<nettime> on nuclear diplomacy / d.1

[brian carroll <human {AT} electronetwork.org>]

  [this post is seeks to provide a framework by which to
  consider 'paradoxical logic' as a basis for reasoning
  and modeling complex issues in non-linear/multi-linear
  environments, which can be conceptualized in terms of
  circuits, ecological relationships, and decision-making.

  the context in which this is written provides a preface,
  so as to demonstrate the traditional viewpoint of these
  same issues in relation to an upgraded common sense,
  and the stakes of pursuing such ideas in the .US 2006,
  which becomes a competition of realities, old vs. new...]
  ---

  a duel of realities is now taking place, and it is how the
  issues of current events will be conceptualized, which in
  turn shapes what decisions can be made to address them.

  it has been explicitly stated that the existing rhetoric with
  regard to the global conflicts now underway, has never
  yielded to greater clarity or realism, with regard to what
  exactly the global 'war of terror' is, who a 'terrorist' is, etc.
  the role of reasoning in public debate has been absent in
  regard to fundamental issues of definition, which shape a
  reality of events, how they are portrayed, and represented
  by the mass media, which is a one-way presentation of the
  views about these very same issues. the existing situation
  is such that the 'rhetoric' of the 'war of terror' so far seems
  to be detached from a 'reasoned reality' which can stand
  on its own, by way of argument, in an open public debate.

  thus, in the competition of ideas about what is going on, a
  public debate about an endless global war being waged on
  behalf of a democratic state and its citizenry would be able
  to provide checks-and-balance upon what is proposed to
  be the 'public' basis for governmental decision-making by
  way of testing the rigor and logic of the arguments used.

  failure to do so, to test ideas for their substance, accuracy,
  and truth-value, would be to risk having a private point of
  view of complex events, which is sustained in the private
  infrastructures of mass media aligned with a certain view-
  point, yet which exists outside of democratic checks-and-
  balances with regard to the larger public issues involved.

  in other words, what is said to be the 'war of terror' is in no
  way obliged to answer to its public critics who question this
  argument, and petition government to clarify its position in
  regard to actually clarifying the war now being waged on be-
  half of its citizens- so that what is said to represent a public
  view of events, actually does represent a public viewpoint,
  unbiased from special interests, including foreign influences.

  for not providing such public checks-and-balances could in
  extreme cases allow a government to exist beyond its own
  people, without need nor reason to answer their petitions,
  because as a machinery-of-state, a short-circuit has been
  able to cut the public out of the private operation of state,
  which is further reinforced and buttressed by mass media,
  which creates a privatized 'reality, inc' which is a one-way
  broadcast of a particular relativistic point of view of events.

  in such a case, what was once constituted some 200 years
  ago as a public government would be then devolve into its
  own antithesis by the exploitation of Constitutional coding,
  in which what were once ideas by which to govern began
  to transform into ideologies, by which to control a machine-
  of-state which serves purposes other than its core citizens.

  in this case, the argument has been that the .US is now in
  the process of devolving from a democracy of mankind, to
  a democracy of the cybernetic machinery of this populace,
  whereby citizenship is a survival of the fittest competition
  between human citizens and corporate citizens, which the
  corporations has now won in terms of public representation
  in government, in terms of decision-making and issues and
  the reigning ideology, while also controlling the means of
  'public' representation by way of the private mass media,
  which supposedly is to provide checks-and-balances upon
  democratic government by way of acting as its own oversight.

  thus, there is a functioning government which is ideologically
  believed to be a functioning democracy carrying on the will
  of its public citizens in its policies, as rhetoric attests to in
  terms of faith and allegiance and patriotism to such a view,
  yet in actuality there is no interaction between public citizens
  and this .US government with regard to addressing issues in
  which the machinery of state and its people are brought into
  war, around the world and within their own civilian population,
  and questioning the logic, truth, and validity of the arguments
  being promoted in one-way mass media and by government
  'representatives' -- which in these same terms are equivalent
  to private positions on public issues which are distorting the
  actual issues, for a very particular and specific take on events,
  which if considered from a more public position, it would be
  clear to anyone with a thinking mind to understand how the
  greater truth would clarify that which is now muddied in this
  private rhetoric, which now is becoming dangerous for those
  public citizens who seek to uphold their Constitutional rights,
  to petition government, against the reigning political ideology.

  for would it not be better for citizens to be able to 'reason'
  about current events in terms of having sufficient language,
  logic, and understanding so as to comprehend the issues in
  the terms they are occurring, rather than just political spin -
  and a one-way political marketing campaign broadcasting a
  highly suspect view of current events, to sell 'public' policies
  which actually take away the rights and civil liberties of this
  public human citizenry, which protests and petitions its own
  government, while placed under greater surveillance - now
  to become demonized as if a fifth column movement? [1] it
  is such rhetoric which justifies lifelong surveillance of public
  citizens, for exercising their Constitutional rights to question
  government and seek redress for wrongs committed in their
  name - which seeks 'extra-legal' authority by which to reign
  in what would be considered 'reasonable' democratic action.
  including the .US president requesting authority to conduct
  assassinations of persons on .US soil, if they are 'terrorists'
  which seek to harm the interests of the .US government, etc.

