Expelling North Korea From the Orbit of the World (Earth as an Atom)

Peace of Westphalia,” Wikipedia, 31 December 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia.

Electrons,” by Larry Dunbar, tdaxp, 22 May 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/21/the_path_to_victory_neural_networks_of_4g_movements.html.

Commenting on my post about neural networks and Fourth Generation movements, Larry compares states to electrons

I am glad to see you have the basic principles of an electron down. The very existence of an electron is behind the reason I think some of the ideas of Dr. Barnett’s are so wacky.

An electron exists where it is because the frequencies involved are non-destructive. When an atom has 6 electrons in an orbit they exist because the frequency of each don’t cancel each other out. When energy is increased or decreased, negative or positive acceleration, the frequency changes so the electrons have to “move” out or “move” in, for them to exist.

In other words, a stable world would be like an element in a vacuum: nothing changes the energy of the states so there are no disruptions. But…

Because I feel society act like an electron, particle wave, or lightwave, I also feel they can’t exists when their frequency are destructive to each other. If you replace implicit laws, which make a society exist, with frequency then you are able to understand what I mean.

I feel the frequency of our society produce a destructive frequency with China. China and North Korea produce a non-destructive frequency so without any modification to their frequency, they can exist. I simply don’t feel Dr. Barnett has factored frequency into his equation.

Larry correctly notes that increased American connectivity and communication with the Chinese people undermines Chinese society and government. He also correctly notes that same does not work in reverse, and Chinese norms do not threaten American culture.

For centuries, the system that allowed every state to go its own way was The Peace of Westphalia. I think in his deference to the stability of states, Larry would disagree with the NATO Secretary General, the German foreign Minister, and the al Qaeda statement:

In 1998 on a Symposium on the Political Relevance of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, then NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that “humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order” and criticized that “the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration.” [1]

In 2001, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: “The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions.” [2]

In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the terrorist network al-Qaida also declared that “the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state”. [3] Also, it is often claimed that globalization is bringing an evolution of the international system past the sovereign Westphalian state.

We could firewall the Gap and rely on deterrence to create many worlds — a free, connected Core that includes the North America, Europe, Japan, and some others, along with many national cultures cut off from the wider world and its freedoms.

When we connect with China, we give China the activation it needs to change its orbit. Globalization gives energy to peoples to throw off old ways and begin new ones Globalization creates disorder. Globalization is a process of creative destruction that trades stability in the short-term for a safer and better world in the long-term.

The North Korean government cannot share in this future. It is too dangerous and to evil to exist. The other states will return to stability in Globalization — will will share constructive frequencies. But not North Korea. We must expel North Korea from the atom of the world. We must Kill Kim.

2 thoughts on “Expelling North Korea From the Orbit of the World (Earth as an Atom)”

  1. The ultimate form of stability is death. Life is full of tension and your description of globalization as creative destruction is apt. We either seek to advance ourselves clothed in what appears chaos or seek stability and all that entropy has to offer.

  2. Stuart,

    You are not alone in extending the life analogy to social constructs. The Constitution is sometimes called “a living document” by advocates of liberal interpretations, etc.

    Clearly we want humans to be alive. But do we really want a living culture, or is a stable one better for humans? Likewise, do we want a living constitution or a timeless one?

    I feed of dead animals (steak) and dead plants (fruits). Is it also healthy for man to live in a dead culture under a dead Constitution?

    Last, would an entropic system be considered changing (alive) or static (dead)? Is “decay” a form of life?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *