OH SAY NATION: A Political Commentary 3rd Edition


                                              By Marilynn Stark

Computer Chip

Much is made of the communications boon to mankind. It is as if the relay of knowledge of events worldwide from one nation to the others and from one continent to another is a sign of great progress in unification of the peoples. Furthermore, this hope towards unity can be viewed as meritorious by its own nature. The idea of the global village which Marshall McLuhen purported is now a much more vivid reality than when he first purported it a few decades ago. A citizen of one nation can send by email a message which is transmitted virtually instantaneously and at no real cost per message to a citizen of another nation. The leaders of the nations can hold live video conferences, thus experiencing the enhancement to their communication of the subtleties of visual and auditory perceptions formerly available only in physically born meetings. The economies of the nations of the world are also much more liable to intermeshing by the sheer power of the World Wide Web whereby businesses can enjoy internationally gained leverage by the movement of goods and services across borders invisibly through cyberspace. The goods transacted in the retail trade can be as simple as business-to-business advertising or the downloading of an e-book for a cost. An e-business can employ citizens of foreign nations across the Internet with the flash of the mouse, a flicker on the screen. In fact, this geo-political economy which is evolving with the information revolution of cybernetics features a microeconomic component that is unique for its power to influence trade by dint of the power of advertising itself. This real fact of the power of advertising is only a correlate of the newfound place of information; indeed, information constitutes the actual currency of the microchip that directs technological advancement as we are now witnessing it. This exchange of information directs from an almost invisible lever a certain and as yet vaguely understood component to the economic prosperity of the technologically developed and advanced countries. One has only to surf the Internet to hear tell of the phenomenal "Silicon Rush" which has swept into the lives and hopes of many entrepreneurs who are active in seeking their fortunes on the Internet.

As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, "If we would become acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a nation, therefore, we must begin by the study of its social condition." In view of the foregoing observations upon the contemporary condition of mankind itself whereupon nations can share knowledge of one another's events and how those events reflect and influence social condition in such an immediate and transparent mode in our state of technological advancement there is dawning a new political venue. This new political venue is characterized by a world-level body politic whose potential is as yet to be determined. And how we guard that potential of a world-level body politic so as to honor the individuated borders of our nations and certainly those borders of our own individual nation will become more critical to us as the global village in a sense expands further as the world shrinks. This fundamental truth is more profound than what it may appear to be in the abstract sense, for the global village is indeed being spawned by the close intermeshing of the economies of the expanded practical world in the Age of Cybernetics.

Now today we in America are gripped by the inner terrorism which has struck our nation by dint of horrific massacres. We are further gripped by the recent acts of terrorist war on September 11, 2001 whereupon both a rich financial district in our leading geopolitical city was mercilessly attacked, as well as our own Pentagon; so was a plane felled in Pennslvania. Therefore, the tranquility which had once characterized our politically born social condition, our civility in everyday living itself, is under careful scrutiny by ourselves and by the other nations. Yes, we can strike back in declared war on terrorism and guard more carefully the criminal element which has infused the mindset of our youth as they are by the decade now left open to suspect use and/or trafficking in the realm of drugs by an ever-growing police element in our society; it is their warrior duty to try to modify and curtail the outlaw cult formed by the drug people. However, the underlying factors which are grossly changing our concept that we are indeed a peaceful-living people are such that the people themselves must look for answers beyond any correctional place the police might occupy. These factors have arisen partly out of the influence of global-level politicking. In the outlaw deeds of the drug underworld, for example, there exists a great international vector of trafficking of chemical substance contraband which can begin to convince a given foreign nation that it can dominate the American socio-political venue remarkably; indeed, this can be carried even sufficiently so as to ideate conquering us. Such diffuse perils as these must be coherently and democratically addressed in the legislative issue-forming processes and forums of this Republic. We Americans as a people might be ethnically and racially homogenized by the power of the democratic melting pot of which we as better people conceive. However, when a people are prey to terrorist massacre from within and terrorist massacre from without, then the place of leadership in the nation becomes vital to the preservation of the people.

Knowing the vital place of leadership in times of war to steer a nation correctly, then the question becomes moot: is the process of the selection of our high-level American leaders immune to the increasing power of foreign governments and people to exert their influence across our borders? As we observed earlier in this discussion, this is the global village of nearly instantaneous relay of information throughout the world. What better way to sway the self-determination and then even destiny itself of a powerful giant like the United States than to interrupt the citizens in their cognitive choice of, say, a president, for example? Or, even worse, to indoctrinate and then subjugate the American people into lack of ability to cognize a promising leader when one arises in the world-level forum.

If we are to surrender to this point of possible truth that the process of the selection of our nation's leaders must be guarded and made immune to foreign influence for our own preservation, then there must be some guiding thoughts which will make it possible to secure our social fiber and our governing system. The first impulse intellectually in unraveling any possible source of gross level interference with the process of the selection of our top leaders would be to blame corruption, and the second might be to blame cowardice in the existing leaders who were daunted in the Cold War and knew not how to fend from a purist stand.