  which .US government? for there is a private government
  now in power which is a political operation running what is
  an automated state bureaucracy, -- and this is where such
  vagueness as a 'war of terror' against 'terrorists' is easily to
  be equated with the abuses of power, by which it is simple
  to then equate the legal actions of citizens to seek change
  in their own government, by way of the .US Constitution, to
  be equated with terrorists, opponents to this 'war of terror'
  because they do not follow the ideological dictates from a
  private political-class which is dictating what is real, while
  being sheltered from democratic checks-and-balances of
  the 'reality, inc' which justifies this ideology. in other words,
  by fiat of the status quo, the more this ideology is allowed
  to 'govern' the more the legal rights of (active) .US citizens
  can be unquestionably linked to being identical to terrorists.

  this is not an overstatement if one considers that the 'war
  of terror' may have a greater clarity as to its purposes, in
  that it may instead be successfully and accurately modeled
  as the 'mid-east conflict at world-scale', in which the .US is
  now waging war on behalf of one side of this world coin, yet
  this bias is in no way connected to constitutional government
  and in fact jeopardizes sovereign functioning of government,
  to be free of both internal and external insurrectionists, who
  might seek to exploit the government for other, private, ends.

  in such a worst-case, it would be the .US citizens who are
  to protest, petition, and challenge government in terms of
  its constitutional legitimacy - and illegality - who would now
  be conveniently labeled as 'terrorist sympathizers' if one is
  not to quietly accept the bias of Neoconservatives, which is
  that the side of Israel is the .US position in decision-making,
  beyond questioning, in terms of how to best engage issues
  of this 'war of terrorism.' thus, should one challenge such a
  distorted and biased view of events, with respect to a larger
  consideration of the questions at the world-scale, i.e. reality,
  it may be that the reasoning about the 'war of terror' is best
  clarified in the modeling of this as a mid-east world-war, in
  which different approaches to governance are required so
  as to address issues, and not exacerbate problems being
  sought to be remedied-- yet these are questions which now
  exist beyond democratic checks-and-balances, in that they
  are pursued as a 'war of terror' without regard to a greater
  understanding or view of events, beyond such a rhetoric,
  yet if .US citizens are to provide such options for greater
  understanding, by which to -reason- in public about these
  ideas which seek to direct such democratic governance in
  an endless [and failing] war, these citizens become enemies
  of this ideology which cannot compete outside its privatized
  'reality, inc' sustained by what amounts to a .US government
  detached from its own citizens, sustained by the illusion of
  legitimacy by the privately-owned aristocratic mass media.

  in essence and effect it can be argued that by the many
  changes which preceded the present day, that there has
  been a transformation of what was once a democracy in
  terms of human citizens, has been transformed over the
  centuries by science and technology and machinery, into
  the perfect conditions for operating as a giant cybernetic
  organism, which corporate citizens are to be represented
  and this corporate democracy to function on behalf of the
  human citizenry, yet, in a worst-case scenario, this may
  further devolve into the antithesis of democracy, what is
  a corporate dictatorship in which humans are enslaved,
  and by the dictates of the CEO as President, can act as
  if a king, and disregard human laws and human rights, if
  it is to aid in increasing the power of this machine of state,
  which replaces 'public governance' with a private political-
  machinery, which serve only a certain narrowed ideology.

  which, if it were proven to be the case, would be exactly
  comparable to the conditions which constituted the .US
  in the first place, where government became repressive,
  and a dicatorship was based on the rule of man, and not
  on the rule of law, which is being completely disregarded
  in the .US, with respect to human torture, surveillance, etc.

  in such a case, it would be possible that a .US citizen, in
  finding protection and liberties within the .US constitution,
  would be placed into a relationship with a .US government
  which is not related to this very same .US constitution, by
  way of 'reasonable' interpretation based on facts, logic, etc.
  and that, by fiat of how things now exist, there need be no
  relation between citizens and their state, for the .US citizen
  would only need to be quiet so as to remain secure in their
  reality, that the .US government is acting on their behalf-
  even if it was to be undermined and rogue in its actions.

  it becomes a critical conflict because of dueling realities,
  in that while there need not be any relation, the privatized
  .US government and its 'reality, inc' may continue to speak
  of the 'war of terror' in these terms and only these terms,
  by which to enact what amount to draconian and dictatorial
  powers against the very nature of democracy, while public
  .US citizens may speak of these events and the decision-
  making in terms of being a 'mid-east war at world-scale'
  and be branded a terrorist sympathizer of a fifth column
  movement, which the state is allowed to illegally wiretap
  and even assassinate on the .US president's orders, --
  in terms of the lesser reality of the 'war of terror' by which
  to justify such actions, which would be illegal, said legal.
  or, "believed" legal, as Mr. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney
  all stress that theirs is a 'belief' in what they are doing is
  in the right, yet it is not held in public account that this is
  an act of faith, in their leadership, which exists outside of
  a public debate about what is not simply 'believed' and
  instead, actually exists or more actually exists as truth.
  such that, under no circumstances should laws be able
  to be pursued with regards to a 'war of terror' in such a
  vague language, if in terms of logic and reasoning what
  is actually being pursued is a mid-east war at world-scale.

  it is a fundamental distortion that destroys the truth in its
  quest to gain systemic power over public bureaucracy, by
  way of language games and machinations of party politics.

