Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Your daily integral ghost

Posted January 19th, 2012 by Brian OConnell

In Reference to:

In this evolver David gave some push back on Jeff's comments. Jeff's position was that the conflict with Iran was a lot of puffed upness and that Obama would not go to war. We would not do another Iraq. David gave the example of WWII and how the US put a oil block on Japan and we acted like we had no idea Pearl Harbor was coming. And the position was that the experts never thought they could harm us. But the history shows that the US government new Pearl Harbor was coming and allowed it to happen to justify going to War. In Iraq we were lied to about WMD and we went to War. But now Jeff thinks Iran is making a WMD( but IAEA says they aren't) and that sanctions are correct and assassinations are correct. And to Jeff's credit he mentions how WMD is a mutual destruction issue where powers would never use them, so this is all puffed up. And that this will most likely resolve without real violence. David talks about how democracy is eroding in the US, but Jeff claims we are freer and have fare elections. What? Did Jeff actually study the voting process in the US? Its not the voting that matters, but the counting of votes. (blackbox). And has Jeff not understood the Constitution and how it was meant to be a Republic that has changed to a Democracy and how now it is a Corporatocracy or inverted totalitarianism. Forms of Gov So David goes on. And if it is about regimes that are not humanitarian to its people, why just Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia, north Korea, etc. Which misses the history of how the CIA has put the dictators in power in these countries including the SHAH of Iran. Here But lets not go there, doesn't fit current integral understanding. David wants a value based leadership and not blue fear based. Jeff goes into how Obama and Romney have to play the game. Its the best we can do in a messy imperfect world( you know, make threats, sanctions, assassinations, preemptive war). Jeff goes into how we have supported the revolutions in the middle east against the dictators( But the US actually put them in place) but then the issue of the democratic process leading to Islamic traditional rule being elected. Which Jeff gives the response of this is intolerable cause they are a threat. Just like this ?

Jeff's position is one of its a theater with no real possibility of War after Iraq. Really, what was Libya? US backing a natural revolution, sure it was Jeff. And just keep believing the made for you already points of view. This evolver dialogs look like how to reinterpret Fox/CNN news to speak to green and integral .

Kudos to you David for pushing back. Keep it up. Hope the antithesis will be strong enough for a new synthesis.

Jeff, you need a updated history lesson. Start Here

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Yes!

Posted January 19th, 2012 by Brent Simpson

Just wanted to lend a voice of support for this message.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

haunting the political stage

Posted January 19th, 2012 by Layman Pascal

Now, I am definitely an interventionist -- and most of the time I don't care about the "honesty" of political reasoning in terms of initiating interventions. But I do care a lot about results. So my concern is about how the next international military engagement can be qualitatively improved -- not whether it will or not happen. And whether our next election will function qualitatively better -- not whether we do or do not have "voting freedom".

But is quality what we're getting from public figrues who are "pragmatically" constrained to dance the dance and preserve the fundamental structures of our political, military and corporate regime? It seems that every actual positive distinction in our system is matched or outmatched by an entrenched order of false freedom.

So I'm glad to see charged push back in all these conversations. Clearly our "educated" discourse has been insufficiently radical.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Some more distinctions needed

Posted January 19th, 2012 by Brian OConnell in response to haunting the political stage

Can you express more on what you mean about qualitative improvement and what this would look like and what you mean by "entrenched order of false freedoms"? I too see times where intervention is appropriate. But I don't like hidden interventions that causes an outright intervention. An intervention on a already existing hidden intervention from the same nation or allied nation groups(CIA and Mossad). Like the hidden oil block on Japan ( intervention) and that lead to blowback from Japan, which allowed the justification of a outright intervention( WWII). But you seem to not care about the reasoning for intervention but its quality and results. But this false way of starting Wars has been the norm since and including WWI. This is a strange position to have, which I am sure you can clear up for me. That you do not care why we go to War just the quality of it. "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" (LOL)

And what would be the desired results? Getting ride of fanatics? Get ride of dictators? Changing what to what?

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

the pascal doctrine

Posted January 20th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to Some more distinctions needed

THE PASCAL DOCTRINE

The metrics for qualitative improvement in international are open to debate. It is fairly simple to suggest that if the number of annual deaths in a country is reduced, rather than drastically increased, following "international intervention" then this is probably a good thing. Is the local government more stable and progressive afterwards (not merely more conformed to the conventions of the current global order)? Has the local ability to deepen and heal its citizens and creature ecological surplus rather than ecological scarcity improved? These are all the sorts of things we should be looking for -- however we also have to accept morally that within certain limits it is okay for a more developed country to fuck with a less developed country.

