It was clear in 1759 BC, with Hammurabai's Code, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Two political leaders who have the power to stop the war. But they don't consider their job to be political leaders, or they would be aware that their level is statecraft is 4000 years old.
Being head of the American arms dealership is the…
It was clear in 1759 BC, with Hammurabai's Code, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Two political leaders who have the power to stop the war. But they don't consider their job to be political leaders, or they would be aware that their level is statecraft is 4000 years old.
Being head of the American arms dealership is the job Biden thinks he was elected for. And he promised to "keep the missiles coming," while turning a blind eye on the bombing of schools, hospitals, apartments and places of worship. Netayahu promises "it will be a long war" just as he's resecured the border.
Stemming the tide of blood on either side, as far as they are concerned, isn't their job. Their priority is to secure the western stronghold in the Middle East with missiles aimed at Iran. The President has one more job: sell weapons.
The UN says that water, shelter, food, medicine, are all rights to life. If you remove these rights for a people, that's genocide. Israel's attacks on these targets in Gaza isn't an accident: it's been their consistent strategy. Why does the President turn a blind eye on war crimes and genocide in Gaza and not Ukraine?
Because now they have the excuse to stamp the last 25 mile strip they left to the Palestinians off the map. And they don't care how many Palestinians die (obviously), as long as all the Israelis don't die to achieve it.
In war, it doesn't matter who is right: it matters who is left.
Clearly political science - with all of the mathematical certainty that belongs to science - says this is, in fact, wrong... because it is doomed.
To understand the solution we need to understand the problem. Nietzche said that politics is strength are not civilization. Civilization requires the power of strength (imperium) bent to the service of the power of judgement (iudicium): aka law courts with the power to enforce the law.
Currently there is no international court with the military power to enforce just law. To stop the bloodshed, we would need Biden (imperium) to say that genocide is wrong on both sides.
Hobbes said that when we rely on a balance of power between militarized states, we'll get energy wars. He says we will have no power to enforce environmental regulations or just law. Is it a surprise to learn the UN peacekeeping force has no jurisdiction over genocide?
Is it a surprise that, despite all the collective mourning and censure of all the citizens of all the world, we have no power to stop this conflict?
We can see where that power has gone. It does not serve the people. It serves greed.
Empire (a "surpanational juridical system with the military power to enforce the law" according to Negri) is the technology to counteract human greed. Imperialism is its shadow. Pillaging, and plundering, it can create temporary economic boom, but it's not sustainable.
Imperialism is the current paradigm. The paradigm shift is Empire. It is not the empire of one country over another. The term empire was perverted by Roman tyrants - and thus all civilization. . Sometimes you have to fight for something, then fight for it under another name.
Like New World Order. This is another name for the paradigm shift, but the term was perverted by 20th century politicians. In it's true form, it is a prophecy:
In the global Information age, all the states of the world will have one last chance to come together and form a golden age, a sustainable system, to create this ideal political system, Empire, learning the lessons from the failure of previous ages, Imperialism. If we fail now, it will be the last age of man.
Hi Zahra, I thought Negri and Hardt were critiquing the idea of "Empire" in their book of that name, and promoting "multitude" (a postmodern update to the Marx's proletariat) as a response?
I was merely borrowing a phrase they used, and applying it to Empire, because the definition of Empire is a collection of states, equal as states, with the power to of judgement and the ability to use military force to enforce the just rule, international law and international regulations.
You recommended the series, I bought it, and I haven't finished it, alas, so I can't critique their theory. International political science hasn't changed much since Thucydides. I'll lay out the political science of it in response to your newer post. And I'll read the books!
This is just another crusade. The Holiest of Holies is a term referring to a empty, dark room in the Valley of the Kings, where once a day the light illuminates it. It means the light in the dark, the point is nothing. I fail to see yours.
The “Holy of Holies” was the inner sanctum of the ancient Jewish Temple, the place where the “Most High” dwelt. It was central to the Jewish sacrificial system and therefore to the Mosaic Covenant. Since ancient Hebrew did not have superlatives, the sacred authors did not refer to this place as The “Most Holy Place,” but used the more circumlocutive term, the “Holy of Holies”. The very richness of this term, “Holy of Holies,” is precisely what is needed to lead us into the depths of the reality it indicates.
