The Journalist's Helmet In War

The media does not in today's society of television/internet spectacle record and reflect on the wars taking place in the world. The media rather seeks to draw out the war, to expand the war-torn territory, sometimes in very concrete ways. We have all seen the journalist wearing a helmet when broadcasting from a war-torn region: this helmet indicates not that the journalist is in a dangerous area and needs a helmet to protect his/her life, but rather that he/she is in a place neighboring the conflict, yet seeks to draw out the conflict towards him/her by confusing one of the warring parties into thinking that the journalist could be a soldier from the other side, and hence must be shot at, or at least confronted. The helmet casts the journalist as if he could himself/herself be an “enemy soldier,” which is how the journalist poses and performs to make the story of war more exciting through a new narrative angle, or a new twist, risking for the sake of the spectacle his/her very life, such being the demand for extreme spectacle today.

We have come to face the reality that war itself may be too “unexciting” and “non-extreme” a content for viewers because it is waged around the world so much, and hence the need for war to be made to seem even more ruthless and animated by an even more ambitious project of taking over other territories. The media encourages the warring parties, it becomes a leading factor in why war goes on: it is not that the “media becomes the story” as is claimed by news channels when a journalist gets attacked, but rather that the “story becomes a media event,” with even more news focus, with ironically even more journalists on the scene where journalists are getting shot, only present there acting as fodder for the war's shooters.

Then why does the media seem legitimate to us if it plays a role in the perpetuation of war? Because, in another more visible role, the media serves as the representative of the ethical spectator who himself/herself cannot be in the scene of war when the violence has temporarily subsided. The media is legitimate because it plays the role of a neutral party after a certain narrative twist in which it donned its war-helmet has ended. The journalist now seeks to count and report the casualties in the aftermath, and in the eyes of an ethical subject who is watching this on television, it feels ethically right for a soldier's life to end with the image of a neutral figure of the journalist the last thing that they saw in this life, or with the figure of the neutral media the first presence in the deadly scene. Again, it is not for the daily function of its formal reporting on war which gives media its legitimacy, but rather its human sensitivity beneath the formality, which one always seeks to see when watching a news broadcast, which makes it seem today like an accurate representative for an ethical person in war-torn regions.

Ratnapark's Newer Role In Politics And The Spontaneous Political Crowd

We know that for a meaningful political change to begin in Nepal going forward, the public space of Ratnapark has to be involved. All the historic speeches and political activities in that public ground have cemented it as an important space for political gathering, although it seems to have been replaced today by other more intimidating, more modern looking and walled in structures like the “Convention Center” in New Baneshwor as the place for political activity. What gives Ratnapark a truly revolutionary strength is the difficulty in managing the space if in case the crowd becomes spontaneously politicized, if the crowd spontaneously feels the urge to suddenly act out on their discontent with the established political powers. The Ratnapark space is surrounded by little to no walls, allowing people who are walking on the street beside it to participate with a core group of agitators in the park, and even more important is the fact that the political stage/platform that exists in front of Ratnapark is dilapidated and dirty, and so no ego-driven ambitious man or woman will want to exploit the stage/platform for his/her personal ambition to be a political leader. The spontaneous crowd will have no spontaneous leader because of the condition of Ratnapark's stage, and hence the established political leaders will not feel the need to crush the spontaneous crowd for it will not have a leader which will threaten the power of established leaders and parties. Without a leader of its own to save from toppling, the spontaneous crowd will remain non-violent and endure.

In the spontaneous crowd, a group of agitators attract others towards their protests and seek to include everyone in the protesting act. This spontaneous crowd is not governed by political ideas and well-constructed agendas, but rather something stirs in the crowd which makes it understand, without a word spoken, that common discontent unites them, and people realize among themselves that the time is right for urgent political activity, regardless of a structure/organization or a person leading the group from a stage. There is no one shouting a slogan for others to repeat it, there are small conversations taking place within small groups, but these small groups are now defined by their discontent at politics; everybody is simply standing there or walking aimlessly within Ratnapark, everybody knows what the discontent is, there is no need to inform the world or to make the protest louder in volume. Ratnapark, as it seems to be frequented by the unemployed, already has the potential to unite the people there around their discontent and frustration, but historically such a united crowd has not formed there.

