[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
(2) it is difficult to understand how current events could be worse-handled in terms of nuclear diplomacy, if not for the fact that the existing behavioristic modes of inter- action of competing machineries-of-state ultimately only leads to nuclear brinksmanship, and war, unless changed. it is more difficult to understand what can be done, if only imagined, given recent history and categorical imperatives to pursue due course, into successive disasters based on some pure and secretive understanding that also is wrong. a few of those who begged to differ are no longer around. how much of what is driving current events is on 'autopilot' in relation to nuclear issues- and for which human 'reason'' is not what is driving decision-making, and instead another programming of this machinery to seek a certain agenda... one would not be insane to wonder how a Neoconservative agenda to topple Syria and Iran after invading Iraq is now ramping up to the full pressure of western governments and its influence in international organizations and their affairs-- or how, just yesterday, these two countries were remarked to be the 'Axis of Terror' -- which completes the circle of the model proposed here, by which the War of Terror is actually the Palestinian/Israeli conflict writ-large at the world-scale. what it may mean is that things are actually becoming more realistic while they are also being made more abstract by way of using rhetoric which distorts while clarifying existing situations: that there is an ongoing war between .IL/.PS that is being mediated throughout the mid-east and the west, in which 'terrorism' is a response from this other side of the war, and that by ignoring this dimension, the conflict is unsolvable, and relies on the triumph of one humanity over its neighbors. and this, in a nuclear context, including issues of weaponry, energy, security, economics, development, culture, etc. it would seem that in such a context, that is, of open warfare, that any development of nuclear infrastructure is a threat to one side of this coin-- and that, feasibly, there may be noway to establish nuclear security until the Mid-east war is ended. * this is to say, the 'war of terror' is actually the 'mid-east war' at the world-scale, as it is the ecological effect at world-scale of the Palestinian/Israeli "conflict", between humans and state machineries, including the United Nations and how it mediates what is an ongoing war (that is not considered as being a war) where it is to mediate diplomatic relations as if a referee, and in a precarious situation as for its unbiased legitimacy, and of the idea of the rule-of-law governing international relations at this world-scale, rather than nations ignoring world interests. i.e. going to war by bypassing the .UN, exactly that which the .UN was set up to prevent, as an abuse of nationalist powers. it is a hard-call. what is going to happen. is it just that engines are revving, yet are on blocks and will not be going anywhere in terms of warfare, outside the .UN framework, with relation to nuclear issues? or would it be that actions may be taken in such a way as to ignore international organization, to go out- side of the .UN, and exacerbate existing ongoing and fragile situations, to enflame them in new irrationality and insanity, to stoke the nuclear fires and bring armageddon into the Earth? * there appear to be at least two options for interpretations, modeling, and both exist in the ecological modeling of humans and machineries of state, in relation to ongoing nuclear issues. one is based on the possibility that there is human reason that is at the helm of these interactions, and that while there is a certain dynamic- it does not close down the possibility of new relations and better decision-making; that is, there is sentience in the machinery and it is under human command and control and can be navigated, at national and world-scales, to a new place that may be appearing on the horizon, if it can be seen... otherwise, the other option would appear to be that of state- machinery run amok by ideology, and a certain 'insanity' that is beyond human reasoning, and that the course of nuclear events is pre-destined if only it can proceed apace, untouched. this would be the original Neoconservative plan which seeks to topple Syria* and Iran, under whatever pretext (nuclear, other) as part of a larger war-plan for seeking to rewire the mid-east. (*whatever the goals are, e.g. more democratic representation, while it may not be something to dictate, it would appear that in an environment not based on opponents in regional warfare, that these aspects for improving relations could become a basis for shared diplomacy, so to stop the war, and to build new peace. yet for this to happen, should not the .UN protect the principles of sovereignty between nations, and not become itself a proxy?) * 1) on the assumption human reasoning exists somewhere in all the chaos of nuts and bolts flying off from global machinery as it is being torqued by ideologies that stand in opposition to what has been, up until the Iraq war, an international 'status quo' of nuclear relations based on 'superpower' of .US megamachinery- it may be that there is hope and possibility that what is now being escalated by 'unreasoning' can so too be deescalated by a new type of reasoning about the given states of affairs, which could usher in a new era of nuclear relations, diplomacy, and peace. the serious of the current situation is such that, this week it was stated that nuclear weapons could be used in response to a terrorist attack, by France. indeed, the entirety of western ideology is pounding the drum through mass media using what used to be 'conventional wisdom' that may, instead, be part of the gap that becomes unbridgeable by anything but belief and faith in a given point of view, a