Too little, too late. Perhaps that is the only certain thing we can say about the recent elections for the European Parliament. Certainly, Eurosceptical and anti-immigration parties have won an unprecedented number of seats in the European parliament, but to make a real difference, these victories should have come at least ten years earlier. Later generations will undoubtedly consider this episode somewhat farcical: only when Europe began to break down, the timid electorates could muster the courage to at least vote for some of the “right-wing” parties. However, the problem with these right-wing victories is not only, as commonly reported by analysts, that they will find it extremely difficult to form a coalition with all their internal divisions. The first difficulty, which only a few observers have seemed to notice, is that many of the so-called “right wing” parties are not right-wing at all. As we shall see, the reason for this is the simple fact that the Europeans, except the French, still have not sufficiently overcome their timidity to be able to discern the stark options that Europe faces today, and prefer to vote for “respectable” right-wing parties, which, however, by their very nature will degenerate into establishment parties if ever they get into government. Another cloud on the horizon, equally unnoticed, is the threat that the more outspoken right-wing parties in certain countries can further degenerate into fascism, and thus ultimately bring about the destruction of European civilization which they wanted to prevent in the first place. I will analyze these two phenomena here: such analysis can provide us with crucial insight into the future of Europe, and not simply in the immediate future of the European parliament, with which most journalists occupy themselves.
About self-administered verbal anesthesia.
Every age and all cultures tend to accept certain statements as self-evident and, therefore, as true. The term, “crutch” comes to mind. One possibility is that the allegation is correct. Even for agnostics, the Ten Commandments might fit the category. Frequently, however, we find a force that, through its control of the media and pulpit, can keep dubious claims alive. Thereby the pretension serves as a “law” even if, to those in the know, it is merely a useful fallacy. Insisting on a geocentric universe after Kepler or the Divine Right of Kings in the 18th century, illustrate the case. Lastly, the wrong “truth” can be an “agitprop” forgery. As such it is a hag pulling the cart of an inventive beneficiary. That case is the subject of this piece.
Manipulated truth is costly. Its embedded distortion can prevent timely actions. The so affected will suffer misfortune caused by the “Ersatz” truth which cannot replace reality. In that case, the truth that is falsehood has results that, translated into deeds, will be devastating. Even worse, it defines the credulous victim as naive.
A patent-worthy recipe is shared with you for free.
You will be shown here how to take what you covet without having a title to it. Thereafter, proceeding according to the script and useing the decisive buzzwords provided here will complete the trick. If you follow instructions, after an outcry, those purring potential victims that you did not pluck will celebrate you. Accompanied by their grateful toasts to your restraint, you enter the hall of fame dedicated to the “struggle for peace”. (Int.nat.pat.pend. Franchises for sale.)
Indeed, even for first time do-it-yourselfers, the approach is easier to apply than it seems to the barefooted.
Begin the operation by finding two or more suitable territorial targets. One of these should be one that, as a starter, you really desire to gobble up.
When the “glorious past” attracts in the bleak present.
A madness, thought to be banished into the sealed coffin of bygone times, is reemerging. The returning Dracula threatens with the destruction of the procedural order that preventively canalizes conflicts among advanced nations. Some of the discord has roots in the communist past’s refurbished Brezhnev Doctrine of limited sovereignty. The remainder is contributed by the resurrected components of vintage czarist imperialism. In international relations, the aggressive empire building assumed to be mummified for good, is again reemerging. The Russian successor state of the Soviets pursues the tradition of conquest bequeathed by the Romanovs.
Archeological investigation of the Eastern-Mediterranean Bronze-Age civilizations began in the late Nineteenth Century with Heinrich Schliemann’s work at Troy and Mycenae and with Sir Arthur Evans’ investigations on the island of Crete, principally at Knossos. Language owes the label “Bronze Age” to the Greek poet Hesiod (Eighth Century BC) whose prototypical georgic poem Works and Days includes a discussion of the Five Ages of Man. As Eric Voegelin long ago pointed out, Hesiod’s five ages are actually three, in parallel with his three generations of gods. In Hesiod’s telling a primitive period comprising the Golden and Silver Ages gave way to socially complex and robust period comprising the Bronze and Heroic Ages; and the latter period, finding its conclusion in destructive internecine strife, gave way to Hesiod’s own degenerate period, what he calls the Iron Age. Would that he had been born in some other, less wretched age, Hesiod laments; but well he postponed his birth – for the Bronze Age ended in a paroxysm of urban destruction, famine, piracy, and disruptive migrations of peoples that might be both unprecedented and unparalleled. Since the 1960s, scholarship has referred to this epoch as “The Catastrophe.”