To further the development of the spontaneous crowd, what is important is to get the sentimentality regarding politics removed from Ratnapark. It is necessary to change those who sit in there who like remembering the park's history and certain specific political events and speeches from the past which have been memorable to them, because it triggers their nostalgia or reminds them of a long-lost love interest. Problematically, the park is remembered as a theater, and a willingness to revive its theatrical aspects dominates in the present. Ratnapark becomes a relic to be preserved for its past value, as if it could serve no purpose politically in the present. Peanuts and pop-corn, staple foods of a cinema hall, which are consumed also in Ratnapark suggest that this sentimental reminiscing of the drama in Ratnapark is still quite strong; one watches the empty stage, eats peanuts/pop-corn, and reminisces of the favorite moments from a leader's speech from one's imagination. The spontaneous crowd must go beyond this sentimental attachment to the park's history and drama, and instead be in tune with the political events playing out in the present. The presence of phones and radio in the park must be heightened so that political events elsewhere that are just unfolding may be heard/seen, so that if there is something critical, the crowd may be formed and active in response. Free internet in Ratnapark may be key. The spontaneous crowd will be very important in elevating Ratnapark as a center for political activity once again.

The Capitalist's Priceless Things And The Revolution-From-Within

A successful capitalist goes to Pashupatinath Temple to pray...We have heard of this, and contrary to our assumptions, he is not praying for more wealth, to make billions and trillions of dollars, to be the wealthiest man, rather, ultimately he is praying for the ability to pay for the education of his children, the health-care costs of his wife, and other such things which are important to him but do not require excessive wealth, that do not require excessive ambition/greed. Even the wealthiest capitalist prays for these things ultimately; it is not about praying for excessive money at all.

The visit to the temple shows what is considered truly important in capitalism, such as the family one has and other seemingly small and simple pleasures, comforts and attachments. The excessive wealth of billions and trillions of dollars which is attached to certain privileged names in today's capitalism can be lost or given up, this is disposable wealth for the capitalist. But what cannot be lost or given up, what the capitalist does not tolerate, is the loss of what is considered in the world today to be the capitalist's sacred things, or his priceless things.

Family, friends, personal houses and personal cars, these items are examples of the sacred things in capitalism. These things are submitted to rituals and other religious activities to produce them as sacred; one can think of the worship of a car in certain days of Nepal's Dashain and Tihar festivals, on top of the worshiping of family. The capitalist must afford to undertake these rituals that “certify” the sacredness of his things, he must afford Dashain and Tihar, and for this he must generate a basic amount of wealth. This generation of basic wealth to insert the sacred things into rituals is tolerated even by anti-capitalists, and as such not all levels of wealth are problematized by anti-capitalist protests and ideas. A basic level of greed, a basic endeavor to protect and enable the sacred, a necessary amount of wealth, these are important aspects of capitalism which even anti-capitalists think must be transferred into other systems alternative to capitalism.

What were previously revolutionary impulses to end capitalism have now become replaced by impulses to take society back to the “good capitalism” or the “basic capitalism” with a substantial sacredness at its center. Yet in truth revolution is impossible without problematizing sacred things and problematizing all levels of wealth in capitalism. Ambition and greed are not core tenets of capitalism and their problematization does not ensure that capitalism as a whole will fall. Further, the problem is that the billions and trillions of dollars are ultimately themselves not exactly disposable, but are necessary because they allow the formation of basic wealth. Excessive wealth is the necessary “side-effect” that will always allow the generation of basic wealth. 

What could bring about in capitalism a revolution-from-within is the marginalization of the rituals and activities certifying things as sacred. When sacred things, such as one's child's education, are inserted/submitted in the wider but less important economy sustaining disposable wealth, then the capitalist is frustrated and will find it irrelevant that sacred things may be submitted to valuation and be disposed just like the money he considers disposable. In the logic of sacred things, even if a sacred thing is valued at trillions after an initial valuation of billions, this does not make the thing more sacred, because the sacred thing is something which resists monetary valuation, it is priceless, it is what “money can't buy” in capitalism. It is clear that a capitalist's revolution-from-within is not a revolution against capitalism to the fullest extent, rather it sustains the core of the capitalist system while shedding what look like the excessive developments and progress it has made as a result of ambition, greed etc. But the revolutionaries-from-within capitalism will find that disposable wealth is not in fact disposable because disposing of this wealth will ultimately hurt the sacred things themselves. 

