1) Israel should be re-settled along an isolated stretch of the northwest coast of Australia. Some sheep farmer can probably sell off a corner of his ranch. The whole country would fit in this space. Here, they can grow their oranges and build their supercomputers to their heart's content. Sunshine, no natives (anymore), no security problems. What's not to like? They are experienced gardeners of the desert.
2) I hate this shitty little country, cross between Coney Island and the Third Reich. It takes up too much of the world's bandwidth. I don't think people care whether they are Jews or not; they just don't like pushy, tacky, self assertive people. It's about denotation not connotationn. That they then happen to be Jewish, a sort of concentrated exposed Jewishness, all in one place, in control of its destiny, no excuses, no hiding behind more numerous majority nationals of other countries, in other words you could nail it down to Jewsihness and nothing else, is a disturbing problem which Jewish intellectuals have to deal with. Is it because the toughness required to be a survivor amid oppression, becomes, when congregated and unshackled, a bullying oppressiveness?. I think so. Nietszche had a phrase for it: you out a slave upon a throne and he becomes a tyrant.
Is it because they are Jews? Yes. Because it arises out of the Jewish historical experience. Do other countries dislike this behaviour? Yes. Israel is the second most disliked country in the world in a poll of 35,000 people from 40 countries. (Iran is worse.). When the whole world's got a problem, you've got a problem.
Is it anti semitic? No. Because it's not the Jewishness per se that people dislike. It could be people of religion X, or any denoted group whose backstory is unknown, behaving this way and people would still dislike it.
3) I am against boycotts in principle but could be persuaded of it in this case. But is there anything to boycott? I thought Israelis are pretty much shunned in Europe anyway. I never meet Israelis in Brussels, nor see Jews. Israel and Euriope are such polar opposite: Europe is nice, consensual settled, civilised, and a little aristocratic. Israel is a settler society: raw, egalitarian, uncouth, surviivalivist, full of rejects from the old continent - a bit like early settler America, I imagine, which had a problem with the indigenes. I imagine that comonality, as well as the religiosity, is what binds America and Israel togerher.
My hesitation against an Israeli boycott - and I voted against it in the NUJ ballot - is that there are, despite the general awfulness of this country, a lot of good people in Israel, human rights campaigners and historians, who are more sympathetic to the Palestine situation than the Hampstead Jews, whose liberalism goes on holiday when they start to think with the blood. Interestingly American Jews seem to more liberal, more progressive, than British Jews.
But extremism of those who are not at the coalface is common: like this: I remember in the 1990s east European exiles who came back to the Baltic States and Poland from running Ohio car dealerships or working in Washington think tanks in the US were absolute fascists towards the Russian minorities, towards Russia in general, a superpower that meekly did everythingt that was asked of it an unprecedented series of acts of appeasement. Unfortunately they won the ear of the president, through their US lobbying connections - and you see the result today, the outrageous demonisation of Russia, which is a country I do care about
If reasonable Israeli voices were hushedl because of any boycott that would be a setback.
The only way to arm oneself against the charges of anti-semitism is to be a Jew oneself. Unfortunately, since this is not possible, the secone best alternative is to read the Israeli revisionist (ie pro palestinian) historians or the American Jewish intellectuals like Finkelstein, who has written about the extortion racket by the World Jewish congress carried out against the German state and as a result can't win tenure at any US university.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
Saturday 9 June 2007
palestine
Having read all the comments it seems to me that it is saddam who turned out to be the Palestinians' true friend; and he was after all a self proclaimed pan-Arabist. Another tick in the plus ledger, perhaps. (Along with the healthcare, the infrastructure, the education, and emancipation of women?)
You didn't hear all this when messianic simpletons like Tony Blair, Britain's biggest undeclared zionist, decided to kick over the Middle Eastern antheap.
When Saddam fell it's not surprising the favoured people of the regime suffered. Happened to the Jews, darlings of the habsburg empire, in the 1920s and 30s.
----------
Second, as everyone goes enthusiastic over the Germans' ability to integrate refugees I say: ask any Turk in Kreuzberg,
Wikipedia:
The migrants, mostly male, were allowed to work in Germany for a period of one or two years before returning back to the home country in order to make room for other migrants. However, many migrants decided not to return to their home countries and were joined in Germany by their families. Children born to Gastarbeiters received the right to reside in Germany but were not granted citizenship; this was know as the "Aufenthaltsberechtigung" ("Right to reside").
As they started to settle down and form new ethnic minority communities, the government and others in society ignored the integration of the migrants. This led to educational, religious and social discrimination of the migrants in Germany. A factor contributing to the creation of these problems was Germany's birth laws, which did not automatically grant citizenship to those born in the country; a new born would automatically gain the nationality of his parents
-----
The pro-Israelis are getting the better of the argument today, so Norman Finkelstein provides another perspective.
(Finkelstein is the Jewish writer who exposed the WJC's extortion of the German state)
He says the Israeli intelligence knew the army would cream the Arabs but the Israeli leadership went ahead with scaremongering about another holocaust a) they wanted to finish Nasser. The idea of an Arab leader modernising the Arab world was intolerable to their sense of uniqueness and racist superiority; and they feared a modernised Arab world where they would be outnumbered. b) they were greedy for territory.
So, from 1966, they set in train a number of provocations against the Syrians, shooting down their jets, prompting the latter to ask Nasser for help as protector of the Arab peoples. He pushed the UN troops out of Sinai, but left the door open for diplomatic negotiations, and offered several openings. These Israel ignored because, as Finkelstein puts
it, the Israelis wanted war.
And now they're picking on Iran.
His words, not mine. And you can write to him at
www.normanfinkelstein.com
I feel sorry for the Palestinians. It's hard to do all those nation building things that look so neat on the drawing board when their spirit has been broken, they're walled in like rats in a cage, their territory sectioned off by roads, suffering daily searches. Unlike the zionists, they hadn't been to training school for fascism in Europe (tutor: A Hitler) so they didn't what hit them when these toughened people waded in in the 1940s.
