<nettime> on establishing a long-term truce / c.2

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

  on nuclear peace and middle-east peace policy: or,
  how to stop the war of terror and build upon peace

  on establishing a long-term truce / c.2	(cont.)

---

  one of the biggest issues in considerations of a truce
  in the given context is that it is unclear that machines-
  of-state will not continue to progress according to their
  pre-programmed ideological roles, now matter what is
  attempted to be mediated using shared human reason,
  so as to seek a draw by which to transform the situation.

  thus, prior to proposing steps for a truce - a potential
  pre-peace treaty framework for engaging the mid-east
  conflict in the terms it exists, rather than in the fictional
  'war of terrorism' that seeks to obfuscate this viewpoint -
  it is still necessary to once again address the context in
  which the .US and the western ideology are, by default,
  incapable of engaging in terms of such a truce, officially.

  this is to say that there is an ideological pre-disposition
  to war which in the context of the 'war of terror' would
  make it seem to be a simple issue of good versus evil.
  whereas, it is that the .US and western countries exist
  on one-side of the mid-east conflict, and thus decision-
  making at a policy level of machineries of state, have
  inherent bias, which to date is in defense of policies in
  regard to the mid-east which are oppressive to others
  in the mid-east and are being fought against in a war,
  now world-wide, and those fighting this other side of
  this war are considered terrorists and illegitimate for
  doing so, when they are instead warriors from another
  side of a war being fought, yet are scolded for fighting
  a war, as if the status-quo imbalance in global policies
  is to be accepted as fait accompli by the other peoples.

  therefore, by acknowledging the mid-east conflict is a
  legitimate and ongoing war, would require changing
  the current policy dynamic of the global 'war of terror'
  which masks this more actual dynamic with a fictional
  one-sided accounting which distorts all decision-making
  as if it is that 'our side is good, the other side is only evil.'

  this is to say that there is an ideological prejudice in the
  policies of the west, in which it is to have chosen sides,
  in a binary competition, yet to assume impartial views
  by which to judge the actions of others, while being in
  a state of complete and total hypocrisy, and the pursuit
  of such ignorant, inauthentic, and disingenuous policies
  is instead to result in a worsening of the outcomes on all
  counts, for their pursuit as a way of proceeding to peace.

  this is to say, there is a complete unfairness in the basic
  disposition of the western governments to the questions
  related to mid-east peace, which warp the possibilities of
  a peaceful outcome -- and today the failure to do so is
  directly tied to terrorism on the world-scale, because in
  terms of fighting a war by warriors, it is made justifiable,
  because the mid-east conflict is put 'beyond reasoning'--
  by making scapegoats of one people, while proclaiming
  divine innocence of another, as if this is a place to start
  any discussions, and to have it as institutionalized bias.

  it does not help the Israelis, the .US, .EU, nor anyone in
  the end, and it is at the base of what is now rising up into
  a volcanic storm of ideological fallout from the failures of
  such a policy worldview, by which to predetermine actions
  of automated machineries-of-state, in relation to human
  democracy, to pursue an agenda as if beyond question,
  by which a divine leader is to prosecute until the endtime.

  the 'war of terror' forgoes human reason and places its
  faith and trust in the automated reasoning of machinery,
  and global war machinery which has an appetite to feed.

  versus a 'mid-east' war now at world-scale, which is a
  sane and understandable conflict which needs to find a
  new equilibrium in the region and the world, so as to both
  address and transcend the outstanding and ongoing issues,
  yet these two agendas are placed at odds by today's politics.

  to engage the 'war of terror' as the 'mid-east' world war is
  to challenge the ideological fixation with its predetermined
  plan to continue its prosecution of original battle-planning
  (Iraq, then Iran and Syria: all said to be- 'the axis of terror'),
  which is, as mentioned, against the specific interests of the
  'leadership' in occupying the highest offices of government,
  in that this is their business plan for being/staying in office...

  there has been no indication of a willingness to accurately
  address the underlying issues of the 'war of terror', which
  would place the ideology in a checks-and-balances frame-
  work of the mid-east conflict (war), and how the views of
  the 'war of terror' are actually _one-side of the mid-east
  conflict, and thus, one side of the binary coin, which if it
  is to further pursue an issue such as the mid-east peace
  process in terms of the war of terror, would be to make it
  impossible to establish a neutral (paradoxical) ground by
  which to fairly and reasonably balance decision-making,
  and to pursue policies which could in-fact build peace.

  it is for this reason, that to consider the ideas of a truce
  in such a context, it is to need to make very clear that it
  is not possible for the existing .US government to be a
  partner in this peace, under its current leadership, for it
  is occupied by a group of ideological extremists for whom
  questions of mid-east peace were long-ago decided, and
  that the 'war of terror' was a response to win that very war
  using the .US as a proxy, and which has now blown up in
  the face of the ideologues, without their changing views--
  nor government changing leadership by which to navigate.
  that means turbulent waters ahead, with each and every
  policy-related decision made with regard to 'war of terror'
  and 'mid-east peace', via an ideological pre-determinism.

  that is, a course correction would not be a question of a
  choice between one option and another, in approaches
  as they now exist-- because from where decisions are to
  be considered, they have already been decided as to their
  values, approach, reasoning, and are beyond questioning.

  yet because of the failures of the 'war of terror', would it not
  necessitate questioning these failures of assumption, prior
  to their further influence, by any self-correcting organization?

  that, again, does not appear to be the case, today, politically.
  instead, it is bound to faithfully pursue its original vision, that
  which was drafted as a master-plan by the neoconservatives.
  as mentioned previously, this plan and actions based upon it
  are actually very bad for the Israelis, and the .US and others,
  if they actually want to pursue and develop a regional peace.
  though that would require stepping back from the approach
  now guiding diplomacy, world-wide, ultimately, to reconsider
  what it requires to reasonably engage this paradoxical middle,
  so as to approach the goals, yet with a realistic navigation to
  probable outcomes, based on working with other viewpoints
  to achieve shared ends-- if it is mid-east or nuclear peace.

  today, it is not an option, and the result can be witnessed
  daily in the ratcheting up, by ideological default, of the binary
  polarity of the mid-east conflict, within the multipolar ecology.
  it is to continue to pursue old policies that are not realistic as
  to the methods by which to achieve aims, and are themselves
  the biggest impediment-- and danger-- to the issues they seek
  to engage-- and are placed into an automatic decision-making
  process which is now making matters worse, across the board.

  since when, in history, has the continual loss of state power by
  a failed ideology- on a crash course with a squaring of reality-
  ever been acceptable? what will it take for people to realize it is
  not an option to make radical adjustments in .US governance-
  else, this is automatically going to necessitate nuclear conflict?
  that, to pursue mid-east peace is not possible with this current
  .US administration, as they are neoconservatives pre-disposed
  to winning the mid-east war, and will not own up to their biases?
  and that by standing behind, by backing such an ideology is not
  in the best interests of those who seek to employ human reason
  and not inhuman and automatic machine-reasoning by which to
  engage current events, so as to figure this out and transcend it.

  therefore, 'to step back and shift perspectives...' is of significance
  in terms of where the .US is today, in terms of 'mid-east policies
  and needing to not pursue the given course of neoconservatives,
  and to step back and take a new approach, which is a shifting of
  views, and therefore what can be seen/done/made possible, yet
  also a shifting of paradigms, of realities, by which to engage and
  shared ideas with others, so as to aid in the cause of diplomacy.

  with this in mind, steps to a truce can be addressed, yet doing
  so necessitates working outside the 'official' .US government as
  it now exists, in its neoconservative political manifestation, until
  it can be driven from power and restore democracy in the .US
  through other work needing to be done, until it is transformed...
  and restores democratic governance to .US state-machinery.

  also prior to a proposal of steps, it should be noted that there
  has been an explicit demonstration of the 'decapitation' of the
  'intellectual ideology' which functions and leads this automatic
  machinery, and it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of
  democratic governance and checks-and-balances with regard
  to human citizens. the .US government has become detached
  from its human citizens, and human reason does not effect the
  process of decision-making: there are no policy questions, they
  are all prefigured, 'fixed' even. and in an arena where decision-
  making is to escalate nuclear diplomacy to nuclear conflict, by
  this same automatism, it is extremely dangerous in terms of a
  government which is acting beyond any checks-and-balances.

  (*and for some reason, it has become acceptable to interface
  with this .US government/political administration, by way of the
  Press Secretary Scott McClellan who is equivalent to a robot in
  his machine-language instead of authentic human reasoning--
  this ideological roboticism becoming an acceptable interaction of
  the public with their government is an example, par excellence,
  of the automatism of decision-making which is pre-programmed,
  and short-circuited, from representing its own human citizens.
  it is symbolic of the existence of an inhuman political agenda.)

[cont...]


  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/




#  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