  in other words, by seeking redress to this imbalance, in
  the name of engaging the issues which are to guide the
  decision-making of the .US government (a 'democracy'),
  it is through the absence of public debate and argument
  that these private policies continue to extend ideological
  falsity, and now the stakes have been raised that such a
  questioning may be to sympathize with 'the terrorists', in
  which case one's rights are extinguished, and even legal
  or extra-legal authority is given to state assassination of
  risks against the .US government's endless 'war of terror'.

  anyone heard of fascism before? totalitarian dictatorship?

  for those who may want/need to believe this is helplessly
  or hopelessly unrealistic, it is exactly this split between the
  views of the 'war of terrorism' by this .US administration,
  and the 'mid-east war at world-scale', described on list,
  which causes a breaking-point in the logic and reasoning
  of existing decision-making in terms of its validity, legality,
  and its public interest versus its private agenda. so too, it
  brings into question the Constitutional authority by which
  to pursue such cause, and in whose name, which places
  the .US government into question with regard to actions
  which are, ultimately, seen to be against .US democracy.

  the vague abstractions and incoherent views of events,
  said to be the endless 'war of terror', become very clear
  and coherent in terms of a mid-east war and the issues
  and policies involved in making matters better and worse.
  yet, there is no ability to publicly debate this matter, today,
  besides online internet. it is a medium greater than radio,
  television, and newspapers combined. and so too, what-
  ever the reality of events, it would be in such public forum
  that a greater reasoning of current events would be found.
  and yet it is not the case, officially, that the 'war of terror' is
  of greater clarity, meaning, or reality -- it is only more and
  more obscured and instead of engaging in public debate,
  it can only hide within private cloisters of mass media and
  bureaucratic organs of the reigning ideology, by which to
  broadcast one-way messages about what this 'truth' is,
  while being unable to do so in a public forum and debate.

  instead, what is mentioned is assassination of opponents
  to this 'war of terror', sympathizers, fifth column movements,
  quite a scare for anyone listening who is an active .US citizen.

  the reason for this situation is that the 'war of terror' is not
  able to be debated in 'open' and 'public' terms, in terms of
  logic, truth, and reasoning. it is without substance, in terms
  of the greater issues involved, the causes of current events.
  it is without merit, as an idea, and exists mainly as a slogan
  for advertising a word-view across the private mass media
  landscape and mindscape, which makes up mass society,
  mass views, which is an awful lot like that of 'big brother' in
  which people need to be told what to think, how to think, etc.
  for 'freedom of ideas' and 'freedom of expression' and also
  'freedom of thought' become the enemy of this constructed
  view of events, a.k.a the endless global 'war of terrorism'...


  therefore, if only in the last two weeks, it can be seen how
  this split between dueling realities can be vividly seen in the
  'correction' of this one-way view, as presented by the .US
  president Bush at the 2006 State of the Union address...

  it was a bizarre speech by any impartial view, how seemingly
  'out-of-nowhere' the President spoke on behalf of the ideology
  of the 'war of terror' while against its interpretation as a mid-
  east conflict, at world-scale, which he has publicly denied and
  demonized those who consider it within such terms. for it is
  only in this split between views that it can be explained how
  a .US president could be speaking of 'isolationism and retreat'
  when no one in their sane mind is speaking of such things, in
  public, in reasoned and intelligent debate on matters of state.

  it could only be that, to consider the idea of a 'long-term truce'
  with regard to resolving issues of a mid-east war at world-scale
  would be to undermine the ideological arguments, the beliefs,
  which are a basis for decision-making in the .US administration,
  and that actual engagement of the issues threatens the political
  control of private interests now at the helm of public governance.

  that is, if considered in terms of the 'war of terror', a truce which
  engages legitimate issues would be considered a 'retreat' and
  'isolationist' as it defeats the strategy of the very ideology which
  seeks to pursue one-side of the mid-east war in the binary terms
  as a 'war of terrorism', which distorts all decision-making by bias,
  and equates a viewpoint external to the .US constitution as its own,
  which is equivalent to that of treasonous activity -- traitorous acts.

  the .US President spoke at length about such a retreat from his
  private view of events, which became evermore increasing unreal.

  to engage the 'mid-east war' is thus to retreat in the 'war of  
terror'.

  to seek peace settlement of the 'mid-east war' is to surrender in
  the 'war of terror', as it is not to win this war of Neoconservativism
  and its one-side of the coin, which is the basis of its ideological  
bias.

  then, the .US president declares that there is a 'public trust' which
  would be 'betrayed' if one were to question the decision-making
  in this 'war of terrorism', as it is defined by this .US  
administration.
  that is, it becomes a question of loyalty, to the machinery of state.

  who's machinery of state? the political machine now running the
  .US government.

  who's loyalty? to the unquestioned exercise of executive power
  of the .US president to have dictatorial powers, beyond the law
  and outside the Constitution and international human rights, to
  imprison, even assassinate people on .US soil, on his judgement.
  the rule of a private man at the helm of an automated machinery
  of state, which has structurally become detached from its citizens,
  and no longer serves nor protects these public human citizens, if
  they to question to wisdom of pursuing such an inhuman course.

  instead, it would be that the .US president is demanding that the
  'public' trust be equated with a 'private trust', to him, of handling
  such an unwieldy beast of automated machinery, from running
  amok worldwide, based on his word and goodness of his heart;
  that is, faith in this divine leadership, by which to represent the
  will of this people, as he sees them, in this own private image.