I have just been reading Nicholas Kristof's book on poverty: and the problem is for the African poor is that, in addition to being disadvantaged, their behaviour has also turned self destructive, where drinking and drugs and risky sexual behaviour is only the start of the problem
You didn't hear all this when messianic simpletons like Tony Blair, Britain's biggest undeclared zionist, decided to kick over the Middle Eastern antheap.
When Saddam fell it's not surprising the favoured people of the regime suffered. Happened to the Jews, darlings of the habsburg empire, in the 1920s and 30s.
----------
Second, as everyone goes enthusiastic over the Germans' ability to integrate refugees I say: ask any Turk in Kreuzberg,
Wikipedia:
The migrants, mostly male, were allowed to work in Germany for a period of one or two years before returning back to the home country in order to make room for other migrants. However, many migrants decided not to return to their home countries and were joined in Germany by their families. Children born to Gastarbeiters received the right to reside in Germany but were not granted citizenship; this was know as the "Aufenthaltsberechtigung" ("Right to reside").
As they started to settle down and form new ethnic minority communities, the government and others in society ignored the integration of the migrants. This led to educational, religious and social discrimination of the migrants in Germany. A factor contributing to the creation of these problems was Germany's birth laws, which did not automatically grant citizenship to those born in the country; a new born would automatically gain the nationality of his parents
-----
The pro-Israelis are getting the better of the argument today, so Norman Finkelstein provides another perspective.
(Finkelstein is the Jewish writer who exposed the WJC's extortion of the German state)
He says the Israeli intelligence knew the army would cream the Arabs but the Israeli leadership went ahead with scaremongering about another holocaust a) they wanted to finish Nasser. The idea of an Arab leader modernising the Arab world was intolerable to their sense of uniqueness and racist superiority; and they feared a modernised Arab world where they would be outnumbered. b) they were greedy for territory.
So, from 1966, they set in train a number of provocations against the Syrians, shooting down their jets, prompting the latter to ask Nasser for help as protector of the Arab peoples. He pushed the UN troops out of Sinai, but left the door open for diplomatic negotiations, and offered several openings. These Israel ignored because, as Finkelstein puts
it, the Israelis wanted war.
And now they're picking on Iran.
His words, not mine. And you can write to him at
www.normanfinkelstein.com
I feel sorry for the Palestinians. It's hard to do all those nation building things that look so neat on the drawing board when their spirit has been broken, they're walled in like rats in a cage, their territory sectioned off by roads, suffering daily searches. Unlike the zionists, they hadn't been to training school for fascism in Europe (tutor: A Hitler) so they didn't what hit them when these toughened people waded in in the 1940s.
I have just been reading Nicholas Kristof's book on poverty: and the problem is for the African poor is that, in addition to being disadvantaged, their behaviour has also turned self destructive, where drinking and drugs and risky sexual behaviour is only the start of the problem
Tuesday 5 June 2007
Moving towards a bipolar world
One of the consequences of America's provocations is that, psychologically at least, we are once again moving towards a bipolar world.
Lots of arguments on this thread about East versus West and the superiority of respective political classes (if not yet social setups) are resurfacing. Deja vu for many. Except this time Russia has a much stronger hand, having conceded its weak points and agreed on many areas where it has been wrong. Now it's America that is exposed.
Good for Russia, a better berth for western refuseniks than Iran or China could ever be.
Seriously, the EU should set up an alliance with Russia.
Technology transfer and investment in return for mineral resources, Russia's nuclear know-hown and the rights for the new Volksdeutsche to settle a Siberia vacated by the Russian inability to procreate.
Lots of arguments on this thread about East versus West and the superiority of respective political classes (if not yet social setups) are resurfacing. Deja vu for many. Except this time Russia has a much stronger hand, having conceded its weak points and agreed on many areas where it has been wrong. Now it's America that is exposed.
Good for Russia, a better berth for western refuseniks than Iran or China could ever be.
Seriously, the EU should set up an alliance with Russia.
Technology transfer and investment in return for mineral resources, Russia's nuclear know-hown and the rights for the new Volksdeutsche to settle a Siberia vacated by the Russian inability to procreate.
Poland's manipulations
adthelad.
Poland manipulated England into going to war with Germany to defend your country to honour its promise committed for sentimental seasons and human rights - God knows why, since Poland was the second most anti semitic country on the planet.
Germany did not want a war with the UK, and would have left the British empire alone. You also boasted about your military strength and exaggerated, we believed this bullshit. You collapsed very quickly of course. The result: we faced a now hostile Germany and our "ally" had disappeared.
Thank you Poland!
No, going to war on Poland's behalf was a big mistake. And your typical history perspective - this is not personal - shows that we haven't one molecule of gratitude for this either.
Poland would have been better off giving up and becoming a satellite state like Hungary.
Servitude or destruction? Your choice. Not our problem. Sometimes history leaves us with two unpleasant choices and it's not our fault Poland is situated it were it is.
It's your responsibility. You deal with it.
And leave out the stuff about Poland sacrificing itself messianically for the rest of Europe.
This may sound callous but maybe Chamberlain allowing himself to be manipulated by the Poles was a big disaster.
I don't happen to think Hitler was determin ed to conquer the world: he might even have left France alone. And if not...well the French are as bad as the Poles when it comes for blaming the Anglo-Saxons for actually saving them
I'd have left the whole damn lot of you for sixty years ans saved British lives...Europe would probably have found peace and ended up more or less as it is today anyway. Except two nations on either side of Germany would probably be a little bit more humble and a little bit better German speakiong.
Poland manipulated England into going to war with Germany to defend your country to honour its promise committed for sentimental seasons and human rights - God knows why, since Poland was the second most anti semitic country on the planet.
Germany did not want a war with the UK, and would have left the British empire alone. You also boasted about your military strength and exaggerated, we believed this bullshit. You collapsed very quickly of course. The result: we faced a now hostile Germany and our "ally" had disappeared.
Thank you Poland!
No, going to war on Poland's behalf was a big mistake. And your typical history perspective - this is not personal - shows that we haven't one molecule of gratitude for this either.
Poland would have been better off giving up and becoming a satellite state like Hungary.
Servitude or destruction? Your choice. Not our problem. Sometimes history leaves us with two unpleasant choices and it's not our fault Poland is situated it were it is.
It's your responsibility. You deal with it.
