What Will it Take to Create a Just and Peaceful Planet?

jsg

Active Member
I wrote a comment on an article entitled "If You Like Covid-19, You'll Love Nuclear War" (https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/05/11/if-you-like-covid-19-youll-love-nuclear-war/) because I have long been interested in how we humans achieve and maintain peace. Here it is for those interested in such issues:


Donald Trump's psychopathic presidency is a symptom of a society in decay and a government that, in seeing itself as"exceptional" i.e. the Chosen People delusion, has become dysfunctional, partisan and incompetent. Trump could have never gotten anywhere close to governmental responsibility in a healthy society with a healthy economic and political system, a healthy electorate and a healthy understanding of itself. The virulent nationalism that Trump promotes has always been dormant in the body politic, in the same way some viruses lie dormant in the body for decades before causing ill-heath to occur. Just as the end-game of unregulated capitalism is monopoly and oligarchy, the end-game of nationalism is empire, and the historical consequences of empire are ever-more-destructive wars.

Now that we have the technological means to destroy much of life on the entire planet, we have come to realize the cost of a nuclear war will be suicidal to any nation who engages in it and horrendous devastation to even the nations that do not. The author states rightly that we need "...decipherable logic, abundant clarity and more robust presidential commitments to science." No doubt, these are all necessary, but not sufficient. We also need an entirely new and expanded consciousness, both self-consciousness and collective consciousness. This new consciousness must come to the clear realization that as communications, transportation, ecology, culture, finance, manufacturing and markets are now clearly planetary and global in nature, nationalism, as the delusional expression of absolute sovereignty, is incapable of intelligent global governance because the nation state's highest aspiration is preservation of itself, whereas what is required is preservation of humanity and life on earth.

Without some kind of democratic global legal system that has the power to outlaw war, and hold to account any and all national leaders, be they civilian or military, war will continue simply because the delusion of absolute national sovereignty will continue. If only every nation were willing to surrender a small portion of its sovereignty, the right to make war, to a democratic, planetary government, we could then actually achieve what every nation says it craves: National security. To actually have national security, every nation must have it, or none will. Logic, clarity and commitment to science are all good and necessary. But without compassion, without the insight that we are all deeply interconnected--even more so in the 21st century--we will remain politically hypnotized into believing that nationalism is the solution to war, when in fact it is the cause of war. We must evolve and we must build a democratic, global legal system--with teeth (i.e. individual accountability)--that abolishes warfare. We humans are fully capable of replacing war with global law, and I imagine, even in my darkest nightmares, that after the 3rd or 4th world war, if humans are still here, we will do just that.

I share professor Beres's worries that under Trump, we are all in mortal danger. The Republican party, under his leadership is looking more like a death cult than a legitimate political party, and the Democrats seem unable to do much about it. We have reason to fear what lies ahead and reason to hope we can overcome the human propensity and bellicosity that allows productive and lawful competition to degenerate into violent competition. Nationalism is not capable of creating a governed world. If WW1 and WW2 should teach us anything, it is that fact.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Great post.

The virulent nationalism you speak of is really people just tired of not being represented, and being taken for granted.

This “virulence” is no different than sports fans at the olympics rooting for their country, their team.

I’m optimistic Trump wins, then seeks revenge, exposes the lying pieces of shit after bankrupting them in court, then the healing of the planet can continue...

Peace & Tranquility...
 
OP
jsg

jsg

Active Member
Great post.

The virulent nationalism you speak of is really people just tired of not being represented, and being taken for granted.

This “virulence” is no different than sports fans at the olympics rooting for their country, their team.

I’m optimistic Trump wins, then seeks revenge, exposes the lying pieces of shit after bankrupting them in court, then the healing of the planet can continue...

Peace & Tranquility...
Well, that's not what I meant by "virulent nationalism". What I meant is that because we identify ourselves with groups, there's always an out-group. We identify our group by race, class, skin-color, occupation, religion, nationality, etc. When our identifications are benign, we don't take them too seriously, like as you mentioned, in rooting for a particular sports team. But when toxic leaders like Trump come on the scene, they try to arouse fear and hatred in their people, to create distraction and scapegoats in order to create chaos and division (divide and conquer) to achieve political, military and economic dominance. This is what authoritarians and dictators do. Since nation-states are "allowed" to murder others lawfully (war as murder-by-the-group) societies sanction war and find purpose and meaning in killing, physical combat and domination.