leap from 'reason' which was once the foundation of western though and ideas, and into a scary and *terrifying* realm of ideological certitude beyond fact. that would seem to be a realm of the insane, in terms of making calm, cool, and collected foreign (and domestic) policy decisions which are well-reasoned and understood for their lasting effects. it is a real question: what is going to happen with the current hysteria in which the nuclear brinksmanship ultimately calls- into-question the assumptions driving western decision-making, and its Neoconservative roots-- veins if you will, and what it will take to de-vein this ideology from the machinery which it drives, as if by common sense, which is instead a distorted madness... early in February the .UN will get the .US' John Bolton on-board in relation to Iran's nuclear issues- and, what will happen next? this is not to say that there are not legitimate problems, issues, crises even, yet why has the approach remained, obstinately, in place, while all that has resulted from this ideology is disaster? if issues were to be mediated, by diplomacy, at the level of the United Nations, with regard to nuclear security, treaties, energy, weapons, and the end-goal is compliance-- that is one thing. if instead it is to become a call to work outside the .UN, that is an- other, in terms of the nuclear stakes and a use of nuclear bombs (as has been reported) to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, etc. got that? the nuclear bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, in the name of nuclear deterrence and nuclear peace, all in the name of some 'war of terror' which is to make the world a safer place. hopefully all can appreciate the utter insanity of such viewpoints. so one big question becomes if the Nuclear issues stay within a .UN context, or they are scuppered and brought outside of the .UN to pursue the mid-east war by the hands of war criminality. that's why words matter, when someone goes on television and amplifies some basic view that progresses such madness, with- out doing more to prevent such nuclear conflicts from evolving. and that is the path that is currently being, unwisely, pursued... * here's an example of why national logic is limited in effectiveness at engaging issues of nuclear diplomacy at world scale; because it shapes and distorts reasoning (points of view) which may only be accessible at the scale that the questions themselves exist... take Iran's nuclear development and the issue of power plants and nuclear weapons, and the framework of the Nuclear non- Proliferation treaty (NPT) which is dysfunctional, and the role of the United Nations in enforcing what amounts to global hypocrisy with regard to enforcement of rules with regard to truth and power. as stated before, the .UN now exists as a referee to mediate the mid-east war, and it is caught between national and international realities and exists in a paradoxical condition, in which it is only through 'reason' that diplomacy could function beyond nationalist pursuit of wars. the failure to secure a shared world reason, as a public representative of a balanced view of a shared world reality, ultimately would give rise to justifying actions outside the .UN so as to pursue one nation's needs of self-defense from one another. the credibility and effectiveness of the .UN as a world organization are on the line in being able to resolve the current disputes in the mid-east, and failure to do so would likely result in a much larger scale of warfare across the region and the world, if it does fail... this would be because there are no rules which are observed, to show restraint and be held in check (and balance). a tipping point, a moment of truth, the point of no return, ... nuclear anarchy, etc. so the world machine is revving up, yet it is in conflict, there is opposition to the motivations of one bias over another, and a certain kind of nuclear balancing is going on, which is holding back an ideological categorical imperative (of Neoconservatives) which drove current events, such as with the existing Iraq war. and the context for the Iraq war, and the War of Terror (such as in Afghanistan) is actually the Mid-east War writ worldwide. and this war is ongoing, and there is a subconsciousness to it, as an issue, and in a type of collective unconsciousness there is 'the nuclear issue' which may be about energy, yet which in a context of such an ongoing war (of decades) could feasibly and reasonably be equated with a new threat level for those involved in this war, with which there are sides (if .PS or .IL) yet at the world-scale both-sides may be real and important and may need to find new balance to stop the short-circuiting, a new relation at a shared scale (both .PS + .IL) which could actually stop the war and enable desired regional development wanted on all sides of the coin, yet which can only be built in peacetime. by engaging issues from a shared perspectives. and likewise, the openings exist in current events by which to proceed, if only the automated machinery were to step- back from the brink, and shift in another direction altogether. * for instance, Iran's nuclear energy program, under the .UN framework led by the IAEA's Mr. El Baradei, could turn the existing situation (standoff) between Iran and the west into a pilot program between .RU and .IR for implementing the idea of a .UN Nuclear Fuel-Bank which could resolve many of the outstanding issues until a new treaty can be forged, which addresses the very real concerns about security risks. that the .UN is not progressing in such a way may simply be an issue of media, that such options are not being reported or seen as feasible in the current context- who knows. yet it is an option- and a much better option than what now exists. what is now being pursued is talk of Iran's nuclear programs in terms of weapons development. any state worth