The current phenom to the Art world seems to be a Computer enabled with applicable software capable of manipulating ones and zeros into an as yet to be imagined – imagery. An art-form unique in its presence as to demand not only critical attention, but currency exchange in the form of fiat or crypto. Who’d of thunk it?
Personally, I have enjoyed over the years as hardware and application software advanced, the thrill of digital manipulation either in the form of graphics, photo-manipulation as well as video-animation. But never took the concept of such works being worthy of currency exchange. Ultimately, the value of beauty or artful worthiness remains in the EYE, of the beholder.
To that end, here is a sampling of some of that produced over the decades. Many specifically to contextualize a poem or essay:
This graphic began with a simple sweep of the virtual pen
Not one to believe in the existence of the mythical domain of despicable hate and vileness mastered by one referred to as the DEVIL however, if ever there is to be one human on this Earth who could/would easily be considered to qualify as an agent to such an incarnate, it has to be the Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin, a well known international purveyor of the instruments of WAR.
In a recent shareholders’ meeting, C.E.O. Marilyn A. Hewson, shown here:
proudly and confidently assured her investor audience that the World is rife with conflict despite the tentative ratifying of the agreement with Iran such that a 30% increase in revenues is confidently anticipated. If not solely for the instability in the Middle East but, gleefully, the brewing tensions in the AsianPacific with not only North Korea but too, growing tensions between China and Japan.
One could almost suggest the lips on the pictured face of this despicable agent of the Devil are flush with the spilled blood of the countless millions of innocent men, women, and children for which she and Lockheed Martin shareholders are directly responsible through the industry she advocates and administers. Though she and her financial supporters did not create the state of conflict that consumes this world, they do little to nothing to stifle its advancement and aggression. The revel in her pronouncement, assuring the insatiable desire for conflict and killing around the world to be a source of growth and profit for her shareholders, can only be described as gut-wrenching to anyone with a gram of empathy and human emotion. Obviously, Ms. Hewson proves by her own admission in this video; she and those who gain by their efforts to promulgate the killing of innocent lives for profit, are void of any such human qualities.
It is not enough to support our elected officials in defense against terrorist and radical extremist both foreign and domestic, it is time to demand they financially stifle the advances of companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and other provocateurs, from manufacturing and distributing tools of mass destruction.
Hollow are the words of any national leader who purports to be against the brutal killing of innocent lives be it through war or domestic violence when they are unwilling to ONCE AND FOREVER: shut down the source of the tools of war.
Let’s be gloriously optimistic and suggest that war of any definition comes to a sudden and abrupt end tomorrow. What would be the outcome?
Face it, like any organism of which conflict is no different, it must be fed, it needs replenishment as do all organisms. It digests and expels. Well, in war, things get destroyed, blown up, etc.. Therefore it creates a need; the necessity of a supply-chain to replenish that which has been lost or expended.
So where does this material come from? Who manufactures these specialized tools of conflict?
It does not take a leap of faith to suggest that ONLY developed nations of the world have the manufacturing and technological capacity to produce the diverse and robust cornucopia of military hardware to meet the insatiable digest of war in all its diverse forms of conflagration.
The challenges the proposition of ending militarism through the ending of development and procurement of military hardware in all its configurations spanning from nuclear to hand-held guns and their bullets has been duly addressed by the Department of Disarmament of the United Nations by its 1989 report titled: Study on the Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and Military Expenditures. It was prepared `in response to mandates of the General Assembly, on the economic and social consequences of the arms race’. It is a comprehensive examination of the socio-political and economic impacts the arms race has for both developed and developing nations.
The findings of the report on such a complex matter are not easily summarized in this essay and therefore for those truly interested seek out the report to be found here: UN Report
However, of the many, the following conclusion effectively conveys the intent of this essay:
‘164. The complex relationship between disarmament, development and security has been thoroughly explored in the Final Document of the International Conference On the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, as follows:
“Security is an overriding priority for all nations. It is also fundamental for both disarmament and development. Security consists of not only military, but also political, economic, social, humanitarian and human rights and ecological aspects. Enhanced security can, On the one hand, create conditions conducive to disarmament and, on the other, provide the environment and confidence for the successful pursuit of development. The development process, by overcoming non-military threats to security and contributing to a more stable and sustainable international system, can enhance security and thereby promote arms reduction and disarmament. Disarmament would enhance security both directly and indirectly. A process of disarmament that provides for undiminished security at progressively lower levels of armaments could allow additional resources to be devoted to addressing non-military challenges to security, and thus result in enhanced overall security.” ‘
This conclusion leads to the obvious question: Why is this recommendation not constructively pursue?
Unfortunately, part of the answer resides in the same report which also concludes:
“172. The present study shows that military expenditures have extensive social and economic consequences. Economic effects are most pronounced in leading military spenders, and in particular in those areas of their economies which are dominated by modern science and technology, which is a key factor in the present arms race.”
Since the invasion and conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq commencing in 2003 and now predominates most of the Middle East and North Africa, the style of war has dramatically altered from `field war’ as was fought in the Second World War and even Vietnam to some extent; to an `urban war’. Urban wars are fought amidst civilians often held as shields by terrorist elements. In this latter situation, the enemy combatant is often difficult to differentiate from their civil surroundings making the instance of innocent lives, collateral casualties to the conflict.
This all said what seems to be overshadowed is the fact that whether an organized battalion of trained, professional military personnel or `ragamuffin’ informal, untrained terrorist groups; they all demand a steady flow of material and armament to sustain their position in battle.
At present the terrorist groups such as Al Quida and its cohort: ISIS, ISIL, IS (Islamic State) pose formidable resistance to western allied nations’ attempts to end their brutal assault and advancement leaving the slaughter of countless innocent citizens in the wake of their push and capture of territory throughout Iraq and in Syria.
What is difficult to understand, as evidenced by nightly media reports of the conflict, are the parades of ISIS combatants (terrorists) in lines of Toyota pickup trucks, at times in the hundreds. Too, the thousands of their kind equally attired in black uniforms armed with similar weapons. Though this organization is defined as a terrorist organization, they appear by all accounts, to be organized, military army battalions.
So who is supplying them and why are these chains of supply NOT the first line of attack by western allies? By cutting off the chain of supply and starving the enemy into defeat.
This brings the discussion full circle forcing the question: Do the powers-that-be who reap the DIRECT financial benefit derived from the expenditures of military conflict in any of its conflagrations, desirous to see the end of such conflict and, the assured decline of their future prosperity in `blood money’?
It is difficult to conceive of individuals who are willing to see innocent lives lost both in the theatre of battle or far removed, such as has just happened in Paris, for the sake of power of position and politic derived by enrichment through production and sale of arms and technology but, history clearly speaks to this being the case.
Again to quote the UN report on disarmament: “The ending of the arms race and the achievement of real disarmament are tasks of primary importance and urgency. To meet this historic challenge is in the political and economic interests of all the nations and peoples of the world as well as in the interests of ensuring their genuine security and peaceful Future.”
The report published in 1989, it is now 2015: what is the true and real impediment to this becoming a reality any time soon?
naykdpoet 