Re: [-empyre-] unstable ground and opera houses

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@uiah.fi>]

> I'm concerned about this war as well and not at all in
> favour, but I've seen very little effort to try to
> understand or explain why would the happy couple
> Bush/Blair want to fight it. Call me naive, but I
> cannot imagine people in that position (and I'm
> referring to Blair in particular) would want to
> initiate such a disaster for no reason. But Blair is
> right on one thing: when in the 30s only a few stood
> up against fascism, they went against public opinion.
> It was more comfortable to just "do nothing" and wait,
> it took courage to react. Saddam is by no mean someone
> who deserve the kind of strenuous defense that the
> western world has indicated. The Iraqi people do, but
> Saddam is keeping the nation in a prehistorical state.


Somewhat simplistic comments follow, but there is much more to say in 
this direction -- to clarify the principles of engagement currently 
exhibited...  And avoid being swamped in media noise which only 
serves to confuse the issues!

Thinking about "defense" is part of the problem.  Having worked for 
some years in "Big Oil," it is clear that this is merely one battle 
in a long-term offensive Oil War.  I would suggest a re-read of the 
classic history of the major oil companies "Seven Sisters."  Control 
of the Gulf area is a key factor in the rise of the post-WWII 
Military Industrial complex most characterized by the US hegemonic 
power...

In order to better understand the principles of what is going on -- 
one can look at/decode/model the situation from a thermo-dynamics 
point-of-view.  A highly structured system (the nexus of global 
capitalism, the US Military-Industrial-Technology machine, and other 
developed countries) needs an influx of energy to maintain the degree 
of order required to 'survive.'  Without a constant influx of energy, 
an ordered system immediately begins to tend to disorder.  In the 
case of the US Military, given the intense level of 'order' needed to 
project its coordinated heirarchic power, it needs a massive influx 
of energy.  While Oil is not the only energy source, it is the 
primary source, so, the system is merely seeking to guarantee its own 
survival by securing its energy source.  (Parallel situations: 
English naval power related to existence of first growth timbers for 
construction; English Imperial power and control of human energy 
sources (tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa);  Spanish imperial power and gold 
(a flexible resource convertible into vast quantities of energy)...)

By the turn of the 19th Century, armies no longer 'ran on their 
stomachs' because of technological advancements that required energy 
inputs into the system -- coal & iron among other resources -- so 
that the military machine was forced to extend the range and 
consumptive power beyond merely killing humans and reaping the 
traditional spoils of war that satisfied the immediate bodily 
functions of the foot-soldier -- rape and plunder...  Instead, 
militaristic hegemony had to guarantee stable resources

An obverse condition that arises, which has interesting ramifications 
-- when energy is drained from one point to 'fill' another point, the 
overall level of 'organization' drops as there isn't the energy to 
maintain order -- witness the results in a place like Afghanistan, 
where decades of draining has rendered a society where order is low, 
tending to immediate local physical controls.  Compare that to a 
highly structured and controlled society in the US where the controls 
can be projected over large spaces and distances.

It takes energy.

"They" know it!

While it is 'entertaiing' to read about the personal exploits of 
these idiot greedheads in power, it is critical to understand the 
principles that drive not only their thinking, but their lives, their 
deaths, and their souls!

jh