Aeschylus is credited with the saying:
“In war, truth is the first casualty.”
This is obviously correct, and it is condemnable when lies are used to justify cruel wars and suffering.
But let us not forget that peace can also depend on certain versions of the truth. And this is acceptable if the purpose is the higher goal of creating peace and ending suffering.
Clearly, Donald Trump’s major competitor for overlordship in the American world is neither Gavin Newsom nor Elon Musk, but Benjamin Netanyahu.
“What if only ten righteous people can be found in the city?”
God answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
As often explained, a odernity is a phase in a civilisation, which is characterised by rational thinking, cultural and scientific innovation, experimental thought, political ideas and pluralism, but also by conflicts, revolutions and wars. We see high levels of humane thinking and politics, but also shockingly inhumane acts and meaningless bloodshed and suffering. Examples of modernities are: in the First Chinese Civilisation roughly 500-200 BC, in the Greco-Roman 300-0, in the Second Chinese Civilisation 900-1300 and in our case 1800-2100.
The judgement of a modernity changes radically with time, especially with the shift from this phase to the time after. The new thinking which during a modernity was hailed as liberation, is now difficult to understand and perceived and criticised as immoral. This is evident already under the rule of Augustus which marked the end of the Greco-Roman modernity.
The violence and attrocities which as said, also characterise modernities are praised by the contemporary victors and condemned by not only the defeated. After the modern phase such acts are broadly condemned and the perpetrators go down in history as criminals and murderers. Their legacy is tainted and bloody.
Examples are Sulla who proscribed thousands of opponents and others in Rome in 82 BC and Bai Qi who in China in 260 BC slaughtered 400.000 soldiers after they had surrended. Our civilisation has also witnessed several people who might have been heroes of the day for some, but were butchers for others. After the end of their modernity such people in all civilisations were and will be generally condemned. One of history’s worst examples is of course Adolf Hitler who as deserved is condemned by almost everybody already in the present modern phase. Compared to what he and his followers did, the other excesses in the use of violence and suffering in our civilisation, past or ongoing, may seem less significant. But nevertheless, such acts have caused and causes tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of lost lives. The crimes of Nazism do not nullify them. Neither do the crimes of terrorism. Not in the eyes of contemporaries and certainly not for future historical judges.
The readers must forgive me for recent inconsistencies. It is difficult to predict the exact details of developments of which we only know the overall parallel picture in older civilisations. And as history despite obvious overall similarities does not follow a law, the details can be affected by new events. Two such recent developments have influenced our path:
a} Changes in America which I had expected would take two decades, have been accomplished in only a few months. The legislative power is on it‘s knees. The judicial system, the media and the states are next in line. In foreign politics close allies are viewed and treated with shocking contempt.
b} But in response Europe has stood up in a remarkably decisive manner.
In the broader perspective the internal and global developments over the next eight decades can be predicted. But when it comes to the details, events like the two changes make short-term predictions more difficult.
In addition to this comes a theoretical modification. In one of my recent posts I have talked about the world being taken over by overlords like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Despite cultural differences the latter is another overlord. But Putin is clearly far more skilled and well-considered. He may split the world, but as opposed to Trump he does not bring his own country close to civil war.
I wrote that leaders like Trump would seize more and more executive power. They wouldn‘t care about internal or external traditions and constitutions, and they could easily abandon established alliances and rules. I assumed this development to affect the whole civilisation, i.e. the whole world.
But during the work with the analysis in my most recent text-post, Save the EU, I have modified this point of view. As usual drawing on historical parallels, I have nuanced this idea of only one possible path into several possible routes: The described overlords do not have to be the destiny in all parts of our global civilisation. In the East Asian Civilisation the Southern Song Dynasty succeeded in avoiding this scenario for long periods of time. As written, it can be argued that the same possibility exists for parts of our civilisation. Further, it can be argued that even if all parts of a civilisation do move in this direction, it can happen with different degrees and different speeds.
In our case it is clear or should be clear, that America and Russia are leading the development towards overlords with no shame. And as written in the earlier post, the EU is presently continuing the more mature modernity with it‘s political systems, order and traditions.