The Pitfalls Of Politicizing Science In Nepal

Whenever we are at the stage of politicizing science, it means that we are in a state of desperation, because most of the time we intentionally leave science intact and sacred as the last place for our political messages to spread, so that science being politicized speaks of a certain crisis of the political parties who undertake this endeavor. In desperation, we leave our political thoughts behind and simply rouse physical bodies of the scientists/science scholars towards expressing the political opinions and slogans that we demand. They are to go out on the street directly from the classroom, without a formation of a political agenda and strategy suited to them and to their studies and subject. And thus we have the extent of their negative response towards their politicization being quite shallow, as shown in the Nepali context of doctors and students protesting against politics in science by only protesting the disruption of their studies, as if they haven't really had the chance to discuss and explore how politics has entered science as a taught subject in a manner deeper than the rousing up or disruption of the movement of their physical bodies and minds.

One may say the politicization of science is the result of the arrival of a critical moment in a political movement or idea, when our politics absolutely must be expressed by as many people as possible, yet this interpretation is incorrect for it provides no reason for science being so completely isolated from politics in the first place. The only agenda critical in the moment when science is politicized is the need for physical bodies, for sheer numbers and for raising the volume of a protest; scientists seldom play a bigger role than that in politics.

For we may ask: are scientists ever allowed (or ever responsible) for the utilization of their intellect towards politics, but even more so, are they ever allowed to infuse their own scientific ideas with political ideas? No they aren't allowed this endeavor, for there is a fear that if scientists are given this type of freedom to interpret and apply political ideas, they will muddle up the ideas and end up producing a confused scientific-political statement which may undermine the more obvious messages that political figures wish to spread. It is not out of fear that science itself may lose its stature in contact with politics that political figures keep science away, but rather they feel that politics will become distorted by scientists/science scholars.

Yet any time science is put to a social cause, or a social cause asks of science to “invent something,” such as a vaccine, the political figures are not far away, not to act in a historically prominent and serious manner to either initiate or prevent science from being social, but rather to act slyly and in an moral-instructional manner to preach to scientists/science scholars the importance of society, to show that despite science's ideas ranging beyond human society, it is ultimately turned towards human society, and so to hold scientists/science scholars partly accountable for the crises in society that may come up someday. The urgency of political parties calling on science is a fake urgency, yet it is mistaken by scientists and science scholars, who consider their involvement immensely important and become politically active in the most evident way they think: protesting out on the streets.

The Schools: Caught Between Colonization and Psychoanalysis

Colonization/the colony is at the horizons always to an education system (or, schools), and also it is always far away from where the action, where the stuff, for psychoanalysis takes place. It is always at the best vantage point to the education system: it is able to discern what is going on in the practice of teaching, and it disrupts this action if it is too dangerous to the colony in order to fulfill its own goals. For psychoanalysis, the effect of colonization arrives through the mediation of the education system: psychoanalysis relies on the techniques perfected in the education system, namely the techniques of narrativizing episodes (“literature”), converting persons into characters (“history”), identifying context (“sociology”) and more, enlisting, by the end, and especially in the mathemes and symbols of Lacan, even mathematics and the hard sciences. So that when colonization disrupts the education system, as a second-hand effect, it disrupts psychoanalysis; or perhaps the disruption of psychoanalysis is the intended goal, where the education system is disrupted only because it is close to psychoanalysis.

But perhaps colonization is even closer to the education system than psychoanalysis is, for as much as psychoanalysis is dependent on the education system for its raw materials and “research,” colonization has the closeness to actively disrupt the education system, as if it were a direct parent to it. Yet in another way colonization is also far away, for it puts the figure of the colonist-power/colonizer at the horizons while sending through a messenger figure of this colonist-power to do the disruptive work on the education system. Psychoanalysis seeks talking figures to conduct the talking cure, but colonization never presents subjects as talking figures, those that speak are only there to deliver prepared messages after the briefest of interactions, so that the content of their speech is second-hand, and the main reason the messengers are there is to present a written text, a written text prepared with great effort by the colonist-power to erase his/her own mark in it. As written, the text fits well with the education system (or, the textual system) as well as avoiding psychoanalysis (or, the non-textual talking cure) in a single stroke.

