Esque ex le morte de Osama bin Laden emergera un nove paradigma historic? Esque illo vermente explicara le condition human actual?

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Lo que es horribile sur Osama bin Laden esseva que ille adjuvava a occider milles de personas innocente in multe partes del mundo. Ma anque, de un maniera stranie, ille anque esseva multo utile pro le Occidente. Ille simplificava le mundo. Quando collabeva le communismo in 1989, le narrativo principal del relationes exterior del Statos Unite, illo del battalia contra le fortias del bon (le traditiones del Occidente contra illos del Union Sovietic), arrivava immediatemente a su fin. Mesmo un historico american, Francis Fukuyama, scribeva un libro, “The End of Hitory” (le fin del historia), que prediceva que le conflictos e competition del historia habeva arrivate a lor fin e que le collapso del Union Sovietic representava le comenciamento de un nove era auree.

Ma in 1998, durante le episodio hysteric de Monica Lewinsky e su affaire sexual con Bill Clinton, un nove inimico american emergeva, Osama bin Laden, qui con su consiliero ideologic Ayman al-Zawahiri, comenciava a parlar de un “inimico proxime” e un “inimico distante”, e desde 2001, illes deveniva le “inimico distante” del Statos Unite.

Politicos neoconservative, qui habeva arrivate a un position de poter considerabile durante le administration presidential de Ronald Reagan durante le Guerra Frigide contra le Union Sovietic, usava le pauco que se cognosceva sur iste duo homines in le annos novanta pro construer un nove paradigmo historic pro le relationes exterior del Statos Unite, e Al Qaeda deveniva le nove Union Sovietic e bin Laden deveniva un nove Stalin o Darth Vader qui, desde su caverna in Afghanistan, dirigeva un vaste rete de terroristas musulman cuje objectivo esseva le destruction del civilisation occidental.

Le jornalistas occidental voleva un retorno al simplicitate del dies del Guerra Frigide con su divisiones manichean a in fortias del bon contra illos del mal. E bin Laden, qui ben cognosceva manipular le medios de communication international, les adjuvava. Ille construeva su proprie paradigmo historic del fortias del bon, le islam, contra le fortias del mal, le Occidente con su decadentia sexual, que solmente poterea resolver se con le victoria del islam sur omne le paises del mundo.

Assi se construeva le versiones negative e positive del mesmo photographo in blanc e nigro, ma, naturalmente, le neoconservativos statounitese e le musulmanes extremist habeva ideas opponite sur exactemente qui poteva identificar se con le fortias del bon e illos del mal.

In le medio de iste nove paradigmo historic emerge un nove fortia, un nove generation in le Oriente Medie qui vole disfacer se del governamentos despotic del mundo arabe appoiate per le Statos Unite. Usque nunc, nos non ha potite verificar le nove leaders de iste revolutionarios e lor objectivos final. Ma il deveni de plus in plus clar que illes non se inspira con le mesme idealismo de Al Qaeda.

In lor effortios pro simplificar le mundo pro lor lectores e televidentes, le jornalistas trova partes del realitate e fragmentos de eventos que non se conforma ben bon con lor paradigmos historic simplificate. Isto deveni de plus in plus evidente in le caso del guerra statounitese in Afghanistan e Pakistan.

Le Statos Unite invadeva Afghanistan con le objectivo simple de destruer le scholas establite illac per Al Qaeda pro formar terroristas qui plus tarde poterea facer attaccos sur Europa e le Statos Unite e incoragiar le disveloppamento de un governamento in Kabul que governarea le pais secundo establite normas international. Ma il ha un varietate de interesses politic in conflicto in ille parte del mundo, e il es impossibile classificar los in fortias completemente bon o mal. De iste caldieron ha emergite un governamento in Kabul corrupte que vermente non pote controlar le major parte del pais.

Intertanto, proque bin Laden moriva in Pakistan, Hamid Karzai de Afghanistan insiste que le ver inimico es Pakistan e que le lucta contra le terror in su pais es un phantasia. Ma nos anque sape que lo que dice Karzai tamben pote esser un phantasia que ille usa pro justificar le poter crescente del fortias elite de su proprie governamento.

Forsan con le morte de bin Laden il essera possibile re-evaluar le actual paradigmo manichean international. Ma le question le plus importante es como esserea modificate le paradigma actual o si emergera un nove paradigma historic.