But this is also the case for present China. There has been much talk about the liberal democratic western countries as being representatives of a “rule-based” world. Russia and China were seen as revanchist and expansionist opponents of these rules. Obviously, the United States has now left the club of self-declared rule-governed nations.
But it is important to make a distinction between 1) those who want a one-time correction of existing delimitations between spheres of interest, but otherwise want respect of rules. And 2) those who act against rules as such in order to change the global architecture in a fundamental way, even by prematurely annexing territories and countries. Trump and Putin seem to belong to the latter type.
China seems to belong to the first type. Because of the tremendous growth of it’s economic strength, China sees a discrepancy between an enormous global weight and a sphere which in some aspects is limited. This causes Beijing to want a correction. But this does not imply a general disrespect of rule-based behavior.
In fact, when it comes to respect of rules per se, the world is divided between a) the anarchic United States plus Russia and b) the orderly Europe and China. This is also a difference between those powers which destabilise and those which stabilise the globe.
Thus, despite differences between political systems, Europe and China have much in common and share their conception of a stable world. Besides, as written elsewhere, the European and the Chinese civilisation have many cultural similarities, like the veneration of history and respect of science just to mention a couple.
In a world where Europe as vividly illustrated in the picture in my last post, is threatened by the powers of chaos, it is absolutely necessary that the EU does not turn against a possible valuable ally. In foreign politics the Europeans must dampen their ideological principles and make a strategic alliance with China.This would be based on shared global views and interests. The two powers should resolve their trade conflicts and work together. In order to deal with overlords not playing by the rules, you must be adaptable and dynamic.
Obviously, the idea is not that two of the major world-forces should make an alliance against the other two. Instead, all four should agree on and respect their spheres. Europe - not necessarily all of the EU and not only the EU - must play an active part in the game and not be reduced to a puppet or a victim.
Note
The Russian leader may be an overlord in the context of the Second European, now global Civilisation. In an East European context he is something else.
On September 2, 2016 I wrote the following in the post “Trump, Catiline, Russia, China and Parthia“
“Our version of a later not united post-chaotic world [= after modernity with its pluralism and internal and external conflicts] could perhaps be the world divided between 3 powers with each their sphere of interest. The United States and China dividing the Western civilization between each other. Each de facto cntrollng their parts. And Russia in a third sphere gradually becoming more culturally distinct and different from the rest. But the way to this could be filled with trouble. Gradually though the three powers will calm [= subdue and conquer] their spheres of influence and agree on the borders between these spheres. At the end could come the global
Pax Americana, Sinica et Russiana“
This is still valid. We now know that Trump is not a modern incapable losing Catiline, but a winning overlord. The World is indeed developing into the three spheres as described in my recent posts. What I propose, is just to let this happen without too much conflict. This might be achieved via agreed borders between the three spheres. A such partitioning of the World can not be morally defended, but if the development into three all-encompassing empires is our destiny, then the road to this should be without too much conflict and suffering.
But, could the EU become it’s own independent sphere?
I have several times pointed to the unusually long duration of modernity in the Second Chinese Civilisation (started around the Birth of Christ). See e.g. “Poles and Civilisations” from June 9, 2024. Here I will further elaborate this and draw parallels to present Europe.
We may set the beginning of modernity in the Second Chinese Civilisation to around AD 880 in connection with the great social conflicts at the end of the Tang Dynasty. China got split in minor states, but united in the Song Dynasty in 960. The two years would correspond to ca. 1800 and 1880 in our case and 320 and 240 BC in the Greco-Roman Civilisation.
In1069 the great social reformer Wang Anshi entered the scene, corresponding to Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in Rome from 133 BC. In our case Presidents Clinton and Obama from 1993. The three reformers tried to address the problems of respectively peasants, veterans and ordinary Americans without health insurance. Of course there were reforms earlier and later, but these three marked historical turns.
As said in my recent posts, the Age of the Overlords started with Marius and Trump 2.0 ca. 104 BC and 2024, i.e. 30 years after the start of the reforms.