And leave out the stuff about Poland sacrificing itself messianically for the rest of Europe.
This may sound callous but maybe Chamberlain allowing himself to be manipulated by the Poles was a big disaster.
I don't happen to think Hitler was determin ed to conquer the world: he might even have left France alone. And if not...well the French are as bad as the Poles when it comes for blaming the Anglo-Saxons for actually saving them
I'd have left the whole damn lot of you for sixty years ans saved British lives...Europe would probably have found peace and ended up more or less as it is today anyway. Except two nations on either side of Germany would probably be a little bit more humble and a little bit better German speakiong.
Montecassino was a side issue
Girondist,adthelad.
The Poles were brave at Montecassino argument is irrelevant to the larger issue.
Was it axiomatic that the Poles would be settled by the Volksdeutsche? Isn't this intentionalist idea of history out of date - the idea that Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world. It's possible that he made it all up as he went along, and that Hiommler's barmy ideas became incorporated along the way.
In fact, as AJP Taylor points out, Hitler felt much lessv visceral hostility to the Poles than to the Czechs, as an Austrian. And Poland was in an alliance of sorts with Germany in 1938 - hence's Poland's noble part in the partition of Czechoslovakia as one of Hitler's jackals.
Even if Hitler was unable to find accommodation with the Poles, the Brits should not have allied itself with this busted flush which precluded an alliance with the Soviets, which the Poles vetoed. The Soviet were ready to give the Poles assistance in a way the Brits weren't, in a triple alliance with Britain and Poland, perhaps placing tripwire armies along the German-Polish border. The Poles vetoed this because they said their army was strong enough and, of course, because they didn't want Soviet influence in their country. Well, this happened anyway didn't it, after 6m Polish wardead.
AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War caused a sensation when it came it out - but he was also one of the best and most iconoclastic historians of the century.
All this is relevant to today's debate because once again the west is ignoring Russia's reasonable calls for cooperation for much shriller voices from the less effective Poles.
The Poles were brave at Montecassino argument is irrelevant to the larger issue.
Was it axiomatic that the Poles would be settled by the Volksdeutsche? Isn't this intentionalist idea of history out of date - the idea that Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world. It's possible that he made it all up as he went along, and that Hiommler's barmy ideas became incorporated along the way.
In fact, as AJP Taylor points out, Hitler felt much lessv visceral hostility to the Poles than to the Czechs, as an Austrian. And Poland was in an alliance of sorts with Germany in 1938 - hence's Poland's noble part in the partition of Czechoslovakia as one of Hitler's jackals.
Even if Hitler was unable to find accommodation with the Poles, the Brits should not have allied itself with this busted flush which precluded an alliance with the Soviets, which the Poles vetoed. The Soviet were ready to give the Poles assistance in a way the Brits weren't, in a triple alliance with Britain and Poland, perhaps placing tripwire armies along the German-Polish border. The Poles vetoed this because they said their army was strong enough and, of course, because they didn't want Soviet influence in their country. Well, this happened anyway didn't it, after 6m Polish wardead.
AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War caused a sensation when it came it out - but he was also one of the best and most iconoclastic historians of the century.
All this is relevant to today's debate because once again the west is ignoring Russia's reasonable calls for cooperation for much shriller voices from the less effective Poles.
Russia is a rival
This is not a hot war, it's not really about kilotonnage, those missile interceptors are really just symbolic - literally nothing more than chesspieces - in a cold war diplomatic struggle of influence and reputation.
Russia is a rival - and the game goes like this.
Consider those familiar domestic situations where a woman provokes a man in a thousand invisible needle-stick ways and the man lashes out and goes to prison? Well that is what our duo Poland-America are doing with Russia - which, to its atsonishment, gets the blame among for provocatively wishing to start a cold war among those people who get their geopolitics from the headlines on the commuter train.
If Russia continues to take these provocations lying down - well, it's like the daily psychological humiliations in prison or a borstal that keep people in their place.
The idea is to torpedo Russians' growing self confidence. And if they do respond - they get blamed with starting the new cold war. They're in a terrible bind because the Russians either way they lose, and they lose what reputation they have for being nice guys - the soft power game for diplomatic influence in the rest of Europe.
Someone once said "Poland only wants its freedom so it can go about denying it to others." It's like someone has been in s straitjacket for 300 years and within five minutes of their release you understand what your forefathers' motivation was.
As I say: beware Poland.
Russia is a rival - and the game goes like this.
Consider those familiar domestic situations where a woman provokes a man in a thousand invisible needle-stick ways and the man lashes out and goes to prison? Well that is what our duo Poland-America are doing with Russia - which, to its atsonishment, gets the blame among for provocatively wishing to start a cold war among those people who get their geopolitics from the headlines on the commuter train.
If Russia continues to take these provocations lying down - well, it's like the daily psychological humiliations in prison or a borstal that keep people in their place.
The idea is to torpedo Russians' growing self confidence. And if they do respond - they get blamed with starting the new cold war. They're in a terrible bind because the Russians either way they lose, and they lose what reputation they have for being nice guys - the soft power game for diplomatic influence in the rest of Europe.
Someone once said "Poland only wants its freedom so it can go about denying it to others." It's like someone has been in s straitjacket for 300 years and within five minutes of their release you understand what your forefathers' motivation was.
As I say: beware Poland.
Poland is the Israel of Europe
Poland is the Israel of Europe
Ishouldapologise
You are absolutely right. What we have now is small, determined, utterly self righeous countries taking on Russia with the absent-minded EU "backing them" but not really knowing what's going on.
It's the tail wagging the dog with Poland the tail and the dig the stupid west.
We fought world war II for the same reason. Poland strutted the world stage and made grandiose provocations because it knew had the support of ignorant fuckwits in 10 downing street and the elyseee who found themselves in a postion of responsibility without power visavis Poland of 1939.
It's a dangerous situation and I can see history repeating itself. I can't understand why there is this pro-Polishness in Britain, given that it doesn't have much to offer and plunged this country into a world war.