  to retreat, is to retreat from his ideology of the 'war of terrorism'
  and this being the reality by which to judge, decide, and to act.

  to surrender is to surrender to a view other than this ideology,
  to a reality which questions the ideology and its implicit rightness,
  beyond questioning, beyond challenge, beyond democracy -- in
  which views compete by which to evaluate statements, by which
  to steer the ship of state, to navigate the most promising course.

  to be isolationist is to not accept the 'war of terror' as a supreme
  reality by which to interact with current events-- it is to limit what
  is possible versus what needs doing, ideologically pre-planned.

  thus, engaging issues of mid-east peace is to be isolationist, it
  is to retreat, it is to be disloyal to a political machine that runs
  the .US government as a corporate dictatorship, it is to betray
  the private trust and supreme leadership of the .US president,
  and thus it is to face-off with a dueling reality under these very
  conditions, whereby fifth column movements and assassinations
  become the next step in rhetoric, after free-for-all surveillance,
  and other unmentionables, which constitute a .US police state.

  it is akin to an Occam's Razor moment -- which reality is more
  real, in the terms given of a world war and the context in which
  actions take place: for would not the greater truth, and greater
  reality 'win out' in any public debate, in terms of the language
  used to describe events and decision-making based upon them?
  about greater clarity of the mid-east war at world-scale, than of
  the continually devolving, endlessly incompetent 'war of terror'?
  and would not the greater reasoning prevail, in any such duel,
  any such contest or competition, whereby which the argument
  which is capable of addressing these issues most effectively is
  to provide the best model by which to proceed, in a democracy?

  this is, unfortunately, not the case, and instead a .US citizen is
  only that much closer to being identified as a .US terrorist, in
  terms of a 'war of terrorism' and its ideology proceeding apace.

  for, the duel of realities comes down to this very confrontation:

  the 'war of terror' ultimately can be reasoned, within the limits
  of its closed ideology exploiting the corruption of institutions,
  that any challenge to the ultimate authority of the President
  is to be akin to that of challenging a totalitarian dictatorship,
  where the ruler becomes the law, beyond any democracy.
  if a .US citizen were to challenge the authority of both this
  leader and the government which has failed in terms of the
  .US constitution, they could be equated with being a terrorist
  sympathizer and part of a fifth column movement, due to the
  fact that they stand against the built-in bias of the ideological
  'war of terror' which is a one-sided view of existing conflicts,
  which effectively limits civil liberties to believe otherwise, in
  that it is to justify oppressions against civilians who disagree
  and petition government, and seek to protect the democracy.
  the .US leader, under this route, can call out assassinations
  based upon this 'war of terrorism' and threats to such bias.

  the other side of this duel is the .US citizen or citizens who
  pursue their Constitutional rights to petition government to
  seek redress for concerns regarding its operations in their
  name, which effectively is -unconstitutional- and -illegal- as
  a democratic form of government, and thus, it is illegitimate
  in terms of justifying its actions based on the Constitution,
  nor its application of laws on its behalf, for its has become
  subverted from its original intentions and is a failed state.
  its operation, beyond democracy, beyond the checks-and-
  balances of public oversight, becomes a private mandate
  by which to seek greater dictatorial and permanent control
  over the mechanisms of government by a political class. it
  is detached from its own citizens, yet speaks on behalf of
  them, for the basis for its actions, without genuine public
  debate that is open and free, while this same 'democracy'
  goes to war on behalf of an ideology that is external in its
  influence upon the direction of the state and .US military,
  and is undoubtedly insurrectionist at home and abroad,
  while the 'leader' speaks about how democracy do not
  attack other states, in a population submersed in lies...
  for if a .US citizen is to petition such a government, they
  would not be able to find a way to pursue such cause, in
  that it would be to challenge the existing political class in
  its control of the machinery of state for its private aims-
  and as such the .US president nor mass media nor the
  government representatives nor courts can defend the
  existing manifestation of 'rogue' .US governance, in that
  it is beyond consideration - beyond democratic process.

  this leaves those who believe in the .US constitution to
  place their beliefs against those who believe in the .US
  'war of terrorism' as a justification for dismantling it, yet
  they own the private 'reality, inc' by which these issues
  are to be virtually represented, -- excepting the Internet.

  this then leaves a .US constitutionalist to only be able to
  directly challenge, by way of democracy, the existing .US
  governments legality and decision-making on behalf of its
  .US citizenry, yet only to reason in such an online forum
  as is this, outside of the circuit by which .US government
  functions, excepting the flows of information and ideas
  which may seep and filter through the various networks.
  thus, it is by way of reasoning in these online arguments
  that this position of a .US public citizen has a way to make
  a case against the existing actions of government, and of
  policy failures which undermine the .US constitution - and
  the options by which to navigate by way of a greater truth
  that democracy is supposed to be able to enable, through
  the exercise of citizens rights, to protest, to challenge, to
  call into question, to demand answers, and better policies-
  that in this atmosphere today, it is instead met by tyranny
  of an unhinged nation-state and its leaders beyond the law.

  it is to work on behalf of the .US constitution, .US citizens,
  and a .US reality as to this fabled 'war of terror', which is
  to become a direct threat to the ideology of this terrorist-
  state, 'a state of perpetual terrorism by which to govern'.

