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
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
I think it will come sooner than expected.
[edit on 2-7-2008 by applebiter]