Is it tolerable for one evil brainwashed oligarchic state to impose legal protections for women and children upon another evil brainwashed oligarchic state? Yes... provided the means are not so egregious that the suffering produced outweighs the gains. AND none of this in any way justifies the current socio-economic and ethical retardation of the so-called "developed nations".

By "entrenched order of false freedoms" I mean such things as:

American-style majoritarian democracy instead of an up-to-date means of maximizing collective intelligence for social decision making,
faux-representative party-politics instead of a more flexible competition between rival social protocols
feudal-trending oligarchic control masquerading as the putative economic freedom of shoppers, employees and corporate institutions
a general ethos of willful "choice" over "quality of outcome"
regressive & monopolistic control of currency and economic policy instead of well-managed, pluralistic schemes of exchange
a political climate in which NOT having a government health care option is felt popularly to be a victory for individual liberty
international economic development institutions who reject, in principle, the ecological limitations of economy and whose "help" to developing nations is all too often an ideologically & structurally self-serving mechanism which inhibits local cultural development and requires conformity to the prevailing needs of finacialized capital in distant lands.
the idea that we can collectively sacrifice the human and environmental sources of wealth in order to give "rising nations" the freedom to develop through similar toxic phases to our own history.

The list could go on for some time detailing the national and international domains in which the assumption of liberty is part of the social system mechanics which inhibits the deepening and widening of freedom, health, safety, evolution and empowerment.

With you I am deeply suspicious of the forces which might be wielding lies and popular sentiment to arrange classically tragic interventions whose horrors are the logical extension of the apparently reasonable and piece-meal minor interventions which lead up to conflict. I think sanctions on Iran are an extremely dangerous mater which could flip, accidentally or with conspiratorial purpose, into low-grade mass intervention. However I think the recent assassinations of nuclear scientists is probably a sensible move which buys time for other strategies. It is difficult for anyone to know who is sane, sane-but-socially-duped, and outright pathological in the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of various nations.

History abounds with False Flags & other deceptive preludes to holocaust -- supposed solutions which are no more than active creations of the conflict which is coming. However this does not mean than in principle the slightly saner nations should not deploy cunning, deception, violation of superficial international law and other popular manipulations in order to place themselves in a situation where harsh engagement begins. In practice we have to be extremely wary of this. But such wariness is built on our demand for smarter, safer, more multi-dimensional interventions with a higher qualitative standard of outcome.

A quick study of the history of modern policing shows that most of even the best forces in the world began as criminal gangs, full of lies, etc. The point for me is not that selfish, brutal, dark and deluded elements are pulling the strings and calling it rational, peace-loving progress. The point is rather that some forms of evil tend to develop toward good more readily than others.

How will get an effective, reliable global police force which the citizens of earth can whole-heartedly affirm and look up to? Who should support them and why? Who should they attack and why? These are tough questions which we approach within an environment of socio-economic delusion and widespread regressive psychology. While securing the image of radical change we must also decide which devils to back at which times.

Who do we intervene against? Ultimately anyone who is plotting or enabling mass danger, genocide, ecocide, or even the mass destroying of hearts and souls. But we can't bankrupt and annihilate and imprison ourselves in the process. And we can't exempt ourselves and our corporate-political ally nations from radical improvement. Yes, we go after dictators, but even then quality counts. Having been elected is no mark of health. Nor is tyranny a necessary sign that a regime is bad for its people and for the planet. And if we find our leaders and warriors are insufficiently intelligent, strong, healthy, culturally sensitive, admirable, etc. then we address that first. Toxic, ignorant and imbalanced people will not get good results even if they are acting according to sensible ethical injunctions. Whereas healthy, balanced, smart people will get pretty good results even when acting in sinister ways.

But it's never a matter of being contented with this -- the demand for radical improvements has to brought down upon every aspect of national and international affairs.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to:

pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Please Log in to Vote.

Your daily integral ghost

Please Log in to Vote.

Yes!

Please Log in to Vote.

haunting the political stage

Please Log in to Vote.

Some more distinctions needed

Please Log in to Vote.

the pascal doctrine