads us to the kind of horrified sadness (sometimes
> manifesting as cynicism) permeating many discussions since
> then about WHAT IS TO BE DONE.

rethink the problems. assume defeat if that helps to come up with new 
answers... talk to old people... i think the problems are actually embedded 
in our lifestyles. comfort has a lot to answer for! 

- sam :-)


- sam :-)




> > > I don't know what happened after that, so I can't pretend to have
>
> a
>
> > > long view of the outcomes. just in that moment, on that day, it
> > > seemed honestly moving.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >---
> >
> > -----------
> > sounds fantastic to me!
> >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > & i also want to ask kipper what she objects to about CAE's
> > > practice?
> >
> > I don't know much about their practice, I just disagree with stuff
>
> they've
>
> > written about their political analysis that informs it.
> >
> > In general, I get the impression that some media activists
>
> choose to solely
>
> > engage in 'media activism' (eg as opposed to street activism,
>
> mass public
>
> > actions etc.)  because they believe that the media itself is now
>
> the primary
>
> > theatre of anti-capitalist struggle
> >
> > Specifically, the CAE champions this point of view, according to
>
> what I've
>
> > read. One of their major premises is a belief that creating media
>
> spectacle
>
> > was always the primary objective of activism (an interpretation
>
> which defies
>
> > the most basic principles of social movement building!). So now
>
> that in
>
> > recent decades huge budgets of government and capital have
>
> been employed to
>
> > ensure the forces supporting the status quo absolute monopoly
>
> over the means
>
> > of media manipulation, according to the CAE,
>
> public/mass/real-world actions
>
> > can no longer have any effect. And so they conclude that activists
>
> must
>
> > shift their action into the realm of the media itself.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre

--