It was clear in 1759 BC, with Hammurabai's Code, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Two political leaders who have the power to stop the war. But they don't consider their job to be political leaders, or they would be aware that their level is statecraft is 4000 years old.
Being head of the American arms dealership is the job Biden thinks he was elected for. And he promised to "keep the missiles coming," while turning a blind eye on the bombing of schools, hospitals, apartments and places of worship. Netayahu promises "it will be a long war" just as he's resecured the border.
Stemming the tide of blood on either side, as far as they are concerned, isn't their job. Their priority is to secure the western stronghold in the Middle East with missiles aimed at Iran. The President has one more job: sell weapons.
The UN says that water, shelter, food, medicine, are all rights to life. If you remove these rights for a people, that's genocide. Israel's attacks on these targets in Gaza isn't an accident: it's been their consistent strategy. Why does the President turn a blind eye on war crimes and genocide in Gaza and not Ukraine?
Because now they have the excuse to stamp the last 25 mile strip they left to the Palestinians off the map. And they don't care how many Palestinians die (obviously), as long as all the Israelis don't die to achieve it.
In war, it doesn't matter who is right: it matters who is left.
Clearly political science - with all of the mathematical certainty that belongs to science - says this is, in fact, wrong... because it is doomed.
To understand the solution we need to understand the problem. Nietzche said that politics is strength are not civilization. Civilization requires the power of strength (imperium) bent to the service of the power of judgement (iudicium): aka law courts with the power to enforce the law.
Currently there is no international court with the military power to enforce just law. To stop the bloodshed, we would need Biden (imperium) to say that genocide is wrong on both sides.
Hobbes said that when we rely on a balance of power between militarized states, we'll get energy wars. He says we will have no power to enforce environmental regulations or just law. Is it a surprise to learn the UN peacekeeping force has no jurisdiction over genocide?
Is it a surprise that, despite all the collective mourning and censure of all the citizens of all the world, we have no power to stop this conflict?
We can see where that power has gone. It does not serve the people. It serves greed.
Empire (a "surpanational juridical system with the military power to enforce the law" according to Negri) is the technology to counteract human greed. Imperialism is its shadow. Pillaging, and plundering, it can create temporary economic boom, but it's not sustainable.
Imperialism is the current paradigm. The paradigm shift is Empire. It is not the empire of one country over another. The term empire was perverted by Roman tyrants - and thus all civilization. . Sometimes you have to fight for something, then fight for it under another name.
Like New World Order. This is another name for the paradigm shift, but the term was perverted by 20th century politicians. In it's true form, it is a prophecy:
In the global Information age, all the states of the world will have one last chance to come together and form a golden age, a sustainable system, to create this ideal political system, Empire, learning the lessons from the failure of previous ages, Imperialism. If we fail now, it will be the last age of man.
Hi Zahra, I thought Negri and Hardt were critiquing the idea of "Empire" in their book of that name, and promoting "multitude" (a postmodern update to the Marx's proletariat) as a response?
I was merely borrowing a phrase they used, and applying it to Empire, because the definition of Empire is a collection of states, equal as states, with the power to of judgement and the ability to use military force to enforce the just rule, international law and international regulations.
You recommended the series, I bought it, and I haven't finished it, alas, so I can't critique their theory. International political science hasn't changed much since Thucydides. I'll lay out the political science of it in response to your newer post. And I'll read the books!
Your view is extremely narrow.
This is the Holyist of Holy Wars. The War between Good and Evil...its all Bibliographic!
This is just another crusade. The Holiest of Holies is a term referring to a empty, dark room in the Valley of the Kings, where once a day the light illuminates it. It means the light in the dark, the point is nothing. I fail to see yours.
Sorry Brother your misunderstood 😔
In "other" words...
The “Holy of Holies” was the inner sanctum of the ancient Jewish Temple, the place where the “Most High” dwelt. It was central to the Jewish sacrificial system and therefore to the Mosaic Covenant. Since ancient Hebrew did not have superlatives, the sacred authors did not refer to this place as The “Most Holy Place,” but used the more circumlocutive term, the “Holy of Holies”. The very richness of this term, “Holy of Holies,” is precisely what is needed to lead us into the depths of the reality it indicates.