Putin under pressure, while some concessions confirm that their originator is a fool.
A common gene connects the dominant systems of the past; they were mostly dictatorships. Rarely could a major power be rated, by the standards of its time, as free. Applying that criterion, Athens comes to mind. The Netherlands and Britain are on the short list. It ends with the United States.
Another link, where personal freedom and state power are connected, is a bit of natural isolation, when its security bolstered by sea or, later, air power. That leads to a complementary component. It is access to a technology –a mighty navy- to multiply the quantitative weight of population and of territory. Know-how and capital to develop it did more than to bolster might. The multiplier reflected economic power attained through good governance, applied knowledge, and a climate to encourage innovation. Good government implied freedom and the emphasis on the autonomous individual that was enabled to act in his own behalf. To sum up: freedom “to” and freedom “from” were components of national might. Accordingly, the power of the country and the liberty of individuals were related.
The press-kit on Australian writer Gregory R. Copley from Simon & Schuster’s author-information website declares that he “has worked internationally at the highest levels of government advising on strategies to achieve economic and political success.” The same source identifies Copley as “the founder and editor of the Global Information System intelligence service used by governments, and the Defense & Foreign Affairs series of publications, including the Defense & Foreign Affairs Handbook, hailed as ‘indispensable’ by President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor, William Clark; and author of thousands of articles, classified papers, speeches, and books on strategy, defense, and aviation.” In passing self-references Copley describes himself as a strategic thinker, not exclusively in the military or diplomatic spheres. Copley’s newest book, Un-Civilization: Urban Geopolitics in a Time of Chaos (2013), concerns itself with fundamental and perhaps terminal changes occurring globally, not only in the industrialized nations, which portend, in his diagnosis, the enormity summed up in the over-title. At the heart of Copley’s vision of the near-future lies the counter-intuitive event that he forecasts for the mid-Twenty-First Century – not the Malthusian catastrophe of runaway population and insufficient resource that various Cassandras from Paul R. Ehrlich to Albert A. Gore have profitably vouchsafed to connoisseurs of doom since the 1960s, but rather its opposite, a sudden steep population-decline linked to the desertion of the countryside and the morbid engrossment of the already hyperbolically distended megalopolitan centers.
Aggression must also have a price.
The Ukraine is one of those places that its conventional education encourages the West to ignore. As taught, history and politics can write off a region because it is tagged as “confusing”. All nations are complicated, therefore, that adjective reflects ignorance fed by an educational gap. The dim light cast by the press into the shadows we create confirms the tag of marginality. That explains why the coverage of a plane crash outweighs the end of an era that ushers in a globally perilous epoch.
The recent, the current, and probable future of the evolving story of the Ukraine makes the point. Actually, in taking up the issue, the writer feels relief because his background frees him from the suspicion of prejudice fed by knowing too much. Implied is the habit to dismiss voices that reflect detailed knowledge connected to ethnic roots. Most often, timely warnings come from those that have a “membership” in what is kept exotic and ignored. Remember the past’s, alas so numerous, “mourir pour Danzig?” Appropriate action in time would have saved millions. We like to repeat the history that we forget before we have noticed it, so that we can ignore unlearned lessons. One of these is that the solution prompted by cowardice or ignorance is the most dangerous alternative available to us.
If you think so, you need to reconsider.
The initial endeavor of newsmen is to “tell all”. Except when the gathering of information imperils the journalist’s life, that is the easy part. Alas, the bare facts get the public bored. By the time the crucial meaning pours in, the interest has ebbed.
Through its extensions, the Crimean crisis will haunt the future. Solutions through unconcern will not spare us the consequences. The fault is not Putin’s but of the comfort-spending politician. Past crises that got worse through neglect, reveal that the culture in which the bacteria multiplied has been a mixture of neglect and the illusion of immunity.
In the “crime of the Crimea”, the accusing finger does not point to Russia alone but it also identifies those that had encouragingly miss-reacted to the mischief.
Past aggression is resolutely fought but the present’s cases are met with restraint.
Much that comments Russia’s Crimean adventure is self-serving. Some moves are made to act as excuses to (1) maintain the moral high ground while (2) a costly response can be avoided to aggression by the powerful. The comportment reveals that condemning past expansionism retroactively is easier than it is to confront contemporary imperial projects. Such as one that is backed by Russian might. And how about China? As a result, fact-denying distortions appear as expert opinions that excuse inaction. These pronouncements might disperse what sounds good for the moment -but that they fail as supports of a stable world order.