Translated into the timeline of our Second European Civilisation Rome left modernity at ca. 2100. We will probably do it at the same time. China did not do it until the Mongol conquest in around 2200 on our timeline.
How come this long duration?!
It can perhaps be understood better, if we broaden the perspective on this civilisation to encompass not only China, but the whole of East Asia.
Toynbee termed this the East Asian Civilisation .
Most often we have seen that all countries in a civilisation at the end of the phase of modernity become united = subdued or conquered by the leading power. But there are exceptions. In the First Mesopotamian Civilisation Hammurabi and his successors could not conquer the southern ‘Sealand’. And as said in ,Trump, Catiline, Russia, China and Parthia, Rome did not conquer the whole of the Greco-Roman Civilisation as Parthia remained a separate empire.
The crucial point is to realise that because a modernity ends at the “planned” time in parts of a civilisation , this does not have to be the case for not subdued countries. Thus, if Song China remained in the phase of modernity, this was not the case for the other parts of the East Asian Civilisation.
In China like in Rome and in our civilisation the reformists were followed by the overlords.
Examples are the prime ministers Cai Jing, Qin Hui and Han Tuozhou. Also North China’s Jin Dynasty had it’s dominating personalities.
After the defeat of Song to Jin in the battle at JXiangyang a in 1206, the two powers could have developed into two separate after-modern empires belonging to the same civilisation in the style of Rome and Parthia. BUT soon after, the Mongols started to slaughterJin. AND Song managed to perpetuate the East Asian modernity for further seven decades.
When we look back at the century following the reforms, Song China like Rome had the mentioned overlords with dictatorial power, but they only ruled for limited periods. Like in Rome and present America, the executive power was strengthened, e.g. through the use of decrees, called directed edicts. But these developments did not accelerate like they did in Rome.
Coupled to the EU
If the EU survives as a major player on the world scene, it could potentially assume a role similar to that of Song China.
In my post from January 5, 2014 “The European Sung Dynasty” I indeed compared the present EU with China in the Song Dynasty. Can we do the same, conserve an island of modernity and reason while the rest of the world becomes part of empires under de facto emperors?
That depends.
Modernity in Song survived because of
a} Internal political developments, not least the political Neo-Confucian Daoxue-party.
On the international level it survived for decades because of three factors:
b} Inner cohesion despite the political pluralism.
c} A GDP which when we look at the economy beyond basic agriculture and crafts, was absolutely overwhelming, not only in East Asia, but in the whole World.
d} A military strength which contrary to my comments in 2014 was considerable. It managed to hold the Mongols back during five decades of invasion attempts.
Now, can the EU match these four conditions?
a} We have no such thing as Neo-Confucianism . Rather, because of uncontrolled immigration and a division between elites and people feeling left out, we see a turn to the political extremes.
b} Therefore, cohesion in and between the member-countries is being eroded.
c} The GDP of the EU is limited compared to the rest of the civilisation.
d} The EU is militarily week and depends on America. Just spending more money will not change this in a union without cohesion, dynamics and centralised government and without a united integrated military command structure.
These points are obvious to everyone. The comparison with the corresponding points from the Song Dynasty is depressing for Europe. If we don’t change our corse radically, the EU will be lost. Greenland is just the first step.
Perhaps we should reverse the roles and invite Canada to join our union.
1} There can be more than one overlord from the same power and even from the same political side. Presently, Elon Musk begins to act like a second US overlord alongside Donald Trump. Musk’s treatment of politicians in allied countries shows which arrogance we can expect from overlords.
2} Deals can be made between “triumvirs” from all big powers. But unfortunately for America, deals between the leaders of the opposing political sides within the country seem less likely.
3} Of course, in a not completely segregated world, superpowers can be part of the economic and IT- spheres of each other.
4} If you squeeze a block of rubber for decades, it will rebound.
If you put seeds in a concrete confinement, they will break the concrete.
If you enter the territory of the dominant alpha male, you will be expelled.
