Saturday, July 14, 2012

To Tell the Truth

Anthropologists may question whether a form of government still based in theocracy can afford the same levels of hypocrisy as an oligarchy with democratic aspirations.  Of course I'm thinking of Iran and its official line that it's not lying about not wanting to break the NPT, but is rather intending to enforce it (in a coalition of the willing), to the point of global divestment.

I'd say global divestment is an official policy of many in the Pentagon for cynical military reasons:  wars used to accomplish something, maybe we could get back to that.  I think it's more a mind over brain thing, meaning "upgrades are possible", so going back to the old kind of "theater" may or may not be in the cards (not a given, despite Satan's fond hopes).

What swept the so-called West was "real politik".  I would refer you to CFR docs and the writings of Henry Kissinger to get a stronger idea of what that means.  One might call it Machiavellianism.  The job of politicians was not to communicate truthfully, which was handed off to journalism, which could be bought; the job of politicians was to say what was necessary to win the allegiance of key constituencies.

The constituents could know you were lying (open secret) as they did it themselves.  Lying was just another tense, like past perfect or future.  This was actually consistent with the linguistic turn in some ways, and Nietzsche's critique of the will to truth, of which he was justifiably suspicious (oppressive moralism wears the mantle of truth in various clownish guises -- this was pre psychoanalysis lets remember).  Theologists were given handicapped parking with the intention to grandfather them out as old school.  Iran, also Israel, are anachronistic to the extent clerics, rabbis, imams, any of those, are given undue influence.

In retrospect, we might agree this attack against one brand of ideologue by another, perhaps seen as realistic in the light of scientism, was not especially likely to result in a clear win for either side.  The religious have felt on the defensive, with secularism and democratism a real check on their power.  However the religious have some ethics and disciplines that keeps them viable.  The question is to what extent hypocrisy (disconnecting self characterizations from one's actions and intent -- relates to overall credibility and authenticity) is able to fly in these circumstances.  Does one side have an edge or stand to lose more if mouthing phony shibboleths?

The question is this:  if Iran is theoretically a theocratic state and is essentially telling the truth about its strategy, then when does it morph into a global champion of the NPT against defiant rogue states such as Colorado and other states allowing nuke weapons in storage, or in launch position, in their homelands?  Or have these states been colonized?  Do they really have much say?

Iranian weapons inspectors, somewhat inspired by Scott Ritter and other "just the facts mam" intelligence analysts, enlist for duty both at home and overseas, under the auspices of the IAEA and others, ready for duty in Australia, Chernobyl, whatever Restricted Zones of possible weapons contamination, sometimes amidst pristine natural beauty (a subject of ecotourism, other extreme tourism genres).

The teams are diverse, multi-ethnic, with some recruits from Reed College in Portland.

A career as an supranational pro-Earthian warrior is rewarding in itself.  Foil the Dr. Evil types.

The question facing Pakistan is whether to join Iran as another Muslim state with a Countdown to Zero agenda.  India has been asking for admission into the nuclear club under the terms of the NPT without making divestment of nuclear weapons its priority, turning away from any course Gandhi would have advocated.  Einstein would likewise have been for an anti-nuke weapons Israel.

We might see India's deterioration into having nuke weapons as evidence of the impotence in India's engineering caste and/or the relative moral immaturity of Hinduism. If Pakistan flips the switch, ala South Africa, and joins Iran in its leadership role, the contrast with the Islamic states will only be heightened.  "Islam is about ridding the world of nuclear weapons."  I would agree with that.

A youthful more hopeful movement is showing signs of wanting to go this route, as Occupy / Arab Spring spreads a Countdown to Zero message.  Reversing a lot of the eco-damage committed in the 1900s looks like ethical work, the work of healing.  The need for pro-Earthians is medical, as much as religious.  Science and engineering shake hands, are on the same page.

NPT:  Non-proliferation Treaty
CFR:  Council on Foreign Relations
IAEA:  International Atomic Energy Agency