With the colony firmly at the horizons of the education system, the expansion of the education system is pre-figured, for it is to go towards colonization itself, it is to further “colonize,” submit to the mentality of colonialism, become colonial. The education system which in smaller form looked to be resistant to the system of colonization and the influence of the colony, upon expansion becomes a prominent force of colonialism itself. The colonized becomes the colony, and psychoanalysis now steps in to record the changes to wider society: the dilution of characters (“the end of history”), the undifferentiated space as replacement for specific context (“the beginning of an inaccurate sociology”), and more, culminating with the abandonment of the psychoanalyst by the education system which once supported it, for in a twist it is the psychoanalyst which now fulfills the role of a historical figure with a narrative and a context. The psychoanalyst becomes an object of knowledge and not the subject who fed off of or even demanded knowledge.    

The United Nations And The Anti-War Protest

The prevalent myth casts the UN as a response to wars that had disrupted the world, and the most special reason for the UN's origination, we are told, was for the prevention of a war such as the second world war. But in fact the UN did not arise to problematize and prevent war. It is clear that war is not being prevented in the world today; there have been numerous wars waged since the UN's inception. Instead, the UN was founded to respond to a particular outgrowth of war: the UN was founded to respond to the act of the anti-war protest. The war was not the issue of concern for the UN, but the anti-war protest was the main outgrowth of war where the UN was to find its true purpose, and thereafter intervene and restore the world to an order.

The UN only intervenes when a particular kind of protest takes place: for the UN to act, the protest must fulfill certain requirements, and thus problematically the UN normalizes the population towards protesting in a certain way. If the protest is outside the boundaries of the UN's requirements, the protest fails to get the scrutiny in the global stage that a “UN-normalized” protest would get. The UN does not just communicate the protest to power, but takes control of the protest and how it progresses, and tries to form itself as the only legitimate link between power and the protesters. Thus it seeks only the normal protest, and if the normal protest seems impossible, it seeks to actively normalize the protest before intervening to stabilize the place.

Protests which are too angry/violent, protests composed entirely of marginalized identities and protests which are “too small” in the number of people involved are all examples of abnormal protests for the UN, which the UN attempts to normalize before publicizing them. By influencing and controlling the types of protests which take place, the UN gets a handle into the problematic region's politics and society, and also mediates the relation between the protesters and the powerful. If a protest does not have a stamp of recognition from the UN, it does not make it to the ears of power at all, and therefore power may be unaware that there is a problem. Moreover, the UN acts not when the power is harmful to the protesters, but rather when the protesters are beginning to become harmful to the way power operates and what power is.

Militarized Zones As Fragmenting A Territory

We tend to think “militarized zones” exist at the borders of a few nations that are suffering from war, but in fact militarized zones exist in and influence the composition of every nation, even peaceful ones. Militarized zones don't exist at the borders exclusively but are bought based on monetary decisions, such as the price of land, the price of fuel to connect one zone with another etc.

Militarized zones used to be clustered around and formed by a single figure. That is how “personal militarization projects” arose, with the personal goal of one single figure dictating the formation of militarized zones. With the submission of land under the monetary system, the military was able to expand its militarized zones simply by purchasing land rather than invading it, that is, the military could act like any business client. Afterwards the size of the purchased land for militarized zones began to dictate such things as the size of the military, its ranks, its activities and the content of subsequent personal militarization projects the higher ranks wished to implement.

As much as the military can be present in many places where it can afford to be present, it can also be absent from a lot of places which need military protection because it cannot afford to establish a militarized zone in there. As a result, paradoxically some populations are overprotected while others more privileged are vulnerable.

Whether it happens because of monetary purchase or by invasion, the building of militarized zones in different parts of the territory causes the people of the different parts to feel autonomy and eventually leads to the fragmentation of the single territory into smaller states. Meaning that, it is the differentiation of one militarized zone from another based on location that causes the single territory to fragment into smaller states. Even in civilians, a “state-making” mentality and initiative forms around a militarized zone.