Here is a parallel: a growing number of conservatives and policy thinkers and America are waking and saying: why are we giving Israel a blank cheque, why are wal ways identifying OUR interests with Israels' when they sometimes diverge; why should it be axiomatic, why are wrecking our relationship with the Arab world when allow ourselves to be seen as a giant led by this evil pygmy country that thumbs its nose at the rest of the arab world because of the support and doesn't even respect us, America, let alone look after our interests.
For Israel and the US, read modern Poland and UK/France.
America must pull the plug on Israel. The EU must pull the loug on the large country which least respects its human rights within the EU. What EU members incidentally must bear in mind in the Russia-Poland dispute is that Poland is the most similar of all EU countries to Russia itself.
Ishouldapologise
You are absolutely right. What we have now is small, determined, utterly self righeous countries taking on Russia with the absent-minded EU "backing them" but not really knowing what's going on.
It's the tail wagging the dog with Poland the tail and the dig the stupid west.
We fought world war II for the same reason. Poland strutted the world stage and made grandiose provocations because it knew had the support of ignorant fuckwits in 10 downing street and the elyseee who found themselves in a postion of responsibility without power visavis Poland of 1939.
It's a dangerous situation and I can see history repeating itself. I can't understand why there is this pro-Polishness in Britain, given that it doesn't have much to offer and plunged this country into a world war.
Here is a parallel: a growing number of conservatives and policy thinkers and America are waking and saying: why are we giving Israel a blank cheque, why are wal ways identifying OUR interests with Israels' when they sometimes diverge; why should it be axiomatic, why are wrecking our relationship with the Arab world when allow ourselves to be seen as a giant led by this evil pygmy country that thumbs its nose at the rest of the arab world because of the support and doesn't even respect us, America, let alone look after our interests.
For Israel and the US, read modern Poland and UK/France.
America must pull the plug on Israel. The EU must pull the loug on the large country which least respects its human rights within the EU. What EU members incidentally must bear in mind in the Russia-Poland dispute is that Poland is the most similar of all EU countries to Russia itself.
Give Britain the boot if it doesn't join up
Throw Britain out of the EU and humiliate the country as much as possible as it's given the boot.
And then: really make this country pay. Begin by closing off all the opportunities to the "bullshitters" (In the Guardian's economics editor's words) that form the mainstay of this country's economy:
[Japanese and Germans have strong economies]
The French have an ultra-competitive manufacturing
base that specialises in food and drink; the
Scandinavians are a dab hand at mobile phones; the
Americans do computers, aircraft and movies; even the
poor, benighted Italians have upmarket designer
clothes. So what is Britain good at? Where does the UK
fit in this world of changing economic geography, in
which nations will increasingly concentrate on the
things they do best? The answer is simple.
We count the money and we do the bullshit.
Britain, on the 10th anniversary of Tony Blair's
arrival in Downing Street, is a place whose default
mode for earning its crust is to employ the gift of
the gab. The Germans may have the engineers, the
Japanese may know how to organise a production line,
but the Brits have the barristers, the journalists,
the management consultants and the men and women who
think that making up jingles and slogans in order to
flog Pot Noodles and similar products is a serious
job. It has the deal-makers in the City who make fat
fees by convincing investors to launch bids for
companies, and the corporate spin doctors who tell
former pals in financial journalism that tycoon X will
make a better fist at running Ripoff plc than tycoon
Y.
It has the publishers and it has the "film
development" companies, some of which have actually
been known to produce a film.
The four iconic jobs in 21st-century Britain,
according to a thinktank called the Work Foundation,
are not scientists, engineers, teachers and nurses but
hairdressers, celebrities, management consultants and managers.
These jobs are very evanescent and depend on social good will.
The Brits can repent at leisure. Or maybe that's what they want. Apart from bits of London, this country is a dump.
Not only is this a consequence of delusions, it's also a cause of them, a liferaft.
And then: really make this country pay. Begin by closing off all the opportunities to the "bullshitters" (In the Guardian's economics editor's words) that form the mainstay of this country's economy:
[Japanese and Germans have strong economies]
The French have an ultra-competitive manufacturing
base that specialises in food and drink; the
Scandinavians are a dab hand at mobile phones; the
Americans do computers, aircraft and movies; even the
poor, benighted Italians have upmarket designer
clothes. So what is Britain good at? Where does the UK
fit in this world of changing economic geography, in
which nations will increasingly concentrate on the
things they do best? The answer is simple.
We count the money and we do the bullshit.
Britain, on the 10th anniversary of Tony Blair's
arrival in Downing Street, is a place whose default
mode for earning its crust is to employ the gift of
the gab. The Germans may have the engineers, the
Japanese may know how to organise a production line,
but the Brits have the barristers, the journalists,
the management consultants and the men and women who
think that making up jingles and slogans in order to
flog Pot Noodles and similar products is a serious
job. It has the deal-makers in the City who make fat
fees by convincing investors to launch bids for
companies, and the corporate spin doctors who tell
former pals in financial journalism that tycoon X will
make a better fist at running Ripoff plc than tycoon
Y.
It has the publishers and it has the "film
development" companies, some of which have actually
been known to produce a film.
The four iconic jobs in 21st-century Britain,
according to a thinktank called the Work Foundation,
are not scientists, engineers, teachers and nurses but
hairdressers, celebrities, management consultants and managers.
These jobs are very evanescent and depend on social good will.
The Brits can repent at leisure. Or maybe that's what they want. Apart from bits of London, this country is a dump.
Not only is this a consequence of delusions, it's also a cause of them, a liferaft.
EU and democracy don't have to combine
@Kidogo. A literate and persuasive post. But surely good governance led by an oligarchic elite who secure the rule of law is more important than democracy. Per se.
Britain has had the former since earlier than any other country, but was a latecomer to democracy. In between, by the standards of the day, the British were more prosperous and free than other Europeans.
Democracy is so over-rated. AS someone said about fears of introducing democracy to some Arab countries where Islamists have popular support: democracy. One person, one vote. Once.
EU legislation is complex. People don't want to know what goes on underneath the bonnet so long as the car propels them forward.
Euroscepticism is actually at an all time low in Britain; why not just let the eurocrats get on with it?