The primal group is the family. Early humans joined families together to become clans, early clans joined together to become larger tribes. City-states evolved into states, states into large nations and nations (some) became empires (not so tidy as I seem to make it but I think you get the picture). The next stage of evolution is the integration of all nation-states into a planetary group of nations, under a global bill of rights, a global democratic constitution. It's a logical evolution of human cooperation. It might take another 1000 years, who knows, but since our technological and scientific progress has outpaced our ethical, psychological and social development, the need for peaceful conflict-resolution mechanisms is all the more urgent. The virulent form of nationalism leads to armed conflict, which is basically reverting back to our animal origins and primate belligerence. Whatever good war may have done in ancient times, it no longer does. Trade and culture can do it far more intelligently. I don't think Trump personally cares much for war; his love of money, appearances and his vanity seem to be much stronger needs, yet he's also quite sadistic. His paranoia and his emotional and moral development is extremely retarded, so he could get us into a war with China or Russia far more easily than a more rational president could because he's so ignorant and impulsive. If we think Covid-19 is bad, a nuclear war would be exponentially more catastrophic. Good leaders can stumble into wars because of nationalism, but bad leaders, and there are quite a few throughout the world now, make it more likely.
 
Last edited:

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Well IMO we tried the world citizen approach under President Obama. I supported it.
We were hacked to pieces, South China Sea became a war zone, Ukraine was invaded, Crimea annexed, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, the Creation of ISIS.

As you see the world where dangerous adversaries exist are only interested in seizing territory and extending power and borders, which is how wars start.

Trump is a dangerous unpredictable adversary.
Has Russia taken parts of Europe lately? Has China taken anymore islands belonging to Vietnam or the Phillippines? What about the Taliban and ISIS, no more enslavement of entire cultures.

Would you prefer we go back to giving billions to Iran to buy more Soviet weaponry that threatens the region, and cowers from aggressors?

Your vision of utopia is something Ive liked since watching Star Trek.

But in the real world we currently live in, Many world leaders and authoritarian regimes would need to be eliminated before the whole we are the world scenario could start.

Uniting all nations equally to lower CO2 is a good cause.
TTP and Paris Accords claimed to be a step in the right direction.
Of course evil American capitalism would fund that, while WTO Favored “developing” (Bull shit) nations (China) would keep polluting while we pay the rest of the world.

Once we defeat these adversaries economically, there’s a chance.
But I’m sure you’re aware that Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, N.Korea and Syria want the EU, USA and it’s allies to be destroyed.

To put your head in the sand while they pursue territory and power is naive.

But peace on earth and hail to global citezenry someday.
 
OP
jsg

jsg

Active Member
Well IMO we tried the world citizen approach under President Obama. I supported it.
We were hacked to pieces, South China Sea became a war zone, Ukraine was invaded, Crimea annexed, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, the Creation of ISIS.

As you see the world where dangerous adversaries exist are only interested in seizing territory and extending power and borders, which is how wars start.

Trump is a dangerous unpredictable adversary.
Has Russia taken parts of Europe lately? Has China taken anymore islands belonging to Vietnam or the Phillippines? What about the Taliban and ISIS, no more enslavement of entire cultures.

Would you prefer we go back to giving billions to Iran to buy more Soviet weaponry that threatens the region, and cowers from aggressors?

Your vision of utopia is something Ive liked since watching Star Trek.

But in the real world we currently live in, Many world leaders and authoritarian regimes would need to be eliminated before the whole we are the world scenario could start.

Uniting all nations equally to lower CO2 is a good cause.
TTP and Paris Accords claimed to be a step in the right direction.
Of course evil American capitalism would fund that, while WTO Favored “developing” (Bull shit) nations (China) would keep polluting while we pay the rest of the world.

Once we defeat these adversaries economically, there’s a chance.
But I’m sure you’re aware that Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, N.Korea and Syria want the EU, USA and it’s allies to be destroyed.

To put your head in the sand while they pursue territory and power is naive.

But peace on earth and hail to global citizenry someday.

It's interesting that you point out the aggression of Russia, Iran and China. Fair enough, other countries behave badly, no doubt about that. But then you ignore American aggression, why is that? Vietnam, Laos, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Panama--and there's more. A world-wide Gallup poll in 2016 voted the United States the most dangerous country in the world. So, if we believe in at least trying to be fair and objective, don't we need to look at our own nation's misdeeds with the same scrutiny that we judge China, Russia, Iran or any other nation? And shouldn't we ponder the fact that the American government has murdered more innocent civilians in the past 75 years than any other nation?


