Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Clinton on the New State

Published by

Clarissa

on

People, make sure you watch Bill
Clinton on CNN right now. He is saying exactly what I’ve been saying about the advent of a new state-form. He doesn’t use the words ” nation-state”, but who cares.

Clinton said (I’m writing from memory, of course): information technology and all kinds of new technology have made the power in the world too dispersed. This created a new kind of threat. (He was answering a question about Khorasan here.) If we want the government to prevent bad things from happening, it will be up to us to make good things happen.

Got it? In the new state-form, the government’s role is to fight terrorism. And it falls to the citizens to provide for their own welfare. Just as I’ve been saying.

10 responses to “Clinton on the New State”

  1. Z Avatar
    Z

    That is what his presidency was about supporting and fomenting, too. National governments = police acting on behalf of corporations. State = those governments, and corporations, and I guess the ISAs.

    Like

    Reply
  2. b g Avatar
    b g

    This is a total wet dream. Quit it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      What, Clinton talking about the welfare state? 🙂

      Like

      Reply
  3. el Avatar
    el

    \\ In the new state-form, the government’s role is to fight terrorism. And it falls to the citizens to provide for their own welfare.

    Are Europeans, Australians, Canadians and Americans so threatened by terrorism that their governments should do nothing except fighting it? It’s just “we don’t want to help you anymore, provide for your own welfare.” Terrorism is an excuse, not a reason.

    This sentence is especially disgusting: ” If we want the government to prevent bad things from happening, it will be up to us to make good things happen.”

    In Israel, at least, there is a real threat of terrorism. Which doesn’t mean most Israelis would be happy to “provide for their own welfare,” without social safety net.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Yes, the terror acts in New York, Madrid and London were extremely traumatic. They shattered the nation-state model forever. These terrorists were different from any terrorists we’d seen before (Basque, Palestinian, Chechen, etc) in that they were not attached to any territory and were not seeking a nation-state. They speak a different language and a state that wants to fight them needs to learn that language. Curiously, Israel hasn’t encountered this deterritorialized fluid highly modern form of terrorism yet. When it does, it will have to adapt, too.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        \\ They speak a different language and a state that wants to fight them needs to learn that language.

        Which doesn’t logically have to prevent it from caring about citizens’ welfare.

        \\ Curiously, Israel hasn’t encountered this deterritorialized fluid highly modern form of terrorism yet. When it does, it will have to adapt, too.

        Does “adapting” mean “giving IDF even more money and having IDF adapt to fighting new threats”? What else should change?

        I am also quite sceptical about becoming more secure as the result of even bigger military spending. May be, what one spends money on should change rather than the amount of spent money. For instance, American new project of nuclear renovation seems not the best weapon against terrorists with no nation state.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          “Which doesn’t logically have to prevent it from caring about citizens’ welfare.”

          – For what purpose would the state keep providing for the citizens’ welfare? Nothing happens without a purpose.

          “Does “adapting” mean “giving IDF even more money and having IDF adapt to fighting new threats”? What else should change?”

          – No, I think it’s the opposite. One cannot defeat this on one’s own. New alliances need to be made. And they will be. I’m not discounting the possibility of Israel and Iran or Israel and independent Palestine fighting together against a common threat. Obviously, this will not happen today.

          ” For instance, American new project of nuclear renovation seems not the best weapon against terrorists with no nation state.”

          – You are absolutely right, this is a great danger.

          Like

          Reply
  4. el Avatar
    el

    \\ You are absolutely right, this is a great danger.

    What “a great danger” is? Governments not adapting well and spending huge money on the wrong projects?

    Like

    Reply
  5. el Avatar
    el

    \\ Curiously, Israel hasn’t encountered this deterritorialized fluid highly modern form of terrorism yet. When it does, it will have to adapt, too.

    In Israel you hear “now, when the Western world sees ISIS, they will understand what we have to deal with vs. Hamas.” Equating the two. Many of those writers of newspaper columns probably truly don’t differentiate between the two kinds of terror.

    One also hears the claim that since Hamas won’t cease the terror till Israel stops to exist, there is no difference between Hamas and radical Islamic terror movements, like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      “In Israel you hear “now, when the Western world sees ISIS, they will understand what we have to deal with vs. Hamas.” Equating the two. Many of those writers of newspaper columns probably truly don’t differentiate between the two kinds of terror.”

      – The quality of print journalism has sunk very low everywhere.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts