It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


what's it all about, anyway?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:09 PM
Whenever it is written that the US is at war with Iran, or with China, or Russia, the semantic ambiguity in such a statement is a clue that we should observe closely. The ambiguity reveals that there are at least two concurrent and valid interpretations. The first interpretation is that the US, as a sovereign nation, is at war against the other countries that were mentioned. A second interpretation is that all of the above countries are "at war with" the other countries in a sense that means each country's internal conflict is parallel to internal conflicts in the other countries.

Since we already understand the first interpretation of war among nations as being a conflict of countries pitted one against another, I want to look at the other, hidden interpretation. I'm going to give it a shot, even though I do not have the requisite knowledge or vocabulary to do it justice. If anyone is interested, you might start by looking up a fellow named Lyotard.

The world is host to billions of humans, who all justifiably lay claim to the earth's precious natural resources, which are finite. Rare earth metals, food and arable land, clean water, and knowledge itself are the stakes in a war that has been waging continuously, if mostly underground, for the past 100 years. The war has been intensifying in recent years, and I believe that this has been engineered thus so that it might spill out of the shadows and into our collective awareness.

There are those in each country whose highest sense of duty is to their host nation, and that is as large as their identity will expand. They will engage in every strategy to ensure that their "team" wins access to as many of the resources as possible, to the detriment of other teams. If these people are allowed to control policy, then we wind up in a zero sum game that actually costs more in terms of human life and dignity to retrieve fewer resources, and war is the inevitable outcome. Everybody loses, except for a small elite who will not personally taste of war and will not know want.

There are those in each country whose highest sense of duty is to humanity. They will engage in every strategy to cooperate and collaborate with other "teams" in order to work out a mutually beneficial plan for resource recovery, discovery, and replenishment. If these people are allowed to control policy, then we wind up with long-term plans for survival and improvement for humankind overall.

The nationalistic, authoritarian element within each nation will recognize an affinity and a symbiotic relationship with their analogs in other nations. They understand that their own status and influence within their host nation depends upon the pressures exerted by their "enemies", or analogs in other nations.

The anti-authoritarian, internationally cooperative element within each nation will likewise recognize affinity and fraternity with their analogs in other nations. They will understand that mutual respect and cooperation are not only the peaceful solution to the problems we face on a global scale, but the only viable solution.

In a short while, these two groups will recognize each other as mortal enemies. Those in each group will have greater respect for their analogs in other countries than for their own countrymen who belong to the other group. This internal conflict of identity will presage the changing nature of national identity in the global theater. Regardless of which worldview wins, the national boundaries will become far less meaningful than they are now. The outcome of the conflict will determine only which worldview will operate at center stage of the new globally integrated governance and martial power.

I think it will come sooner than expected.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by applebiter]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:01 PM
Mr. applebiter, I think thou doth protest too much concerning your ability to express your views using a large vocabulary.

After a lifetime of addressing the public I've found that the most effective speakers use language that speaks to the majority of listeners. Your post sir, is well written and informative but does take a second look to pull out what you are trying to relate.

Let me see if I got your point.

Each country has it's own internal problems as well as problems with other countries. Each country has two factions that are at war. One being good and the other with evil intent.

I agree with that premise completely if that is what you did infer.

Very soon there will be a division of countries that will either create WW3 or create peace. Tell me if I am wrong, please.

In my opinion this division will surprise many people. It is my belief that Russia will probably side with the middle east and other scallywags.
The kicker is when China becomes our Allie. I believe this will happen due to simple economics or as you say survival. I'm sure many will say China will never join with the USA against any country as we are bitter enemies. Are we really enemies?

Many very powerful countries have been relatively quiet the past few years.
There is a reason for this. I believe it's the old ace up the sleeve situation.
Those in power already know where their countries loyalty will be applied. Why rock the boat when we are already about to sink the ship or are we?

There is a game plan. It is fastly coming to fruition. We and the countries allied with us will bring peace or totally annihilate our enemy.

This action will bring peace for another 100 years at least.

Yes Mr. applebiter it is nearing the zero hour.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:05 AM
Oh, my vocabulary is ok, but I lack the professional vocabulary of a political scientist or an information theorist. I'm trying to express in plain language some of the interesting implications of Lyotard's work as I understand them, because they are actually relevant to what is going on right here on this website and elsewhere on the Web. Troglodytes like me often miss out on really interesting concepts because people like Lyotard are hard to read without the necessary background.

I think I must have botched it pretty badly. *Sigh* I'm trying to say that there are groups inside every country that thrive on conflict and struggle between countries, and that these groups are parasites that need continued conflict in order to justify their existence. What's more, these groups rely on the continued hostility of similar groups within other countries. The implication is that each country is like a host organism that contains these parasites. A country might recognize the parasite for what it is if there were peace and planning between countries toward mutual survival and long term cooperative goals. But there isn't going to be peace on a sufficient scale, because the parasites don't want that. So, there is a natural fraternity among these parasites across national borders due to the fact that they know their own survival depends upon maintaining conflict. Once the host nations awaken to this fact, the peaceful members of each nation will become the natural enemies of their fellow countrymen who are a part of the parasitic group among them.

Is that any clearer?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by applebiter]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:26 AM
Thank you for your reply.

I shall go read about Lyotard now.

Back to you later.

Would his book The Postmodern Condition be a good starting point?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by dizziedame]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by dizziedame

So I hear!

top topics

log in