its salt likely has secret programs being developed, as a matter of fact, in this is one of the things state's do when they compete. one might get nightvision helmets for livestock out of such a deal, or nuclear bombs and missiles which change the world. and with secrecy of states, it is also matter of course that no state likely would believe another state is telling the truth in regard to being fully honest about its secret programs-- if only based on personal experience. yet, just because it may seem that 'if' there is a possibility for a nuclear weapons program, 'then' there is a nuclear weapons program-- could also turn out to be inaccurate in terms of another way of considering the dimensions. or, to not suspect the worst case and simply accept an agreement in the framework of a broken nuclear treaty could also leave open the very real possibly, by way of precedent, that nuclear weapons could be on the agenda. further, if the state's reviewing such issues, which are also opponents, are themselves threatening nuclear actions it adds a certain dynamic, and none of it looks promising... if instead of 'individual' failures this situation is instead to be considered a dysfunctional context in which nation-states have to engage such complexities, either between them- selves or through the United Nations at the world-scale-- it could be considered that this context is more complex than any one viewpoint and stepping back to see larger patterns may help clarify a simple observation about this regional (and world) circuitry which could offer direction... like in Syriana, one action influences many other actions that ultimately balance out in larger ecological relations... and for the .US or .IL or the .EU-3 to engage the nuclear issues with Iran (vice-versa) would be counter-productive if using the logic (pre-Iraq war) which is uni-polar versus a multi-polar relationship of dynamic non-linear relations. for, actions at a national scale which are 'too simple a simplicity' could actually cause bigger problems than they are to solve, because the modeling is wrong, ineffective, and-or inaccurate. take for instance forgoing diplomatic negotiations (however complex and challenging from a western point of view) for a strike at taking out what may or may not be Iran's nuclear development. there are so many reasons why this is a bad idea, worse than Iraq, even, yet a focus on one is that of a nuclear clarion call: if Iran is willing and ready to negotiate, on new terms in which it exists in a multi-polar arrangement and, duly, is given a balance of respect, autonomy, and sovereignty if taken outside the ongoing mid-east war at the world- scale of the .UN, and the paradox is that it is impossible to know - one way or the other - the absolute truth with regard to nuclear weapons programs-- what would be the better choice, with regard to decisions to be made... * if the unipolar ideology, driven by the Neoconservativist agenda is to utilized the .US, .EU, and .UN machineries of state to pressure Iran with regard to the mid-east war, which would prepare a pre-text for use of sanctions and- or strikes (war) against Iran in the name of 'rules of law' based on views of 'men' existing beyond international law, it would be to seek to destroy a program that may well-be already hidden, and could or could not exist (Schroedinger's cat) yet to act would change the outcome of what is now in a diplomatic framework and ready to resolve/evolve issues in a way that can bring some assurances to such a threat. if going outside of this diplomacy, and striking out at any perceived programs, it could instead create programs where now there may be none, and e.g. it could give rise to the obligation to then retaliate using nuclear weaponry. what such actions would do is upset the nuclear stability which could resolve these issues, diplomatically, over a period of transitioning from the old world-relations to a new world-relation, versus going off the deep end of the nuclear MAD strategy of a mutually assured destruction, at world-scale, in terms of worldwide war of nuclear terror. who has such a right to usher in such nuclear holocaust? and why would such a right exist beyond any human law? or world governance? who voted on such leadership? or might it be that this is an existing ecological situation which may need to be navigated through, to calmer waters, by restraining the automated machineries ready and willing to pursue such inhuman actions, without regard for or obligation to acknowledge the human consequences, if only for the food of greater profit of war, and its values... the other option would be to consider the people on the other side of the coin, to listen to their words, their word. that they seek respect, that they are at war with others who are our allies (.IL) and yet they are ready to offer guarantees and cooperation beyond the old relationships, including co-development projects, etc. while this may not be perceived as 'being enough' to satisfy concerns, or it may be considered by spoiled aristocrats to be insulting to be equated to being on the same level at world-scale, and not having superiority of reasoning, only in having a SUPEREGO, and an ideological predisposition to boot-- that this is actually a necessary and productive opening to address the concerns of any covert nuclear weapons programs by forging an initiative which balances energy needs with greater security understandings between the states now in conflict, to ensure there are no programs-- and whatever programs there were or may have been-- that they are privately addressed so as to bring absolute compliance with the need for transparency, to a degree that it satisfies concerns, in exchange for establishing a new relation based on peaceful nuclear developments. why this is not simply naive or wishful or whatever other biases the editorial dim-bulbs can conjure in mass media is because