  this is not a democracy- the .US is no longer a democracy.

  so what is a .US constitutionalist, a .US citizen who upholds
  their constitutional rights, supposed to do in such environs?

  to seek redress of government, is to be closer and closer
  to being branded a terrorist, and to lose rights as a citizen,
  beyond the .US constitution, that is, the democratic state.
  that is, as it can be reasonably interpreted by those who
  exist in such a state, that it is not just existing law, but also
  reasoned ideas for what this .US constitution says, that it
  may be shown, proven, otherwise, that the .US government
  is illegal and a constitutional convention should be called by
  which to seek reinstitution of democracy, else abolished by
  formal mandate and then reconstituted so that democracy
  survives the failure of government to successfully adapt to
  new conditions, while retaining the original principles and
  goals, not subverting them by way of dictatorship, tyranny.

  this duel is to thus to directly challenge Rumself's 'long war'
  of generations of .US citizens fighting on behalf of a biased
  view of the mid-east war, at world-scale, indefinitely, until
  there is no more evil in the world, else it would be to choose
  a reality which says this 'war of terrorism' is fictional as to the
  actual issues involved, and their accurate engagement is the
  difference between a future of democracy and one of total
  and complete corporate dictatorship, of citizens enslaved to
  a view of events based on the controlling of misrepresentation,
  so as to privately frame events in a narrower view than they
  actually exist, and to leverage this as a form of power over
  truth, by which to pursue a cause of war, by such machinery.

  it brings up the question of the comment of this 'long war'
  in relation to Hitler and the Nazi's, and possibly a mirror-
  stage for the .US administration as to whose grand vision
  is most Nazi-like-- for the 'war of terror' certainly falls on
  the side of world-domination-- in terms of its ideology, its
  morality, its ethics, its inhumanity of human torture, etc.
  this is to say, that to place endless war without possibility
  of truce by which to reasonably engage existing issues, is
  to jeopardize a democracy and its future for a world at war
  on behalf of suspect agendas, which never have seen the
  light of day, in terms of the truth which drives this agenda.
  for what if it really were to employ .US government for an
  external cause, and to seek to overthrow other countries,
  so as to make the world in the Neoconservatives image?

  terrificly terrifying terror-war. is this not itself 'terrorism'?
  that is, against .US citizens, to have to accept this fate,
  without recourse to .US Constitutional protections against
  this onslaught of subversive agendas and abuse of power?
  it would seem that the .US government, by definition of the
  actions of a terrorist state and a rogue state and also an
  un-democratic government, would begin to fit the bill of
  the thing it seeks to destroy elsewhere-- that it becomes
  its own enemy, as does the democracy become a tyranny.

  for how else could a .US citizen be threatened (with death)
  by such a government, as if it is acting on behalf of the .US
  constitution, and is upholding the constitution by giving the
  president dictatorial powers by which to enforce his vision,
  while democratic checks-and-balances are dismantled?

  Mr. Rumsfeld's 'long war' is like that of Hitler, a global purge
  which is to use the 'war of terror' as a basis for .US citizens
  to give up their constitutional rights, in return for safety from
  'terrorists' -- which as the 'war of terror' has no basis in reality,
  no grounding in facts, and is an absolutely hollow argument
  which is indefensible in a public debate on these very issues.

  instead, .US citizens who believe and act on their beliefs, in
  the legitimacy of the .US constitution, are branded 'traitors',
  disloyal, breaking the public trust, by the .US president, who
  is given authority to assassinate terrorist sympathizers (who
  do not side with the bias of the 'war of terror' on .US soil) --
  all by fiat of a broken system of government needing repair,
  and to pursue such cause is to make a .US citizen a terrorist.

  for example, while the .US 'war of terror' as an ideology is
  to make it impossible to pursue the cause of peace, legally,
  without being branded a terrorist sympathizer on .US soil
  (e.g. engaging Hamas as seen from a biased perspective,
  would be against the private interests of those in power,
  yet in the public interests of the .US as public democracy,
  in terms of a logical approach to addressing actual issues).


  this leads to the purpose for writing all this out, that it is in
  writing about options for how to proceed in decision-making
  that places a .US citizen on a collision course with the .US
  government under the control of the Bush administrations.

  the simple fact that was to be mentioned earlier had to do
  with a truth about ideology and a reason for pursuing an-
  other course, by which to engage and shape current events.
  instead of seeing this as a contribution to the betterment of
  .US citizens, it is a challenge to an ideology that is not based
  upon their needs, and instead is evaluated from other terms.

  therefore, issues of sedition arise, especially in regard to
  the challenging of the existing order of things, by which the
  'war of terrorism' proceeds, uncritically, in democracy's name.
  yet, as a .US citizen, to stop such an automated mechanism
  would be to be placed into a traditional context by which to
  seek to undermine this .US government. the difference here
  is that the .US government is not acting on behalf of the .US
  constitution and its democracy, whereas the .US citizen is,
  and can argue as such at great length with reasoned clarity.

  the other issue is that of the Logan Act, for citizens to be
  private engaging in foreign diplomacy, which apparently is
  getting a look-over lately by the .US administration. it may
  be interesting to see any attempts to apply the law in this
  regard, in that the nature of this online Internet forum is
  public and open to debate, and .US citizen would be free
  to exercise their constitutional rights to think, act, believe
  and to share ideas which may relate to current events, in
  ways that are beneficial to the .US as a democracy, yet
  may not be as conducive to needs of a .US dictatorship.