There are checks and balances in Brussels, the ecology is much more complex than people think: a network of lobbyosts, NGOS, business organisations, all the multinationals, law firms, trades unions, member states, regional assembly associations...
bascially it is where Europe's elites meet and transact business. There is an indirect democracy because one way or another they represent people (qua inhabitants of their city, qua members of their profession) back home. And what's wrong with that? Plato talked about leadership as a skill; we don't vote on which of the airline passengers should become the pilot. The idea that oligarchies know best on behalf of the people has honourable antecedents - and in fact operates in many areas of our national life.
No one is going to vote for a system of pan European democracy, with international parties with manifestoes in 21 languages (who is gonna be party leader?). It's just utopian.
And, even supposing it were to happen, who wants populist slogans, cheesy politicians, and all the attendant debasement - perhaps the broader the democracy the baser it becomes. The lowest common denominator of 500m people is iwhat? Fascism perhaps. Anti-Russian poses.
Hatred of immigrants.
Another proposal: if we do go down the route of democracy. Before anyone looks at the EU. Takes it apart, Asks basic questions of the eurocracy, people should ask some pretty basic questions about the city of London, another place which attracts bright people and wields great power. What the hell is it there for? Who does it benefit? No really. Why do we put up the fat bonuses. This is a democracy is it not? Why are we swalloing camels and straining at gnats. I bet you many eurosceptics are actually retired losers whose railing against the jeunesse doree elite in Brussels arte expressing an alienation at untramelled power which could with equal justice be aimed at the city.
There is no natural law that mandates capitalism, or the flawed version that passes for it there.
Lostcause: you're absolutely right.
Britain has had the former since earlier than any other country, but was a latecomer to democracy. In between, by the standards of the day, the British were more prosperous and free than other Europeans.
Democracy is so over-rated. AS someone said about fears of introducing democracy to some Arab countries where Islamists have popular support: democracy. One person, one vote. Once.
EU legislation is complex. People don't want to know what goes on underneath the bonnet so long as the car propels them forward.
Euroscepticism is actually at an all time low in Britain; why not just let the eurocrats get on with it?
There are checks and balances in Brussels, the ecology is much more complex than people think: a network of lobbyosts, NGOS, business organisations, all the multinationals, law firms, trades unions, member states, regional assembly associations...
bascially it is where Europe's elites meet and transact business. There is an indirect democracy because one way or another they represent people (qua inhabitants of their city, qua members of their profession) back home. And what's wrong with that? Plato talked about leadership as a skill; we don't vote on which of the airline passengers should become the pilot. The idea that oligarchies know best on behalf of the people has honourable antecedents - and in fact operates in many areas of our national life.
No one is going to vote for a system of pan European democracy, with international parties with manifestoes in 21 languages (who is gonna be party leader?). It's just utopian.
And, even supposing it were to happen, who wants populist slogans, cheesy politicians, and all the attendant debasement - perhaps the broader the democracy the baser it becomes. The lowest common denominator of 500m people is iwhat? Fascism perhaps. Anti-Russian poses.
Hatred of immigrants.
Another proposal: if we do go down the route of democracy. Before anyone looks at the EU. Takes it apart, Asks basic questions of the eurocracy, people should ask some pretty basic questions about the city of London, another place which attracts bright people and wields great power. What the hell is it there for? Who does it benefit? No really. Why do we put up the fat bonuses. This is a democracy is it not? Why are we swalloing camels and straining at gnats. I bet you many eurosceptics are actually retired losers whose railing against the jeunesse doree elite in Brussels arte expressing an alienation at untramelled power which could with equal justice be aimed at the city.
There is no natural law that mandates capitalism, or the flawed version that passes for it there.
Lostcause: you're absolutely right.
Monday 4 June 2007
Martin Kettle on Russia
Responnse to Martin Kettle's
North: why did the Czechs avoid massacres and the Poles didn't? And why, if the Russians were so bad, did the Hungarians have considerable freedoms. Why, if Russia was so bad, could East Germany have had its liberty had only the west consented to a neutralised united Germany?
Thanks for persisting through my typing errors but really you don't have to give me the conventional wisdom, which is all about making the west feel uncomplicatedly better but doesn't do much to contribute to subtle understanding of the cold war or what really went on in the east bloc.
If the Americans had not had a simplistic view of the cold war and their supposed role in winning it they probably wouldn't have blundered into Iraq. The experience of the east European transformations taught them falslely that apply military pressure and bluff tough guy threats at one end, backed by military action to follow this through if necessary, to dictatorships, and democracy will emerge at the other end. Automatically.
That didn't prove to be the case.
Every culture, every system is different and the matter of whether threat of force really can change a system - the US is applying it now to Iran - ahas to be questioned.
Every time I meet an east European who whinges and whines about Soviet occupation I ask: what the fuck are you complaining about? You are here aren't you. Your languages, your cultures, even in countries of 1m people, survived. You are remarkably intelligent, secptical and well-educated. You use your brain more than the average American. You lived okay - it was like being a student all your life. Shabby, easy, bohemian. No car. No responsibilities.
Your oppression can't have been that bad if it taught you to think critically. (Or conversely if the system was as bad for your capacity for indeopendent thought as you say why are we listenting to you know complaining about Russia?)
Their towns had coal pollution but were free of the western garbage culture that now defaces their cities. They read a huge number of books and had access to good classical culture. I lived in a small Czech town in the immediate post communist period and they had decent, if dull lives. Is it better to work in a call centre in today's globalised UK? Not necessarily. I never met anyone who knew anyone who had been sent to a uranium mine.
The war and stalinism was hell but it was hell for all Europeans then - a psychopathology that affected everyone, who pulled the trigger was just a detail. But eastern Europe after teh fifties truly settled down. It was not Hell, and some of the more primitive countries came a long way in a short time.
As for their claim that post 1989 they have come a long way in a short time, democracy and hi tech economies (viz Estonia) the east Europeans breastbeat themselves and say: all this despite Russian occupation. Aren't we marvellous? Perhaps the socialist system created the basis on which subsequent success could be rapidly achieved.
Which is why this success story cannot necessarily be applied to other parts of the world.
Americans think, in their narcissistic way: oh look, we did this with eastern Europe. We'll do it with Iraq. No time.
Perhaps it was the particular conditions of eastern Europe, and their pasts, including the sociliaist system that did and the US was just an onlooker.