ultimately, if the question is nuclear security-- Iran is needed on the same side as Israel, the .US, and others, if there is to be greater nuclear security. there is no way around this fact. ultimately, you have to engage the right to nuclear development, and find a way to shape it so that it works for everyone: and if based on shared reasoning one path can be followed which benefits all, else it can be placed into the binarism of the mid-east war and continue that death-spiral with nuclear weapons. is there actually a choice? or is it a matter of new reality? and that the old logic of national supremacy as judge of decision-making by diktat, no longer can do a long-haul. and so it requires taking a step back, and making a shift. this is the assumption: that the Iranian's are the best and most capable people at stopping nuclear weapons from developing, and to work with them is different than trying to control them, and it is not a question of if this is the case, only when the Western diplomats will realize it. the overall context, though, is now one of a global war held on behalf of the war of the mid-east in which the Iranians and the Israelis (thus, the .US, .EU, .UN, etc) are on another side of this conflict. thus, it may not be possible in a context of war, without a treaty of peace. * here's the other course that events could careen down, and it is very possible given the automatic and oftentimes seemingly unthinking actions of failed ideologies of states... that is, if one is to imagine the Neoconservative agenda is still on the tracks, and determined to speed off the world- mountain if given the chance, and there is a target date of February-March in which this could be the outcome, given existing pressures and dynamics-- at the same time there is a fragile improvement of engaging the situation Iraq with regard to withdrawing .US troops -- that this boiling cauldron of conflicts could once again boil over based on some secret pretext by which to undermine or overpower the 'reasoning' of humans in relation to the machineries-- in that machines could be said to act on behalf of some humans, against the machinery (and humanity) of another, outside of legal frameworks which seek to constrain deviant nationalists. in other words: what if, once again, there is a call to war, that 'diplomacy' is not good enough, and that there is a lot of secret information by which people are to trust their respective machineries of state, to act on their behalf, by stoking the world-wide-war-machine to enter into battle? what the hell can be done about it, if it is not only wrong, illegal, immoral, unjust, but also insane in its operation and beyond human control stop its automated actions? first of all, the context would be of decision-making that is dealing with nuclear issues that would exist 'beyond human reason' which is, effectively, in a realm of insanity. that is, while it may be in the best interests of an inhuman machinery, it would not be in the best interests of humanity. thus, it could automatically seek to evolve nuclear tensions and even nuclear actions, armageddon if you will, in the name of peace, security, love, god, hope, whatever it takes. it doesn't matter; what matters is that this is the agenda and whatever it takes to pursue the agenda is what is necessary. at such a point it could equate with a nuclear terror machine which is run amok, on autopilot, beyond human governance, which further pursues the inhumanity of Neoconservatives... if this is not a reincarnation of the Nazi Machine, nothing is. and let's say, within the next 1-2 months it would be clear that human reason is not operating at the scale of nation- states (in the West) and they are not beholden to their own citizens and human constituencies, and instead their masters are corporate machines which may or may seek to benefit, to profit from the conflicts, in one way or another, and thus it is a way of corporate strategy to pursue the continued develop- ment of the current (historical) trajectory, as it is the basis for corporate machines to sustain themselves, rather than having to change, evolve, adapt to other (more human) circumstances. thus, the humanity can be taken out of the equations, though the mass media may say otherwise, and present such actions as having to occur on behalf of protecting peoples from evils outside the realm of human reason, an existential enigma in which the threat is the reality, there are no gaps, only terror. to question this, in the past, may be to equate a citizen with a terrorist. who knows- has an enlightened view somehow evolved from the existing madness into a greater understanding of the questioning- and thus the problems, that actually exist? with regard to terrorism, nuclear diplomacy, war, madness? for it would seem rather sane, as if one may need to 'go sane' in order to grapple with the levels of misrepresentation that, ecologically, feed off one another, and may precipitate nuclear conflicts, nuclear armageddon even, in order to satisfy needs of a broken system of machines in relation to human governance. and what if the world nuclear machinery is ready to fuse and then fissile all over the planet, and people are now hopelessly helpless to do anything about it, because they are not being represented nor are they in control of their own democracies? at this point, if there is an automated nuclear madness which is running amok, there is something that every westerner can do and especially those in the .US, by using an old standard of the revolutionary playbook: No Taxation without Representation. to stop an automated machine which seeks war, against the wishes and will of its own people, which is detached from its own people yet seeks to pursue a course of action that in fact is against the interests of its own people, would be to justify actions of an automated machinery of state on behalf of a democracy that does not