1. Raul Castro has spoken on April 16. Addresses from the top of the heap command greater interest in dictatorships than in open societies. In the latter, a de-electable person’s words shrink to a support seeking call. In an autocracy, the Leader’s words are pronouncements to be enforced by whatever it takes.

If you add up the areas in which changes are promised, you find an admission of what earlier the “enemy” claimed. The list confirms a catalogue of things that are awry. These admissions should be compared to the hither claims made by the regime and its apologists. According to these, 2+2 was not four but five or six –as Castro the Lesser has now put it. Remember here the enthusiasm with which the claims of paradise were the holy writ among “progressives” abroad. Such declarations substitute dreams for reality and overlook the systemic shortcomings of leftism.

Once you are so far, you shall consider that the proposed improvements are limited to extend only to the point where Socialism is not endangered. Quite a limitation as the cause of the inadequacies to be remedied is, can you guess it?, Socialism. In translation, the qualification means that the core of everything will remain unchanged.

This restriction and the hope that cosmetics will save Cuba from an operation can be taken to be an indicator. Of what? That to save the system it has to be abolished –as in the case of the USSR. This will not happen if the regime can help it. Second, to rescue socialism, even in the view of Castro, one needs to resort to capitalism. This will only materialize to the extent that the heart-lung function of the patient is maintained by mahines. Even if he has been brain dead for decades.

 

2. There is a popular and reality-defying myth that is warmed up when democracies are called upon to oppose the state system’s violent entities. The ritual begins when an aggressive position is taken against the “West” or, as in the case of Libya, against an indigenous population. In such instances, a reflex is activated. Seeking to avoid an inconvenient reaction it claims that those that are challenged are not affected.

Hiding from the facts, many like to draw in such instances a dividing line between the international arena, the domestic one, that is, between internationally and locally applied violence. In the real world, this distinction is not a clear line but a wide zone without clear contours. Dictatorships that suppress their own people limit their brutality at their borders only for one reason only. The restraint is a consequence of limited war-waging power.

As a rule, even local dictatorships are inclined to go global. The more so, since modern tyranny tends to rest on an ideology. Such intellectual foundations tend to see local despotism as a “vanguard” with a global mission. Think here of lesser dictatorships, such as expressed in Kaddafi’s Green Book”, or the “parliamentarians” that chant that beyond Syria, Assad should rule the world too. Furthermore, remember that the Kims’ programs are designed to save mankind. Systems that oppress their own people in the name of a principle are programmed to treat foreign nations in the manner they act domestically. In the light of the foregoing, dictatorship exists because one party is able to use violence against another one that is incapable to resist. The neighbors of oppressive régimes are secure in their freedoms only to the extent that they have power to resist the forceful export of that neighbor’s system.

Dictatorships create crisis. Its origins can be a massacre at home or a foreign adventure. Once such a situation unfolds, a discussion of the suitable counter measures arises. This is also the moment when the myth “war (violence) does not solve problems” emerges as an absolute rule designed to serve as an excusing but also as a paralyzing force. Admittedly, the violence of war is not always an efficient solution. To some problems have a better, primarily political response. In all cases, the use of power needs to be completed by the judicious, that is case-relevant, injection of politics.

Currently, we again hear the slogan that “wars do not solve anything”. Second, that air power is useless. In Libya, the use of air power is not useless: it is only insufficient as it suffers from self-imposed restrictions. The conclusion of those that prefer to resort to incantations is that air power as such is inefficient when, upon their nudging, it is ineffectively applied. The critics’ implication is that only ground troops could bring results. Putting boots down is, however, unthinkable in this scheme. In view of that, doing nothing is endowed with a rational basis. In the light of logic, the conclusion might be as questionable as are its premises. Nevertheless, the plea for inactivity confirms the unstated original reluctance to act which happens to be the motive of the argumentation.

With that in mind, your correspondent advises those that think that war is no solution to avoid Misrata. If there, do not mention the principle to the fighters. The best reaction to that can be a blow to the jaw. The worse is contemptuous laughter.

 

3. Swiss watches are a globally known. As such, they represent a standard. A sub-category is the cuckoo clock. That product is credited to the Swiss although it happens to be indisputably German. Then there is Swiss cheese. In some countries, it hides under the label they call here “Emmenthaler”. Few locals consume the product albeit in the rest of the world the stuff is in demand. Then, there is fondue, which is sort of a cheese soup. Part of its liquidity stems from a high-proof cherry distillate. Eating it requires skills that need to be taught to sober outsiders. The oddity of fondue is that if you know the real McCoy, you should never indulge in it abroad. Oh, yes, there are also mountains. Typically, the tallest one of the Alps is by a tad outside of Switzerland. Now the world might have to learn a new concept regarding “Swissness.” It is the miraculous achievement of a precision-engineered high quality Swiss Tsunami.

That faction of the Reds, which has produced a Green junior league, is selling an idea. Locally and abroad, Greens wish to abandon nuclear energy. They do so while at the same time they advocate locomotion based on electricity. The pollution caused by the internal combustion engine explains that. They also push for “alternative” energy such as from solar panels and wind. In theory, energy from dams should also be a favorite. It is, except that the prerequisite construction is opposed. Presumably because these represent an efficient component of the capitalist system. That one, as all know, needs to be overcome. The plan would conform to the goal that, focused on the 19th century, their Red side-kicks have expressly reinserted in their party’s program.

Red and Green are thought provoking terms. Nature offers some guidance. Are red fruits not green before they ripen? Whatever the unstated ideological reason, the increased exploitation of waterpower is fought by the Greens. So are wind generators that spoil landscapes. Whoever concludes that the principle might be “if it works, oppose it” is a “bad person”. Perhaps the solution is to cover the country with solar panels. That will produce enough energy to heat the alpine republic in the summer. An energy shortage created by shutting off nuke stations in German style can be filled by imports. Such as with nuclear-generated power from France.

Also in Germany, a solution for an alternative energy supply is pursued. Meanwhile, the measures to fend off a central European Tsunami promise to be the best ones that much money can buy. In favor of this precaution is that its success is guaranteed. Not only in the real life of landlocked countries but also in the hysteria induced world of fantasy.