  [url on Logan Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act ]

  any such legal actions would be welcomed, should they
  be considered, as it will finally give an opportunity for the
  public to weigh in with another versions of events, which
  would turn a trial against the rights of .US citizens, into
  a trial against the tyranny of an illegal .US government,
  which is neither constitutional nor an actual democracy.

  yet the existing .US administration need not heed the
  rule of law, and can subvert the .US constitution for
  unbridled executive powers of assassinations on .US
  soil -- against terrorists sympathizers, 'fifth columns.'

  this is a murky area where .US citizens fighting for their
  constitutional freedoms could be equated with terrorists.
  and there is nothing to stop its automatically progressing,
  because there is a systemic failure of democratic control
  of the cybernetic organism, a now inhuman machinery
  of state which operates beyond .US citizens in its aims.

  what this duel is to ultimately end in, is democracy in
  which current events are to be engaged as a 'mid-east
  war at world-scale' so as to seek their peaceful resolution,
  versus that of a tyranny, in which an endlessly-long 'war
  of terror' is to seek to win one side of the mid-east conflict,
  fighting against 'terrorists' who happen to not be Neocons.

  the duel is going to be won by minds and by ideas, or it
  is going to won by the forces of materialism and violence.
  it is truly a duel between that of people and machineries-
  and even moreso -- a duel between the 'pen and sword'.

  democracy, words, ideas, are this pen, now electronic.
  yet the sword is an executive order which is extra-legal,
  which is outside the constitution and rights of .US citizens,
  to kill those who may be privately viewed as dangerous to
  the ideology of those promoting the 'war of terrorism' as
  the .US reality in its affairs of state, as if it is a democracy.
  the powers of assassination do not fall on the side of the
  .US constitution, nor .US democracy, nor in a realm of
  sanity by which to further pursue executive decision-
  making when beyond any democratic checks, balances.

  the .US citizen fights with their mind, while .US leaders
  of an illegal government may assassinate their opposition,
  by fiat of personal political power and not of public truth.
  this is what is being legitimated on behalf of protecting
  the .US citizens from itself, from their own democracy,
  and exercise of constitutional rights-- if they cannot stop
  the ideas from influencing the bureaucracy, they can view
  it as a threat to the existence of their political machine, to
  stop it by the threat or actual application of deadly force.

  a government which fears democratic freedoms this much
  is suspect, if it is beyond 'reason', in terms of its constitution
  as a democratic state-- at what point is this an emergency?



					*


  thus, to write about nuclear diplomacy is to write from
  within such a context, of the Logan Act, of death threats,
  of sedition, of hearing the most bizarre State of the Union
  speech which was thoroughly detached from larger reality,
  outside of the 'war of terror' rhetoric, and which sought to
  question the loyalty of those who pursue this as a question
  of mid-eat war and mid-east peace, where pursuing a truce
  is to be a traitor (to the Neoconservative cause, no less, an
  allegiance to traitors who have subverted .US government).

  it must be said that nuclear diplomacy is being written
  about so to pursue ideas related to electromagnetism and
  infrastructure in the mid-eat and elsewhere, yet one cannot
  build effectively in an endless worldwide war zone, so it is
  a priority to figure out why things are the way they are, so
  to offer models and questions about how peace may be
  achieved, while addressing legitimate concerns, as has
  been done with regard to various issues related to the
  'mid-east war', versus that of a fictional 'war of terror.'

  that is, the purpose is ultimately 'to build' yet that requires
  peace, to a certain extent, if the building are going to last.

  thus, to 'move forward' with such an agenda, would also
  necessitate engaging issues of 'post-modernism' as they
  relate to nuclear issues and the relativism of viewpoints.

  this has necessitated differentiating views, such as those
  of the Neoconservatives from those of ordinary Israelis,
  among other clarifications about what is being dealt with
  in regard to how to achieve a shared, human, point of
  view of events by which to proceed, to someday build...

  yet in the current environment, there is still no 'public'
  identity by which to relate between peoples on issues
  that are also shared. it is part of an issue of relativism
  in relation to logic, and how language functions in that
  it can format what options are available in thinking, by
  which to relate to others, as a type of logic, circuitry.

  a general argument has been that this logic has been
  short-circuited by ideology, by a simplistic binary view
  (black or white / true or false) at the scale of nation-
  states, yet which at the world-scale cannot function
  to find commonality, and only necessitates warfare
  as a way of mediating conflicts in such complexity.

  to establish a moderate pathway to navigate through
  nuclear complexity, then, has required considering a
  'human' perspective by which to evaluate questions,
  at both the local and world-scales. this becomes a way
  of balancing the diplomatic circuitry, so as to be able to
  engage (not polarize) issues so to work through them,
  together. in this sense of language, logic, and identity,
  then, it can be considred a question between two types
  of logical models of how the dueling realities now relate,
  or fail to, between the 'war of terror' and 'mid-east war',
  and between the .US citizen and the .US government,
  if taken as an issue between ideas and an ideology.

  specifically, it is to say that the duel concerns the nature
  of truth as it is logically reasoned and that this is based
  upon two views of reality, one 200 years before present,
  and the other an electromagnetic view which has been
  the basis for another type of logical modeling of reality.