Another good thing about Russian occupation/socialism is that it kept the lid firmly crewed on native catholic/bigot tendencies - viz Poland today.
Very few east Europeans seem to have any insight whatsoever with perspective into their recent histories. They are too much part of it I suppose. Outsiders are beholden to have a broader view.
It's funny that the cold war was all supposed to be about the open way of thinking versus the monolithic one. Quite apart from the fact that some of the most subtle and flexible minds i have met have been Russian or east Europeans, I am amused by the fact that the very historiography of the cold war itself is monolithic - no alternative interpretations circulate.
North, I have been writing about east Europe for 15 years, and many, many east European have been coming to London and been shown around, or moved here. Their first reactions are so often disappointment, but then they learn to get with the narrative: the Russian period bad, freedom unalloyed good.
Zabka: I once climbed Zniezka, the mountains that straddles Czech and Poland. It was easy to tell the Poles apart. They were naked from the waist and twirled their moustaches, and shouted a lot. The Czechs were more controlled.
commenthere on Putin and his opposition to the missile shield, which gets a lot of sympathy. And gives me a chance to be nice and contarian abouyt the east bloc.
North: why did the Czechs avoid massacres and the Poles didn't? And why, if the Russians were so bad, did the Hungarians have considerable freedoms. Why, if Russia was so bad, could East Germany have had its liberty had only the west consented to a neutralised united Germany?
Thanks for persisting through my typing errors but really you don't have to give me the conventional wisdom, which is all about making the west feel uncomplicatedly better but doesn't do much to contribute to subtle understanding of the cold war or what really went on in the east bloc.
If the Americans had not had a simplistic view of the cold war and their supposed role in winning it they probably wouldn't have blundered into Iraq. The experience of the east European transformations taught them falslely that apply military pressure and bluff tough guy threats at one end, backed by military action to follow this through if necessary, to dictatorships, and democracy will emerge at the other end. Automatically.
That didn't prove to be the case.
Every culture, every system is different and the matter of whether threat of force really can change a system - the US is applying it now to Iran - ahas to be questioned.
Every time I meet an east European who whinges and whines about Soviet occupation I ask: what the fuck are you complaining about? You are here aren't you. Your languages, your cultures, even in countries of 1m people, survived. You are remarkably intelligent, secptical and well-educated. You use your brain more than the average American. You lived okay - it was like being a student all your life. Shabby, easy, bohemian. No car. No responsibilities.
Your oppression can't have been that bad if it taught you to think critically. (Or conversely if the system was as bad for your capacity for indeopendent thought as you say why are we listenting to you know complaining about Russia?)
Their towns had coal pollution but were free of the western garbage culture that now defaces their cities. They read a huge number of books and had access to good classical culture. I lived in a small Czech town in the immediate post communist period and they had decent, if dull lives. Is it better to work in a call centre in today's globalised UK? Not necessarily. I never met anyone who knew anyone who had been sent to a uranium mine.
The war and stalinism was hell but it was hell for all Europeans then - a psychopathology that affected everyone, who pulled the trigger was just a detail. But eastern Europe after teh fifties truly settled down. It was not Hell, and some of the more primitive countries came a long way in a short time.
As for their claim that post 1989 they have come a long way in a short time, democracy and hi tech economies (viz Estonia) the east Europeans breastbeat themselves and say: all this despite Russian occupation. Aren't we marvellous? Perhaps the socialist system created the basis on which subsequent success could be rapidly achieved.
Which is why this success story cannot necessarily be applied to other parts of the world.
Americans think, in their narcissistic way: oh look, we did this with eastern Europe. We'll do it with Iraq. No time.
Perhaps it was the particular conditions of eastern Europe, and their pasts, including the sociliaist system that did and the US was just an onlooker.
Another good thing about Russian occupation/socialism is that it kept the lid firmly crewed on native catholic/bigot tendencies - viz Poland today.
Very few east Europeans seem to have any insight whatsoever with perspective into their recent histories. They are too much part of it I suppose. Outsiders are beholden to have a broader view.
It's funny that the cold war was all supposed to be about the open way of thinking versus the monolithic one. Quite apart from the fact that some of the most subtle and flexible minds i have met have been Russian or east Europeans, I am amused by the fact that the very historiography of the cold war itself is monolithic - no alternative interpretations circulate.
North, I have been writing about east Europe for 15 years, and many, many east European have been coming to London and been shown around, or moved here. Their first reactions are so often disappointment, but then they learn to get with the narrative: the Russian period bad, freedom unalloyed good.
Zabka: I once climbed Zniezka, the mountains that straddles Czech and Poland. It was easy to tell the Poles apart. They were naked from the waist and twirled their moustaches, and shouted a lot. The Czechs were more controlled.
Thursday 31 May 2007
Cold wat
One of the problems with the Iraq war stems from Americans believe they won the cold war through force.
A lot of us are quite well disposed to Russia/USSR anyway. Certainly post Soviet Russia. The idea that it's aggressive is a fantasy.
Let me tell ya a little story.
I have liked Russia since I happened to be in Moscow on 19 August 1991 - just a short tourist stop-over - went down to Red Square to inspect Lenin and found it blocked by tanks. It was the coup whose failure led to the end of the USSR. I went to the Russian parliament, was lifted through the crowds and sat on the roof of a bus close to where Yelstin made his famous speech.
The crowds said something like "English journalist. Let him through." I doubt English journalists are held in as high regard these days.
The veteran Jonathan Steele of this paper is fair to the Russians. Other writers on the Guardian have their glorification-of-anyone-but the Russian biases.
When I went to the Russian embassy in Kensington recently to get a visa it was wonderfully laid back.
The single guard looked hungover and the beautiful, willowy girl in reception crossed out the little chit that stated the wrong collection day and had me thinking I would miss my flight, with a very sexy, wrist-revealing wave and sang, airily and unconcernedly, "Don't worry. Is old information." Compare this to the boot clicking, butt-clenching anal retentiveness of the US embassy presence with its huge imperial eagle in Grosvenor square and the invasiveness of US immigration procedures.
The Russians have suffered and lost. They have gone through hellfire. That sort of experience gives people perspective on life, distance.
