Sarte, duplicity, Kissinger, Peace, Tommy Beavitt, Richard's philosophy
- I don't feel I'm making the strongest case for duplicity by Kissinger and Sartre would support this position. I do feel basing on the information from the press in the United States and the fact Kissinger isn't going to hold the position and the president has nominated another person there's good information others can make the air tight position I want to make. It's important to use Sartre philosophy, go beyond his analysis of sixty years ago, and not try to state Sartre is the last word. Sartre is relevant to my comments.
I'm stating Kissinger is in duplicity. I don't need Sartre to demonstrate it. I do feel an understanding of Sartre helps one get to the inside of Kissinger's duplicity and I use Sartre as this potential, projecting possibility. I'm of the encounter there's no way Sartre could support Kissinger. Sartre might not be able to support me either and I'm willing to live with it. I'm of great interest how the subscribers to the Sartre list sit by and allow Kissinger to do what he does in the Untied States. I'm trying to distinguish between Being and the opinions of others of Beings behavior or lack of behavior.
I'm a waiter and I'm Being. People see me as both Being and waiter and perhaps something else. People do encounter me and not just observe me. They do see me as Being and not just alienating labor power to serve their needs. I don't deny to me I'm more than just a waiter. The potential, projecting possibility still exists I'm in bad faith. One needs to be careful not to do a mechanical reduction here of the individual to one of [a] Self, and [b] Identity. These are the faults of Carl Jung and George Herbert Mead. You might own to others instead of my examples. We are talking about Being and I note often in your libertarian view you move very quickly from Being to [a] Self, and [b] identity. This isn't an insult to you and this is the observation of several of my associates of your position in regards to Sartre. This was characteristic of much of the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher debates on world affairs. Each encounter of the waiter and customer involves a high level of masochism and sadism and this attempt at control, affection and sexuality is often superior to that of the alienating labor power situation. There's a lot more going on in the situation than what Sartre or Heidegger suggest. Remember Sartre's original analysis is now at least 60 years old and the freedom of choice in capitalism in the United States is far more in advancing change than he knows.
I still own the freedom of choice as waiter to create an impression on the other from the cues of the other and what I need to support my flesh and blood as Being. I live in potential, projecting possibilities and none of these can be in consideration either a Heidegger authentic or a Sartre bad faith. Now in regards to Kissinger, [a] there's the tendency to forgive his behavior, as he was an aide to an elected President of the United States. This is the idea of legitimacy of advising and consenting. [b] Kissinger received approval by the United States senate to be Secretary of States and owning special powers the average citizen doesn't own. [c] The third point is Kissinger owns the right to certain briefing of a top-secret nature of intelligence information the average citizen isn't aware. Now all three of these are issues of vast interest to Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus, and Nietzsche and of course Richard. It's the misuse of these powers rendering the individual as duplicitous, and in bad faith. There's a fourth point [d] and this is Kissinger from the standpoint of  education,  international contacts of both economic and political information,  access to the press, remember Katherine Graham of the Washington Post was a very close friend, and Katherine's friends are some of the richest industrialists, political leaders, and members of the academic community. There's also a fifth point [e] the role of the congress of the United States is one of not only advise and consent on what the Secretary of State can do in a liberal sense but it's also one auditing and investigation and in this case the United States Senate did a very poor job. They do exist in bad faith in many cases. That's Kissinger did own authorization and yet it's not a blank check.
I'm not talking about dis communications or mis communication or one context or another. This is not one of incompetence and it's hard to demonstrate Kissinger as incompetent. The question of duplicity is whom is Kissinger serving. Did he serve 95% of the people or only the top five percent of the industrial-military-political complex? Remember hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives on the information Kissinger gave Nixon On Chile, Vietnam, China, and the United States. There's still hundreds of thousands of people recovering from the physical wounds of this war. The question of Kissinger discharging his role effectively still needs an investigation from the United States Senate to give Henry the benefit of the doubt. Kissinger isn't just a waiter in Sartre's analysis. If Kissinger felt, he could not be authentic. he could have resigned as one of his potential, projecting possibilities. Kissinger not only did duplicity once he did it time after time. Bad faith is a repetition of a pattern and it's not just a moment. The argument is made Kissinger was fighting Communists in Chile and in Vietnam and thus he could do what he wanted. The Constitution of the United States and the agreement he had from the Senate and the people of the United States didn't give him that authority.
It's not a question if Kissinger is right in refusing the Homeland Security job. It's a question how could a president of the United States offer him the job in the first place. Second even if offered how could he even conceive of accepting it. The United States isn't this impoverished of a nation that Kissinger is the only person for the job. For me Kissinger is now a dead issue, and we need to organize and try to defeat George Bush at the polls, in the Senate of the United States, and in the House of Representatives, and in the judicial system of the United States. This isn't only for the United States, but it's also for preventing the possible further overthrows of governments such as in Chile and Vietnam. I would hope Sartre in 2003 would support this position.
Copyright December 31, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]