   reality   <------>   model/ideas   <------>   copy/ideology


  the existing ideology at the helm of the .US government
  today is based upon a model of events in constituting the
  .US as a state 200+ years ago, whose model has today
  become formalized in a political ideology which governs.
  the significant thing about this is that 'reality' has changed
  in the last 200 years, significantly, yet the ideology is not
  based on modeling reality itself, and is instead based on
  a copying of a given model or idea of what reality exists.
  therefore, the reality may change, the ideology never can
  nor needs to, with respect to the reality, only to the model.
  it is not dependent on reality, and instead on the fitness of
  the model/ideas, and their reasoning in .US governance.


  em reality   <------>   model/ideas   <------>   copy/ideology

  whereas, if the reality itself has changed, say the evolution
  of the Internet, or computer, or machinery for that matter,
  in the last 200 years, which has fundamentally changed the
  modeling and ideas of events, that the .US constitution is a
  document connected to 'reality' and its interpretation, such
  that the traditional arguments which may exist in terms of
  200+ year old truisms and interpretations may be upended
  by a more empirical view and reasoning of events, in which
  the new modeling can actually compete and defeat the old
  models, in any competition, on most any issue, by way of
  facts, truth, logic, reasoning, and a forum for public debate.

  therefore, consider that all the words and ideas and actions
  being justified today as based on 200 year old interpretations
  of the .US constitution, including all laws associated with it,
  may be recontextualized in a new electromagnetic reality,
  which empirically is capable of tying together most ongoing
  and fragmented research and studies into one framework,
  by which to argue a more public worldview, and to place it
  in relation to this same argument of the 'war of terror' versus
  the 'mid-east war' at world-scale-- that it is the democratic
  right to reasoned public debate that stands between the
  future of a peaceful democratic future, and a global tyranny
  of endless war. based upon which model wins in the duel.


  and yet, the modeling of reality becomes a threat to the
  hegemony over dictating privatized 'reality, inc' by way of
  disallowing such 'reasoning' to challenge the worldview as
  a divine and transcending cognition by a superior leader--
  that 'democracy' and 'democratic rights' and 'freedom and
  fairness' all become threats against the existing model, in
  that it threatens the reality the ideology "believes" exists--
  regardless of the facts-- they have faith - in themselves-
  as they are all powerful, and as such, also, infallible, and
  beyond democratic checks and balances, divine despotism.

  the duel could end with the assassinations of .US citizens
  that do not follow this inferior modeling of Neoconservative
  ideology, who are "believed" to be aiding/abetting terrorists
  in 'fifth column' movements to try to change .US government.
  that is, exactly what .US citizens as freedom fighters should
  be doing in this hour, to seek to restore democracy in the
  .US by democratic means, against rogue .US government.

  or the duel could end with .US citizens being given their
  constitutional rights to protest and petition and challenge
  and complain and seek a constitutional convention-- and
  if this does not work, to weigh the remaining last option of
  restoring constitutional democracy, as to what would need
  to be pursued, as matter of course, by which to reconstitute
  the state by those in some future day according to the ideas
  of the founders, yet upgraded to a new reality, that survives
  after the purge of 'terrorists' [Neoconservative's enemies] is
  complete and the .US is bankrupted and aimlessly adrift, in
  terms of when the mass media can no longer cover the lies,
  without showing a reality other than the ongoing illusionism.

  if it is a competition of ideas, there is no competition, and it
  is a question of how to proceed, with all .US citizens on the
  same side, yet the withholding of democracy from citizens
  makes this path untenable the closer to the truth it gets...
  as the new model overtakes the old model and challenges
  the power and authority which is based on falsehoods and
  lies, with a reasoned view which brings clarity and insight,
  and honesty to a model of events, of the 'war of terror' as
  the 'mid-east war' and offers options for how to proceed--
  to peace, no less. which is not on the Neocon agenda...

						*

  it is for this reason that the basis for modeling of reality,
  the ideas and concepts by which this happens, and the
  logic by which decisions are made, is all important, for
  almost the entirely of the old modeling and its failures
  can be attributed to a 'failure of perspective' in which a
  binary view is limited a reasonable grey-area by which
  to argue a coherent view of events in the 'war of terror'.

  as such, the ideology of the 'war of terror' is based on
  the binary (either-or) decision making in which a question
  or concern (neutral) is to be forced into one view or an-
  other view, yet there is no middle-ground by which to
  question how situation may be resolved other than in
  black-and-white terms (yes/no, true/false, good/evil, etc).


  [binary decision-making/forced biased graphic]

http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l/attach/ 
57eca69a587c283f/forcedbias_ideological.gif?part=2&view=1

  this becomes an advantages if taking on a worldview of
  good and evil, as it simplifies all the complexity of issues,
  the analog gradients between things and instead forces
  this into a digital sample, clear-cut, regardless if it really is.