#Americans### have not, in my opinion, which is why they are still in the narcissistic, self centred, enormously self-aggrandising period of their national development.
I like Russians. They left Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and ten other countries peacefully in 1992-93.
Now, my friend. There are tens of thousands of US troops wasting their time in bases all over Europe.
#When are you going to leave? The door is over there.
Thank you.
Here, I tell an American, You've been brainwashed mate. You didn't win the cold war. the USSR collapsed because it's economy failed. The Cold War was just something to scare the kiddies with, a bogeyman. There was no danger. Russia was never gonna invade anyone.
A lot of us are quite well disposed to Russia/USSR anyway. Certainly post Soviet Russia. The idea that it's aggressive is a fantasy.
Let me tell ya a little story.
I have liked Russia since I happened to be in Moscow on 19 August 1991 - just a short tourist stop-over - went down to Red Square to inspect Lenin and found it blocked by tanks. It was the coup whose failure led to the end of the USSR. I went to the Russian parliament, was lifted through the crowds and sat on the roof of a bus close to where Yelstin made his famous speech.
The crowds said something like "English journalist. Let him through." I doubt English journalists are held in as high regard these days.
The veteran Jonathan Steele of this paper is fair to the Russians. Other writers on the Guardian have their glorification-of-anyone-but the Russian biases.
When I went to the Russian embassy in Kensington recently to get a visa it was wonderfully laid back.
The single guard looked hungover and the beautiful, willowy girl in reception crossed out the little chit that stated the wrong collection day and had me thinking I would miss my flight, with a very sexy, wrist-revealing wave and sang, airily and unconcernedly, "Don't worry. Is old information." Compare this to the boot clicking, butt-clenching anal retentiveness of the US embassy presence with its huge imperial eagle in Grosvenor square and the invasiveness of US immigration procedures.
The Russians have suffered and lost. They have gone through hellfire. That sort of experience gives people perspective on life, distance.
#Americans### have not, in my opinion, which is why they are still in the narcissistic, self centred, enormously self-aggrandising period of their national development.
I like Russians. They left Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and ten other countries peacefully in 1992-93.
Now, my friend. There are tens of thousands of US troops wasting their time in bases all over Europe.
#When are you going to leave? The door is over there.
Thank you.
Russia again
As others dispute why the world war ended, I weigh in.
The end of the cold war? I think Russian economic weakness was the overwhelming factor, but the US belief otherwise has exercised a baleful foreign policy influence since. The average American thinks we won WWI, WWII, and...the cold war, giving false confidence - and gave the neocon fish sea to swim in.
The false idea that the cold war was won through armament led to flase lessons being learnt that dog America today.
It is important to remember that during the Cold War neo-cons had adamantly opposed d�tente. They didn�t believe that the US should learn to coexist with the Soviet Union, insisting instead that it could win an uncontested victory. Coexistence, they argued, implied accommodation, which would turn into appeasement, which would soon dissolve into capitulation. After the Soviet Union unexpectedly fell apart, they did not revisit, or apologise for, their overestimation of the Communist system�s resilience and strength.
On the contrary, they felt totally vindicated. Although they had been spectacularly blind-sided, they concluded that they had been brilliantly prescient.
Excessively pleased with themselves, the neo-cons drew two lessons from the collapse of Communism.
#First, threats should be eliminated, not managed.
#Second, American security is invariably enhanced by the transformation of autocracies into democracies.
That the democratic transformation of Eastern Europe was triggered not by an invasion but by the withdrawal of a foreign Russian army apparently made little impression on them. All they knew was that the threat to the US from the Communist bloc had been eliminated by the more or less successful transformation of its former members into democracies.
The end of the cold war? I think Russian economic weakness was the overwhelming factor, but the US belief otherwise has exercised a baleful foreign policy influence since. The average American thinks we won WWI, WWII, and...the cold war, giving false confidence - and gave the neocon fish sea to swim in.
The false idea that the cold war was won through armament led to flase lessons being learnt that dog America today.
It is important to remember that during the Cold War neo-cons had adamantly opposed d�tente. They didn�t believe that the US should learn to coexist with the Soviet Union, insisting instead that it could win an uncontested victory. Coexistence, they argued, implied accommodation, which would turn into appeasement, which would soon dissolve into capitulation. After the Soviet Union unexpectedly fell apart, they did not revisit, or apologise for, their overestimation of the Communist system�s resilience and strength.
On the contrary, they felt totally vindicated. Although they had been spectacularly blind-sided, they concluded that they had been brilliantly prescient.
Excessively pleased with themselves, the neo-cons drew two lessons from the collapse of Communism.
#First, threats should be eliminated, not managed.
#Second, American security is invariably enhanced by the transformation of autocracies into democracies.
That the democratic transformation of Eastern Europe was triggered not by an invasion but by the withdrawal of a foreign Russian army apparently made little impression on them. All they knew was that the threat to the US from the Communist bloc had been eliminated by the more or less successful transformation of its former members into democracies.
Yeah, Estonia
Some guy writes further in the TGA post in the Guardian that 4m Brits a year go to America but if we don't like it we can always go to Estoia.
"But while that's being considered please consider going elsewhere. I hear Estonia is lovely this time of year. Check it out."
I write back to say that:
In case what he was really saying was "Ok, if you Brit guys love Russia so much why don't you go to Estonia, where there's a war going on. New Beirut. Russian spies, infiltrators, cold war, commies coming back, burning cars, end of democracy. Ha ha. "
I can assure him that the biggest danger to Estonia's security comes from the British stagnighters who already go there in large numbers and vomit on its payments.
When I went to eastern Europe in the late 80s/early 90s it was a silent and peaceful as a large museum. Now of course it's turned into a large gogo bar/casino, attracting stormtroopers from the unmarried ranks of Middle England.
It's ironic that the Estonians worry about the Russians, Russian invasion, etc, when the biggest threat to their existence probably comes from the right of 500m Europeans to come and settle in their once small, beautiful and peaceful country.
Peaceful because communism was so inefficient at generating things like Walmarts and gas stations and casinos.
Closed borders didn't keep out the outside world.
"But while that's being considered please consider going elsewhere. I hear Estonia is lovely this time of year. Check it out."
