Don't read this post. It's gibberish/notes for something I'm writing.
And
Britain supports the move. Maybe we're seeing the crystallization of the New World Order plan...by other means. The classic NWO theory called for an omnipotent U.N., global federalism, etc. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Perhaps as "terrorists" start showing up in the G8 states, those governments will shape the political order in a de facto manner (by the arbitrary use of military power). What political order? It's pretty simple: Where there are oil and natural gas deposits, G8 states will strike "terrorists" with the right hand, while the left hand steals the natural resources.
Obviously, if this is the case, back room deals have been struck between the criminal operators. Now, here's the problem. When groups of fascists/criminals/mobsters get together to make deals, someone always tries to ratfuck the rest of the group in order to take all the marbles for himself. (Just watch the Godfather movies for a quick lesson in this.) So, now that the U.S., Britain and Russia (don't forget Israel) are in on this scam, it will be interesting to see who gets screwed---and how.
There's an interesting analogy from SCUBA diving that is very useful to understanding the situation the world is now facing with regard to energy, oil and natural gas in particular. "Buddy breathing" is technique in which one SCUBA diver shares his regulator with another diver who has run out of air. In SCUBA class, they emphasize that the diver who shares his air MUST grip the regulator in a way that maximizes control of the device. Why? Because the diver who ran out of air tends to panic, and tries to fight the other diver for the regulator. The result of buddy breathing, in actual diving emergency situations, tends to result in the death of both divers.
Now, how does this relate to the current political situation?
It looks like states with the most to lose are clinging to each other in an attempt to use what's left of global energy resources to survive. Remember what happens to the divers who try to buddy breathe... Eventually, someone will panic and kill his ally for one more gasp of air. (Of course, unlike in the diving example, a catastrophic outcome in terms of the energy crisis would be absurd, because viable alternatives are available, and could be developed with ease. This, however, would loosen the grip the elite have around our necks.)
If you want a more eloquent description of this phenomenon, read
The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin. While I don't agree with his prescriptions, his description of the problem is accurate. To think things would go any other way is, I'm sorry to say, folly:
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. There are theoretical solutions to the scarcity issues, but the probability of operationalizing them before the collapse is zero. The way of dealing with warlords in a state of nature (post collapse world) would have to rely on memes held to be valid by multitudes of mostly disorganized actors, who would occasionally be called upon to swarm and destroy those aspiring to warlord status. The goal is to recognize individuals' narrow self interests through positive sum situations, WITHOUT---and this is key---relying on any heirarchcal organizations. Hint: This almost certainly won't happen.
Not long to wait now:
Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of Russia's armed forces, asserted Russia's right to strike terrorists beyond its borders.
"As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases ... we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," he told reporters.
Baluyevsky made his comments alongside NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, Gen. James Jones, after talks on Russia-NATO military cooperation, including anti-terror efforts.
posted by Kevin at 3:39 PM