  'the war of terror' is thus against 'terrorists', versus non-
  terrorists, etc. it is not a war of warriors, etc. this is total
  ideological fog with regard to strategy for a world-war as
  it clarifies nothing, and yet through this abstraction has
  allowed human torture outside of international human
  rights law and oversight by the Red Cross, etc. and it
  is also how people are taught to think, without complex
  analysis of how to judge a situation beyond yes or no.
  like robots, really. unexercised minds become machine-
  like, computer-like even, in how they process information.

  if one were to look at the 'war of terror' as the 'mid-east
  war' in such a context, it would be to say that the .US
  position (and that of Neocons) is that of [A1] while that
  of 'the terrorists' is that of [A2], and there is nothing be-
  tween them (N) in terms by which they may be related.

  this is a false model, for many reasons -- a false reality
  for others still. for instance, if one were to take the same
  binary model and consider the 'war of terror' is actually
  the 'mid-east war' at world-scale, it would be that [A1] is
  the .US/.EU/.IL view, and that [A2] is the .IR/.SY/.PS view,
  if taking into account rhetoric which equates these states
  with terrorists, who happen to exactly align in this model.
  in the binary view, it would be impossible to pursue 'peace'
  as a middle-option in such a binary ideology, as there is
  no logical way to approach peace, through reasoning in
  terms of this model. there could be no possibility of peace,
  only of war, by which to further polarize, define, views. it
  is thus not possible to speak of the 'war of terror' and
  'peace' in any reasonable way, as a path to this course.

  nor is it to allow a greater clarity to emerge in which a
  middle-ground is sought, even a truce to the mid-east
  conflict, because it is against the ideological tenets by
  which the .US is now criminally mis-governed, by and
  for foreign influences and causes external to the .US,
  which require the 'war of terror' rhetoric so as to pursue
  a battle plan for winning one-side of the mid-east war
  using .US forces as a proxy under false flag operations.

  there is no way to get from this binary view of the 'war
  of terror' to policies which relate to the .US constitution
  which serve the .US citizens and not some other entity
  firstly, primarily, and continually in the decision-making
  of the existing .US government which is equivalent to a
  pirate ship of state, run by people hostile to democracy.

  to get to the root cause- and address a lack of better
  options even given this current bleak situation, it is to
  consider a different modeling of reality and the logic of
  paradox by which to evaluate these same events, and
  to consider different questions and conclusions as a
  result. it is to consider ideas that can transform a basic
  short-circuiting of logic gates, whether in minds of the
  individuals or the states they compose, so to establish
  a neutral zone or gradient/gray-area by which we can
  relate as human beings, and consider ways to navigate
  toward peace and resolution of conflicts, using online
  media and networks and our democratic rights and
  human spirit to fight back against the tyranny of the
  past, against the death of imagination, and coldness
  of heart within which fascism breeds itself and grows--

  thus, the duel is to challenge the reigning ideology with
  new ideas about what is real, true, good, just, and right.
  it is a democratic initiative, based on .US constitutional
  rights, which can only be stopped by abusive powers of
  a state that is now a tyrannical dictatorship gone mad--
  and the threat of assassination is against its own citizens.

  any argument that the old model and its ideologues can
  tender can be defeated using the paradoxical model, it
  is at the basis of defining a greater truth, modeling of a
  greater reality, and engaging a complexity beyond the
  simplistic rhetoric and language games now dominant.
  it is to call existing discourse what it actually is: bullshit.
  and to weigh down upon this idiocy the full intellectual
  powers available to wage a war of ideas, of reason, of
  sanity, against an ideology fundamentally hostile to it.

  [cont. on paradoxical logic]



---
[1] Transcript -- U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds
a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National
Security Agency's Surveillance Authority. Part IV of IV

CQ Transcripts Wire. Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 11:51 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/ 
AR2006020700731.html

GRAHAM to GONZALES: ... The FISA statute, in a time of war, is a  
check and balance. But here's where I think I'm your biggest fan.  
During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in  
my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield  
electronically -- not just physical, but to electronically map what  
the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle  
together.

And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my  
opinion, to pursue fifth column movements.

And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement  
is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will  
sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it's  
happened in every war.

And President Roosevelt talked about, "We need to know about fifth  
column movements."

So my friends on the other side, I stand by this president's ability,  
inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column  
movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that.

GRAHAM: But here's my challenge to you, Mr. Attorney General. There  
will come a point in time where the information leads to us believe  
that citizen A may be involved in a fifth column movement. At that  
point in time where we will need to know more about citizen A's  
activity on an ongoing basis, here is where I part.

I think that's where the courts really come in. I would like you and  
the next attorney general and next president, if you have that  
serious information that you need to monitor this American's  
citizen's conduct in the future, that they may be part of a fifth  
column movement to collaborate with the enemy, I want a check and a  
balance.

Here's why: Emotions run high in war. And we've put a lot of people  
in prison who just looked like the enemy and never did anything  
wrong, just as loyal American as you or I.

But it would be very easy in this war for an American citizen to be  
called up by the enemy and labeled as something they are not. It  
would be very easy, in my opinion, if you're a business person  
dealing in the Mideast who happens to be an American citizen, the  
business deal goes bad, that bad things could happen to you.

And I would just like the administration to entertain the idea of  
sitting down with Senator DeWine and others to see if we can find a  
way at some point in the process of monitoring fifth column movements  
to have a check and balance system that not only would strengthen the  
commander in chief's role, it will give guidance to the people  
fighting the war. You'll have Congress on board. You'll be stronger  
in courts. And the enemy will be weaker.

How does that proposition sit with you?

GONZALES: Senator, the president already said we'd be happy to listen  
to your ideas.




#  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 {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net