exist. and thus functions as a state out of control, and not representative of its own human public. which, as a result, could create and result in nuclear conflict. to recommend the following as a citizen would be only for the given circumstance, and should be considered an action of human patriotism, for human governance, not of machines. it would be to seek a referendum of government actions and policies said to be on behalf of human citizens, when in fact they are not serving the human populace, only corporations and a devolved, inhuman, behavioristic machinic-worldview. automated machinery relies on one thing in order to function: food. it needs to eat and digest the food in order to have the energy to pursue its dominance. should this machinery turn on its own people, and be unresponsive to their needs, it is the only way to bleed the machinery to stop its rogue actions. by acts of civilian disobedience, organized by networks of citizens and organizations, the TAXES which fuel the state can be withheld in referendum to policies which are not representing the will of the people, and thus at the same economies of scale which feed the existing automation of decision-making by way of corporate interests and ideology, could instead be brought into checks and balances with the human work, which ultimately allows this machine to exist in its current form. by withholding taxes, as an act of civil disobedience, the priorities of the machinery of state would need to be defined in relation to the needs of human beings in the current framework of the pursuit if the 'war of terror', the ignoring of poverty, health, racial, and other concerns would be reflected in what gets cut to pursue the current mission to seek world domination, if this is indeed the case, and with some 50+ % of the population against the direction of this automated approach to world and domestic affairs, it would provide at the very least a big enough hiccup in the system to force a referendum upon existing policies, and directions, assumptions, and the basis for their pursuit. there would be too many people to arrest, and any limiting of revenues which fuel this machine would force decisions and value judgments which would further reflect 'values' and their humanity or inhumanity, what is prioritized with exploiting of tax base and revenue to fuel such madness. if any sizable portion of the population were to threaten to WITHHOLD TAXES as an act of civil disobedience, it would be to beat 'no new taxes' by doing it one better: NO TAXES. that is, NO TAXES until policy aligns with human populations which are based on democratic (not corporate) governance. this would be the actions of 'freedom fighters' not 'terrorists', and what the machinery might do could be likely the latter... it is to force a behavioral reflex by which to understand how it functions, what it is capable and going to do, and if there ever was a time to make it happen, in the next 2 months, it is to prepare for such an event, before this TAX SEASON, in case the worst-case emerges-- that of nuclear conflict. it should be prepared for and held in reserve, and within a month of April 15th it should be decided by those who are willing to pursue civil disobedience, whether or not to call a TAX STRIKE. it should not be called unless there are events which are pursuing the Neoconservative agenda at the world scale, without constraint and out of control in relation to human governance. it would rely on professional networks and the internet to coordinate and to cohesively pursue this legal action on behalf of human citizens in the democracy. it is not an action against the IRS, and it is not an action against the idea of TAXES, it is against a ROGUE governance that is not being held to account by its people, by democratic checks and balances, and this has become only way to address problems at the scale they now occur. to bleed the automatism and bring it under human control. if it is not appropriate this year, and hopefully it is not as we need the .US troops to return home without a hitch, so as to restore democracy in the .US, -- it can be held out as an option in the coming year, in addition to other strikes -- such as by civil disobedience of citizens in the mass media. in the stock market they have something they call 'shock therapy' for when things short-circuit, so as to prevent an- other Black Friday event of huge selloffs which evaporates everything. this is similar in concept, yet for a democracy of human beings, based on interpretation of individual rights in the .US constitution, to serve, protect, and defend the .US constitution, the state as individuals and a collective, against external and internal insurrection which deviates from its goals and principles to serve another agenda. it is thus that this approach is shared, if it is to come down to this, that to this is the way to prepare, precede, and act. that is, this approach should be used only if those now governing the machinery of state are beyond reason and speak of pursuing what is an illogical path to nuclear war. (* those who know me, this is it. do anything and every- thing it takes. there may not be another chance, before things take another turn for the worse, including pending threats of new terrorist attacks, which could be nuclear... this is the chance we have to enact changes on this scale. please use your networks and imaginations, coordinated across diverse views, for the common goal of referendum of policies to be brought in line with our public demands. please use everything you have. everyone is on the same side on this, and it is absolutely necessary to be prepared to act, in the near-term. if not, the future may disappear.) it is only in the event of a worst-case scenario: if it becomes the worst-case, this becomes the scenario... [cont.] the electronetwork-list http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net