Un altere question importante es si il es possibile vermente construer paradigmas historic que explica vermente ben le processos complicate que governa le affaires human. Il anque es ver que tal paradigmas es construite per illes qui ha le potentia politic pro imponer los sur omne nos per lor controlo del medios de communication. E il anque es possibile que le proxime nove paradigma historic non se originara in le Occidente o in le Medie Oriente ma in India e China.

Le possibilitate final es que le realitates social del humanitate como un collectivo es troppo complicate pro esser comprendite secundo le patronos complicate e totevia mysteriose del diverse mechanismos del cerebro human e que, como consequentia, nos essera condemnate al ignorantia perpetual sur multe cosas que es multo importante.

---

Will another historical paradigm come out of bin Laden’s death? Will it really explain the current human condition?

What is horrible about Osama bin Laden was that he helped kill thousands of innocent people in many parts of the world. But also, in a strange way, he also was very useful for the Occident. He simplified the world. When communism collapsed in 1989, the principal narrative of U.S. foreign relations, the one about the battle against the forces of good (the traditions of the Occident against those of the Soviet Union), immediately came to an end. Even an American historian, “Francis Fukuyama, wrote a book “The End of History,” which predicted that the conflicts and competition of history had arrived at an end and that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the beginning of a new golden age.

But in 1998, during the hysterical episode of Monica Lewinsky and her sexual affair with Bill Clinton, a new American enemy emerged, Osama bin Laden, who with his ideological advisor Ayman al-Zawahiri, started to talk about a “near enemy” and a “distant enemy,” and after 2001 they became the “distant enemy” of the United States.

Neoconservative politicians, who had arrived at a considerable position of power during the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan during the Cold War against the Soviet Union, used the little that was known about these two men in the 1990s to construct a new historical paradigm for the foreign relations of the United States, and Al Qaeda became the new Soviet Union, and bin Laden became a new Stalin or Darth Vader who, from his cave in Afghanistan, managed a vast network of Muslim terrorists whose goal was to destroy Western Civilization.

Western journalists wanted a return to the simplicity of the days of the Cold War with its Manichean divisions into forces of good and evil. And bin Laden, who knew quite well how to manipulate international communications media, helped them out. He constructed his own historical paradigm of the forces of good, Islam, against the forces of evil, the Western World with its sexual decadence, which could only be resolved with the victory of Islam over all the countries of the world.

In this way two negative and positive versions were constructed of the same black-and-white photo, but naturally U.S. neoconservatives and extremist Muslims had opposed ideas of exactly who could be identified with the forces of good and evil.

In the middle of this new historical paradigm there emerged a new force, a new generation in the Middle East who wanted to get rid of the despotic governments of the Arab world suppoted by the United States. Up to now, we have not been able to identify the new leaders of these revolutionaries and their final goals. But it is becoming more and more clear that they are not inspired by the same idealism as Al Qaeda.

In their efforts to simplify the world for their readers and television viewers, journalists run into parts of reality and fragments of events that do not conform well with their simplified historical paradigms. This is becoming more and more evident in the case of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The United States invaded Afghanistan with the simple objective of destroying the schools established there by Al Qaeda to train terrorists who later on would be able to attack Europe and the United States and encourage the development of a government in Kabul that would govern the country according to established international norms. But there are various political interests in conflict in that part of the world, and it is impossibible to classify them into forces completely good or evil. From this cauldron a corrupt government in Kabul has emerged that really cannot control most of the country.

In the meantime, because bin Laden died in Pakistan, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan insists that the real enemy is Pakistan and that the fight against terror in his country is a fantasy. But we also know that what Karzai says can itself be a fantasy that he is using to justify the growing power of the elite forces of his own government.

Perhaps with the death of bin Laden it will be possible to re-evaluate the current international Manichean paradigm. But the most important question is whether the current paradigm will be modified or if another historical paradigm will emerge.

Another important question is if it is possible to really construct historical paradigms that really explain well the complicated processes that govern human affairs. It is also true that such paradigms are constructed by those who have the political power to impose them on all of us through their control of the communications media. And it is also possible that the next historical paradigm will not originate in the West but in India and China.

The final possibility is that the social realities of humanity as a collective are too complicated to be understood according to the diverse and complicated mechanisms of the human brain and that as a consequence we will be condemned to perpetual ignorance about a lot of very important things.