This also might convince you of the utter waste and futility of war in the 21st century:

I find it peculiar that you would think it's naive to believe we can achieve peace through world law. What's more naive is to believe that there's any kind of real defense against a nuclear attack. A large war between Russia and the U.S. for example, would obliterate both countries. There would be no winner. There will be only losers. The whole idea of legitimate self-defense falls apart when factoring in the destructive power of nuclear weapons. If you get a chance, read Daniell Ellsberg's book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. I think he would convince you better than I can that the only way to save our country and our world is to never use nuclear weapons.

Idealists are the ones who dream about doing and making what others dismiss as fantasy, or impossible. If idealists didn't push to realize their dreams, we'd have no Bill of Rights, no Magna Carta, no antibiotics, no space flights to the moon, nothing to propel us forward into at least trying to create a better world. It's far better to try and fail a hundred times than to accept that the world as it is today is as good as it's going to get.

The status quo of nationalism, as it stands today, is unsustainable. There are bad governments all over the planet, it's not just the United States. This is even more reason to see the urgency of creating a global system where the relationship between nations is governed by law and the force of law (individual accountability). As of now, we more or less have a kind of not-so-quiet anarchy. "International Law" is really more about breakable treaties that leave us vulnerable to the whims of any one nation. You mentioned the US pulling out of the Paris Climate Treaty, that's a clear example. So is the treaty to limit the range of missiles carrying nuclear warheads, both the US and Russia are now leaving that treaty as well. Treaties are no substitute for global law, which we do not have because the political will, political imagination and idealism is lacking, not because we are incapable of abolishing war. The UN is failing to achieve its mandate, which was to prevent war, because the five permanent members of the security council have veto power. They are also the first five nations to acquire nuclear weapons, which is a newer version of "might makes right". Might doesn't make right, might only protects the previous generation's rights but does nothing to advance the expansion of human rights or the cause of peace. If the UN were democratic, the abolishing of nuclear weapons would already be in process, as the majority of nations in the world voted in 2017 to get rid of them:

(https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/)

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has worked for decades, but eventually it will fail and by design or by accident, we'll find ourselves in a nuclear war. To my way of thinking, the starry-eyed optimists are actually the wishful-thinkers who think that keeping thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert is somehow adding to the security and peace of the world. It is not. At any moment this whole system can give way to irrationality, fear, computer error, miscalculation or outright aggression.

Out of the ashes perhaps we'll become wise enough to recognize that warfare must be abandoned. Sentimentality and violence go hand in hand. We've given up cannibalism, we've given up slavery (well, involuntary slavery, we still have corporate slavery that impacts millions of people) and we're on our way to recognize full equality of the sexes. We now need to rethink war as an institution that has outlived itself and honor it only as a stage of evolution we had to pass through, but no longer honor it as a means of solving social problems that are better solved through culture, industry and trade. If we don't get rid of war, war will surely get rid of us.
 
Last edited:

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
I don’t ignore it, I omit it as I’m a trained professional from watching lying liberal fake news for too long. I should be giving them some tips, really poor writing.
Totally understandable though as the poor darlings were traumatized, then f9r the last 4 years failed t every attempt to succeed in removing the President.

They’re losers, but their billionaire owners are winners. I do admire the Hollywood pervert elite, and the wealthy white liberals. Unlike some I admire success and winning.
Just feel sorry for their minority voters who get strung along year after year.

I like Trumps economic warfare far more than liberal wars where we lose and give our enemies billions for likes on Facebook and Twitter.
 
OP
jsg

jsg

Active Member
I don’t ignore it, I omit it as I’m a trained professional from watching lying liberal fake news for too long. I should be giving them some tips, really poor writing.
Totally understandable though as the poor darlings were traumatized, then f9r the last 4 years failed t every attempt to succeed in removing the President.

They’re losers, but their billionaire owners are winners. I do admire the Hollywood pervert elite, and the wealthy white liberals. Unlike some I admire success and winning.
Just feel sorry for their minority voters who get strung along year after year.

I like Trumps economic warfare far more than liberal wars where we lose and give our enemies billions for likes on Facebook and Twitter.