Let us not slip into an uncharacteristic determinism unto the Machiavellian vision that the problem of the democratically determined selection of our nation's top leaders must be doomed even if such instance of its failure had occurred as to anyone's insightful knowledge. We trace our great Republic's political heritage to a philosophical precept of the worth of the individual, the sanctity of the individual, and from there we draw forth the collective social good as naturally inhering in the people to honor the greatness of their leaders insofar as they are responsible and believing in the destiny of each citizen to pursue happiness. Furthermore, that pursuit is by legal right. And if there is doubt and fear that we might as a people have been robbed or might be still robbed of the finest among us to so lead, then one last analysis of strict worth must be pursued herein as a way to lend a measure of hope if not by guiding hand. We must value our leaders as they in turn value us as a people; however, changing the social condition might be challenging to those leaders. On the other hand, if one understands well the battle between good and evil, then even corruption itself may not daunt one in the prospects of one's very hopes for the just continuation of a great democracy such as ours. The greatness of our democracy is in truth measured by the inherent state of its social condition as good or wanting. Still, America can survive a past transgression of its own political power in the people to elect the leader of choice due to foreign subversion if only America will retain her invaluable, sound social condition as prevailing in perceivably good status. 

If the many and teeming peoples of this world had been processed politically by the threat of nuclear disaster as was thought to have been possible in the locked horns of the Cold War era between this nation and the USSR, then a recognizably great level of universality of concern in the political arena had occurred. When once this universal level of political unrest has taken its stature as platform, then the strife between good and evil has been intensified; that strife has been magnified greatly. This is perceived as imperilment by the leaders who are reviewing the issues and the questions of their respective national security or likely militant aggressions. Self-defense is justifiable. Outgoing blank-minded attack is not even tolerable. These fine lines between what is allowed and what might be likely became even indefinable in the power of the nuclear threat during the Cold War. It is indeed the element of surprise behind which any commander measures up to a fight in his scientifically directed analysis of strategy and logistics; however, the element of surprise was obliterated as according to the MAD Doctrine (Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.) The information available to both sides in the Cold War due to satellite espionage pre-empted any aggression by nuclear materiel from either side; however, the strange if not paradoxical empowerment of war lived on between the two posturing nations, the Soviet Union and the United States throughout the Cold War.

Since no physical resolution was possible or became possible between the two nations during the Cold War, a beautiful unfolding of the freedom of the Russian people occurred instead. We as American defenders of freedom had won. We had patiently made our point, and then we were privy to see its truth blossom into a new day for the Russians. The arms were felled to a philosophical wisdom, and that felling occurred no matter how impossibly powerful those arms.

Fine, but where does that leave us today as we live in the wake of the civic strife of our private national perspective? How can we relate our gigantic political feat, our ultimate gift to world peace and to the people of Russia to how we now review our own domestic scene with its like challenges and threats to near doom but from within and without by terrorism? Clearly, can we not take what we have learned of our prowess in solving the Cold War prospects to doomsday and apply that also here contemporarily? Therein lies the analytic point of truth which can guide us as a nation of people that our election process never be dominated or overrun by foreign interests and rule -- even in a global village. When truth reaches a sensational level of prevalence in the political thinking of a people, and the threat which drives that truth is as total as it had been in the Cold War, then oftentimes a sacrifice is made of the good towards the evil side, say, of an issue, or towards a person. Such a sacrifice will appease the conflict for the time being and stall the progression of destruction where necessary. But ultimately the side of good and the personae who have distinctively taken good measure characteristically and according to that side of good must win out -- they must supercede. It is not that the good must die for the evil. That is a dangerous delusion, and believing in it in a political evolutionary sense or instance has the power to fell nations. That is the primary reason that nations tend to war -- they cannot settle ideologically on vital issues which will govern their respective destinies unless they set up a warring determination in the physical plane. Where if the physical plane is not possible, on the other hand, then they will resort to crucifying the good, and that is possible only if those righteous among them agree to it implicitly. Those of the side of good  can be rent into confusion; and in the innocence of the profound will of the good to remain good and to prove their innocence, evil actually can exert the power to persuade those good to die for their beliefs whereas it is much nobler for them to live and fight to the death for their beliefs. Where that fight is not possible as it was in the Cold War between the USSR and the US, then the unenlightened will ignobly crucify. Universal truth has the power to guide mankind unto the necessary level of realization of proper measure in any strife or conflict. Crucifixion involves looking back at crimes, at evil destruction in the name and stead of good. Even the good can become confused; in confusion the good can seemingly go after the destruction of the knower of the highest truth and the doer of the noblest deed. Thereby superimposing a dark ploy upon what actual good could have been honored in the moment where it had not been so honored, do the good fail momentarily but out of sheer ignorance. It is the indoctrination of war which will confuse the good and mislead them; horrifying indoctrination may throw the good to the wayside of their own righteous path. In times of these military mechanistic realities such as embrace the Nuclear Day of man, we cannot afford to learn from our mistakes, and we had better find a way to support the truth as it expresses among us in the personae of the righteous and God-fearing. Foreign elements of political, corrupted interest must not sway the Republic out of its own inheritance of the great and worthy among us who should rightfully lead, for then we will become susceptible to the endgame of terrorist indoctrination unto all-out war. At such time as that, I ask you : who exactly would be leading? We are more capable if we see through the subtle persuasion that we must accept crucifixion in the Nuclear Day.


Copyright 2002 by Marilynn Lea Stark.   All rights reserved.

Join the Artistry of Marilynn Lea Stark mailing list


Copyright   1989-2010 by Marilynn Lea Stark.  All Rights Reserved.

Contact Information:

Email address:

Your comments, ideas and any metaphysical inquiry inspired at this Web site or any of my other Web sites are always welcome to me.  Note: this was last edited on 08/23/2010

Date Site was last modified: 08/23/2010