Awakening: The World Made More Apparent
This week the tempo of political debate has been augmented by developments within the context of international political intrigue. In the West, the eight nations that form the primary body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have exhibited an attitude and the behavior of the quintessential neighborhood bully—their ambassadors continually articulating apocalyptic exhortations that demand a declaration of war be the resolution for every aspect of any dispute. That an act of war brings with it irreconcilable consequences seem consideration of little import to the mountebanks of such perverted diplomacy and gratuitous swagger. After all, it won’t be their leg that gets blown off in combat now, will it?
We see that, chief among the symptoms of such inclinations is the fact that in every step of the way in which any smaller nation state may take toward in its pursuit of any democratic ideal, it can automatically assume that the signatories of these Western Alliances will find some manner in which to frustrate—if not altogether destroy—the dreams of an independent people. Their primary technique for advancing the totalitarian agenda is to arrogantly challenge the underdog in the court of “human appeal.” Within that framework we know, there is no impartiality. The feckless journalism of Western culture predictably proffers violence as the only alternative instead of constructive dialog resolved within the context of an honest debate.
This isn’t the dialogue of statecraft, of diplomacy, or of reason; it is the rhetoric of the irrational; the musings of a mind submerged in the distress of insanity. To pose the irrational as a substitute for reason requires tremendous leverage. It is also a methodology that abandons the Hegelian Dialectic; mediation be damned! If we watch the players carefully, we can see the West’s routine imposition of intimidation; of leverage. If the independent nation state refuses “assimilation,” it is threatened with social upheaval. If it attempts to recapture the control of its destiny as perceived by either its people (as with Argentina under Salvador Allende) or its native power brokers (as with Libya under Gadhafi) it is then ruthlessly destroyed; its infrastructure, its culture, and its people are obliterated (Yes, resistance is futile!).
Such leverage requires collusion as the assets and resources required for violence must always be amassed in overwhelming quantity lest the victim endure to organize a more effective response. Political association therefore is, in the modern world, the first step toward arranging the elements of abject power. Watch the Western Alliances. They arrange organizational collectives into “power blocks” whose objectives are similar in nature and outward characterization. These collectives then manipulate the flow of events to their advantage by applying resources, held in common, to the manufacture of consensus within that collective. Such alliances function as a “hive mind,” displaying a predictable covetousness and avarice for things not within their sphere of overpowering influence.
Once a consensus is reached it becomes difficult to break the momentum behind the intent. “Hive minds” have difficulty changing their course of action—even if it is known that it will result in the ruination of the collective and the abolition of their vitality (historians take note of the consequences suffered by every empire, Napoleon and Hitler included). It is this consensus within the collective that exerts its influence on any activity outside their immediate influence. The concentration of such power then, is the goal of forming alliances.
The quest for an alternative paradigm
Given that the present paradigm for planetary civilization is so deficient in this sense of the word—as expressed in this opinion, in 1961, in then Belgrade, Yugoslavia, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was conceived by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghana's first president Kwame Nkrumah; and Yugoslavia's president, Tito. Today, it is a group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. In 2012, the movement had 120 members and 17 observer countries; it has since gained more members to the exclusion of the eight oligarchical powers of North America and the European Union. Leave it to a ferociously independent leadership to come up with the idea. Its history demonstrates its provenance as one that was incubated during the Cold War, when the more powerful nations of the world were at each other’s throats and “power blocks” were being constructed at every level of our planetary civilization!
As expressed by Fidel Castro in 1979, the purpose of the organization has always been to ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics." More significantly, the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the membership of the United Nations and, within their borders, contain over 55% of the planet’s human population.
Though for the longest time, membership was made up, primarily, of nation states of the Third World (as if there really is a First and Second world in this reality), this movement can now claim the interest of international heavy-weights like Russia and The People’s Republic of China. The big dogs in the Western Alliances don’t particularly care for the movement and often show public contempt for its members.
The Non-Aligned Movement was originally conceived as an alternative approach toward reducing Cold War tensions—the result of the vicious struggle between the “power blocks” of that era in our human history. Many sophists had thought that it would lose its relevance in the current sweep of international politics. However, the recent proliferation of violence against the nation states of the Middle East in the form of destructive wars whose objectives proved to be nothing more than the blatant seizure of national assets of countries declared “enemies” of the Western Alliance, has given the movement new life—and new meaning.
The 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in Teheran, Iran in August of 2012. It is significant that the members of this movement chose to hold their summit in the capital of the West’s “perennial villain” and I’m certain that decision was viewed with enmity and contempt by the power brokers of the Western Alliances. Even more significant—and relevant to today’s political panorama—during that summit, Iran attempted to draw up a new peace agreement the aim of which was to resolve the Syrian civil war. My, my, my but the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together with just a cursory examination of the historical evidence! Wouldn’t you agree?
Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon would attend the 2012 conference. Also invited were the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Brazil. Mohamed Morsi, ex-president of NAM and now ex-president of Egypt, also announced that he would participate in the summit and became the first leader in the history of Egypt to visit Iran since its “Islamic revolution” which resulted in the establishment of an Islamic Republic. Ali Akbar Salehi is an Iranian academic. A diplomat and once the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, he was the foreign affairs minister at the time. He was also the Iranian representative in the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1997 to 2005. Significant to the intentions expressed by the membership through agreement, he opened the 2012 summit by declaring an original goal:
"We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively."
Examining this statement would lead us into the depths of bewilderment trying to determine the objectives of Binyamin Netanyahu’s now infamous “Wild E. Coyote” bomb speech before the U.N. General Assembly as Iran has here given us a date from which we can extrapolate the reasons why, after 20 years of hard work developing nuclear energy, they still haven’t produced a nuclear weapon.
Of even greater portent, at the opening of the ministerial meeting Iran’s influential Ali Khamenei was reported to have said:
"The UN Security Council has an irrational, unjust and utterly undemocratic structure, and this is an overt dictatorship. The control room of the world (the Security Council) is under the control of the dictatorship of some Western countries."
Western Oligarchs, take note. This is the opinion of a human being that has become fed up with deceit and duplicity. The members of the Non-Aligned movement continue to consolidate their communal agreement to pursue peaceful alternatives to the development and improvement of our planetary civilization. Today, some journalists put their membership at 178. More definitive research must be done to understand the nature of membership in this organization. A quick study, however, shows that the attitude of “membership” in the Non-Aligned Movement is viewed as a concession to the needs of humanity; to the requirements of all life on this planet. That’s a far cry from the hierarchical organization of the United Nations whose more powerful nation states are seen to routinely exploit the biosphere to our collective detriment and recklessly advance their weird, almost other-worldly science as a remedy for everything imaginable, destroying our environment in the process.
More telling is that fact that, of late, the Western Alliances seem to want little else but violence and have underwritten the premise of that observation through their routine and ruthless destruction of millions of lives, their cultures, and their contributions to human history thereby imposing the sick, deviant mindset of the West—as expressed in the intolerant, violent, and reprehensible behavior of its leadership—upon the diversity of our planetary population. What better way to challenge such gay abandon than to just walk away into a movement the direction of which seems to invite us to consider the benefits of unity, fraternity, and equality?
It’s certainly something to think about.
Love and Light,
StunnedatSunset