The liberals of yesterday are often the conservatives of today. What was once a liberal idea, abolishing slavery, is now the accepted norm. History has clearly shown us that economic warfare (sanctions) very often leads to physical warfare. If that's OK with you, then join a death cult. But I won't be joining you.
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Hell just sit back and light your incense sticks and smoke a peace pipe.
Our adversaries like that.
For over 20 years theyve conducted economic warfare by stealing our IP and forcing technological transfers. The EU is finally waking up to this. Some are scared to publicly condemn the CCP, they too prefer writing letters, pleading, etc.
When this is all settled in 2022, you’ll be glad the God King Trump risked his term in office to fix things those those peace loving investors in DC prospered from.

Hey bro you sound unhappy, might I suggest an Air B&B vacation?
Im heading home now but had beachfront property in Carmel for 300 a night, and 200 in Monterey. Cloudy half the time but everything is cheap right now.
Go enjoy yourself, let the world go away.
 

Attachments

Quasar

Senior Member
...Trump could have never gotten anywhere close to governmental responsibility in a healthy society with a healthy economic and political system, a healthy electorate and a healthy understanding of itself. The virulent nationalism that Trump promotes has always been dormant in the body politic, in the same way some viruses lie dormant in the body for decades before causing ill-heath to occur...
This is the most salient comment in your post IMHO, though I would question how "dormant" anything you describe was prior to Trump, and rather tend to see Trump as an incremental, natural and arguably inevitable continuation of what has been emanating from Washington, DC since 1945.
 
OP
jsg

jsg

Active Member
This is the most salient comment in your post IMHO, though I would question how "dormant" anything you describe was prior to Trump, and rather tend to see Trump as an incremental, natural and arguably inevitable continuation of what has been emanating from Washington, DC since 1945.
Yeah, I see what you mean. If we get more detailed, I suppose we can say that the economic, military aggression and political degradation via money in politics has been getting incrementally worse for decades. I probably was focused a bit more on the white supremacy and racism. True, that's always been present in the American mindset among certain groups, but Trump has brought it to the center, encouraging it and placing racist bottom-feeders like Bannon and Miller into positions of influence. I am no admirer of Bush, Clinton or Obama, but they certainly did not arouse and inspire hatred of minorities and people of color as Trump is doing.
 
Last edited:

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Return To Isla Nublar
Bring back the Dinosaurs and they will thin out the herds.
Let them eat Jeff Goldblum this time, then a series of sequels in various countries where the Dinosaurs and Greta Thunberg seek revenge for Global Warming, etc. She can have a MadMax type of ATV posing as an Amazonian with armies of Raptors...
 

Denkii

Senior Member
then a series of sequels in various countries where the Dinosaurs and Greta Thunberg seek revenge for Global Warming, etc. She can have a MadMax type of ATV posing as an Amazonian with armies of Raptors...
10/10. Would watch.
You should write scripts.
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Just to piss off the status quo, I’d have hip hop lofi grooves and 808 Bass in the chase scenes.
I’m so done with the drum volume curve excerpts.
I want to dance as the humans perish in the jaws of giant Reptiles.
 

Karl Feuerstake

Active Member
To achieve such an impossible agenda would require incredibly radical changes on an absolutely massive scale. It could really only be achieved by the eradication of all nation states and unification of all people under one single global totalitarian state. And potentially this may not even be enough, one could still push it to the extreme and say the only way to obtain absolute justice and peace for all living beings would be to exterminate all life, therein injustice never being capable of being committed against an organism.

Thus to achieve such an absolute is not desirable, and such bold idealism could be seen as dangerous.

If then, to achieve absolute justice and absolute peace are not desirable, then at what point do we stop and say 'we have enough justice, we have enough freedom, we avoid enough war - things work best here'? I think most Western countries are doing pretty good right now, especially when one looks at history and sees what kinds of things average citizens of these nations had to deal with not 50 years ago, let alone beyond that.
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
IQ tests for licensing human reproduction and voting.
Totally agree as Liberals could never win elections then. Their main argument now is their voters don’t have identification.

I think door to door delivery of stamped/self addressed envelopes, already filled out, only needing a signature is a way to victory at the local level, maybe national too, ass long as SCOTUS doesn’t require removing millions of dead peoples names like they recently did in LA.