I write back to say that:
In case what he was really saying was "Ok, if you Brit guys love Russia so much why don't you go to Estonia, where there's a war going on. New Beirut. Russian spies, infiltrators, cold war, commies coming back, burning cars, end of democracy. Ha ha. "
I can assure him that the biggest danger to Estonia's security comes from the British stagnighters who already go there in large numbers and vomit on its payments.
When I went to eastern Europe in the late 80s/early 90s it was a silent and peaceful as a large museum. Now of course it's turned into a large gogo bar/casino, attracting stormtroopers from the unmarried ranks of Middle England.
It's ironic that the Estonians worry about the Russians, Russian invasion, etc, when the biggest threat to their existence probably comes from the right of 500m Europeans to come and settle in their once small, beautiful and peaceful country.
Peaceful because communism was so inefficient at generating things like Walmarts and gas stations and casinos.
Closed borders didn't keep out the outside world.
On America's poor border manners deterring visitors....
There are some fantastically literate contributions attacking the US in the Guardian today. Makes you realise what the country is losing.
On Saturday the Russian ambassador came on to CIF to defend his country's position on its differences with the UK. It was emollient and respectful, talking about Russia's complete non desire for a new cold war. (If he thought he was talking to a population of men-children spoonfed on fear by their russophobic media he didn't show it.)
I suspect we will wait a long time before the ambassador of the leader of the free and democratic world comes out of the London "Green Zone" (Mayfair) and does the same. We're vassals of course. Don't need to be addressed as equals.
Countries do change. The historian Gordon Craig began his epic book on the Germans with descriptions of a placid, peaceful, democratic people, the best eductaed in Europe, provincial, interested only in their own affairs, living in their beautiful, well tended cities, happy to let invasions pass over and pass by. He was quoting a historian decribing the German states in the mid 19th c.
I am not saying the USA is The Third Reich, it's facile and pointless these historical analogies, (like those neocons who have anointed more Hitlers and more Chamberlains than I have had hot dinners)
But countries do change.
On Saturday the Russian ambassador came on to CIF to defend his country's position on its differences with the UK. It was emollient and respectful, talking about Russia's complete non desire for a new cold war. (If he thought he was talking to a population of men-children spoonfed on fear by their russophobic media he didn't show it.)
I suspect we will wait a long time before the ambassador of the leader of the free and democratic world comes out of the London "Green Zone" (Mayfair) and does the same. We're vassals of course. Don't need to be addressed as equals.
Countries do change. The historian Gordon Craig began his epic book on the Germans with descriptions of a placid, peaceful, democratic people, the best eductaed in Europe, provincial, interested only in their own affairs, living in their beautiful, well tended cities, happy to let invasions pass over and pass by. He was quoting a historian decribing the German states in the mid 19th c.
I am not saying the USA is The Third Reich, it's facile and pointless these historical analogies, (like those neocons who have anointed more Hitlers and more Chamberlains than I have had hot dinners)
But countries do change.
Wednesday 30 May 2007
In defence of Russia
On the RNT post the new missile shield in Poland is being discussed.
The whole idea is stupid. hat missile shield is not going to stop any Russian nukes, since their stock is huge and there are only like 10 interceptors - they'll get through.
So why is it there. It's not for practical reasons, it's symbolic.
1) To test Russia. In the same way you put your hands on a woman's leg to see if you can further. It seems to me that if Russia acquiesces America can continue to politically encroach on Russia's near abroad. If Russia complains people like the Guardian writer above announce a new cold war.
Russia can't win really.
If you prod bears in their caves with a stick for 15 years they tend to get a bit bad tempered.
Especially since they were attacked in 1700, 1812, 1855, 1914, 1941 - all from the west.
The oligarchs screwed up their economy in the 1990s - with support from the west.
For the record. Russia has never attacked the West.
I partly blame the other east Europeans. They are tails wagging the American dog. There's a strong Polish/Baltic ethnic lobby in the US. Like the Jewish lobby really.
These guys are fanatic nationalists, never lived in the home countries they are cheering for.
Another fuck up for US foreign policy is looming. I just can't believe it. I have known (and loved) Russians.
Leave Russia alone.
The whole idea is stupid. hat missile shield is not going to stop any Russian nukes, since their stock is huge and there are only like 10 interceptors - they'll get through.
So why is it there. It's not for practical reasons, it's symbolic.
1) To test Russia. In the same way you put your hands on a woman's leg to see if you can further. It seems to me that if Russia acquiesces America can continue to politically encroach on Russia's near abroad. If Russia complains people like the Guardian writer above announce a new cold war.
Russia can't win really.
If you prod bears in their caves with a stick for 15 years they tend to get a bit bad tempered.
Especially since they were attacked in 1700, 1812, 1855, 1914, 1941 - all from the west.
The oligarchs screwed up their economy in the 1990s - with support from the west.
For the record. Russia has never attacked the West.
I partly blame the other east Europeans. They are tails wagging the American dog. There's a strong Polish/Baltic ethnic lobby in the US. Like the Jewish lobby really.
These guys are fanatic nationalists, never lived in the home countries they are cheering for.
Another fuck up for US foreign policy is looming. I just can't believe it. I have known (and loved) Russians.
Leave Russia alone.
Cold war?
Richard Norton Taylor thinks a new arms race is on the cards.
Why is he writing this. There clearly isn't. But does he want one (as a security correspondent looking for reasoins to keep his job needed if the Iraw war winds down.) That would explain why he us trying to bring about a self fulfilling prophesy.
Journalism could not thrive without polarities, conflict, black and white contrasts, fear. Above all fear.
Where conflict doesn't exist, it must be created.
The idea that Russia wants a cold war is complete twaddle.
I have not met a single Russian who wants a cold war.
Why is he writing this. There clearly isn't. But does he want one (as a security correspondent looking for reasoins to keep his job needed if the Iraw war winds down.) That would explain why he us trying to bring about a self fulfilling prophesy.
Journalism could not thrive without polarities, conflict, black and white contrasts, fear. Above all fear.
Where conflict doesn't exist, it must be created.
The idea that Russia wants a cold war is complete twaddle.
I have not met a single Russian who wants a cold war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)