Cheerz
 
OP
jsg

jsg

Active Member
To achieve such an impossible agenda would require incredibly radical changes on an absolutely massive scale. It could really only be achieved by the eradication of all nation states and unification of all people under one single global totalitarian state. And potentially this may not even be enough, one could still push it to the extreme and say the only way to obtain absolute justice and peace for all living beings would be to exterminate all life, therein injustice never being capable of being committed against an organism.

Thus to achieve such an absolute is not desirable, and such bold idealism could be seen as dangerous.

If then, to achieve absolute justice and absolute peace are not desirable, then at what point do we stop and say 'we have enough justice, we have enough freedom, we avoid enough war - things work best here'? I think most Western countries are doing pretty good right now, especially when one looks at history and sees what kinds of things average citizens of these nations had to deal with not 50 years ago, let alone beyond that.
Who said anything about absolute justice? If you honestly believe that the abolition of war as an institution and as a means to resolve conflict is equivalent to absolute justice, you're clearly not understanding how group sovereignty has evolved on this world. Of course it's not impossible that a new type of global tyranny could happen, it's already happening. Lawless multinational corporations are calling the shots and accountable to nobody but their shareholders--some corporations are already considering suing governments for attempting to protect their citizens from the coronavirus because they are losing profits. in the US, corporations with their lawyers and lobbyists make our laws, corrupt our elections with money and pollute our planet with impunity. Treaties and other non-binding agreements between nations may temporarily stop small wars from happening, but the big wars, the ones between the top 2 or 3 most powerful nations will continue and treaties will not stop them. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Unbridled national sovereignty IS the cause of war. If you and I have a disagreement, let's say a business disagreement, if we are decent people, we don't get guns and shoot each other, we hire lawyers to initiate non-violent conflict resolution. If California and Nevada have a conflict, say, over water rights, California and Nevada don't go to war, they bring their conflict to a district court to resolve the problem non-violently because both states have yielded a portion of their state's rights over to a federal government.

If we were living a 1000 years ago and you and I had a strong disagreement, one of us might have easily decided to poison or stab the other to death. Today's reality is often yesterday's idealism. You wrote that the idea of a DEMOCRATIC world government is an impossible agenda. People thought the same thing about the equality of women, abolishing slavery, and limiting the absolute sovereignty of kings. A global democratic government has one primary purpose: To ensure that disputes and conflicts between nations are resolved in court, not on the battlefield. Nations would still have their identities, local and national governments would still have authority, but when it comes to regulating the relationship between nations, we must learn how to govern ourselves without violence. Law means holding to account any and all national leaders who initiate armed conflict for political and/or economic reasons.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but the entire planet is now a battlefield. A war between Russia and the U.S. would almost certainly go nuclear, threatening the entire planet with extreme devastation, poverty, hunger, nuclear winter and a world that would make the current pandemic look like a trivial inconvenience. Both nations have thousands of nukes aimed at one another on hair-trigger alert. You might call that "having enough justice or having enough freedom", but I sure don't. Though an idea like global government is progressive and implementing it too quickly would be a mistake, it's really the only way to evolve a civilization that really is civil. After world war 5 or 6, people will come to their senses and realize the abolition of war is far better than species suicide. Civilization can no longer afford war. Whatever good war may have accomplished in the past in terms of securing the rights of the most powerful groups it no longer does. Our technology has made war into an indiscriminate method of wiping out entire cities, continents and nations. War is for socially regressive men and women to satisfy their bloodlust and the need to dominate other groups. The moral courage to avoid violence is a far greater courage than the nihilistic courage to engage in it.

If you think nations are doing pretty well right now, yes, in some ways we are barely managing to hold it together. The leaders of great nations know that a war will destroy all the countries involved so naturally, sane leaders want to avoid it. Perhaps this fact alone will keep us out of war. But history shows that wars begin inadvertently, nobody wanted world war I but it happened anyway.
 
Last edited:

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
California taxed me for Salination Plants back in the 80’s and never built them.
Climate change is putting the Yukon in a permanent state of flooding, where’s the Pipeline?
Where’s the Bullet Train?

I could easily solve California’s water shortage myself, but then the crisis would disappear. Insurance would be dirt cheap, and the wealthy Liberals can’t possibly allow stability, they would no longer be needed.

Cant wait for the majority voting block, Hispanics, to take over California.
We were here before Liberals, and will be here long after they’re gone.