Xi ad Portas

   

In psychodynamics projective  identification is a mechanism, where not only one projects feelings and characteristics onto somebody else, but also that the other person accepts the projected as part of him- or herself.

 

This mechanism seems to be in play in int’l politics of present declining modernity. The big powers accuse each other of having certain characteristics. The accused most often deny having this feature, but at the same time they often in their acts confirm that they are as their opponents postulate. Instead of proving that the accusations are wrong, it is as if the accused through their acts say: We will prove you right.

 

Just to take a few of the numerous examples we have the suppression of the work of opposition groups and of NGO’s with foreign links in Russia and the imposition of disproportionate security laws in Hong Kong. The United States has the last four years  under Donald Trump and the Republicans worked very hard to prove that the accusations from the opponents (and the fears from the friends) are right. Just to take a couple of examples we have the ending of weapon control treaties and the measures against Chinese IT companies and one of their leaders.

 

On the issue of China this line is continuing under the new US administration. The animosity against this new rival is the only thing which unites the madly polarized parties in America. The anti-Chinese sentiments in the United States are reaching hysterical levels. The Trumpists presently taking over the Republican party are reviving the conspiracy theory about the Corona virus coming from the lab in Wuhan. And this in ways which are often beyond any reality. If somebody accuses Dr. Faucy of having hired the lab in Wuhan to produce more dangerous Corona viruses it is approaching pathological paranoia.

 

As we know, the mild version of the lab leak theory assumes that SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made virus which escaped from the lab by accident. The virus is supposed to have been produced through manipulation of another bat virus using  “gain of function” research deliberately or accidentally amplifying a related virus. This might sound like a reasonable idea. But RaTG13, the closest known relative of the Corona-virus in the pandemic has only 96.2 % genetic overlap with the virus causing the illness. This is a gap of almost 4 % which according to scientists cannot be bridged, neither by gain of function techniques nor by a pure accident creating mutations in a lab. Similar arguments exclude manmade alterations of the earlier suggested bat viruses ZC45 and ZXC21as the origin of the pandemic. Thus these versions of the lab escape theory must be discarded. 

 

Therefore to maintain the lab leak idea, it is necessary to assume a longterm diabolic plan aiming at genetically producing the Corona-virus now ravaging the globe, an almost impossible task. It would also be necessary that this genetic alteration was done without leaving traces, which is also extremely difficult.

 

But with the present cold war hysteria in the United States everything about China is believed, even the idea of such a farfetched diabolic plan. The situation is very comparable to the conspiracy theories in Rome about the competitor Carthage 2100 years ago. These theories even continued after the defeat of Cartage and ultimately lead to its deliberate destruction by Rome.

 

In this atmosphere it is no wonder that hate-crimes against Asians are on the rise in America, even though attacking Asians in general because of China is just as stupid as attacking Jews in general because of Israel. What about an upgrade of your educational system?

 

Placed in a such anti-Chinese environment and confronted by grotesque  theories it is no wonder that Dr. Faucy and President Biden to fend off accusations of complicity or appeasement publicly support further investigation off the Wuhan lab theory.

 

Often humans use a rule of thumb, a heuristic saying that the truth is somewhere in the middle between the opposite viewpoints. In their statements concerning the lab theory Biden and Faucy follow this rule. In many cases it is a good heuristic. But the truth is not in the middle between a paranoid conspiracy theory and a neutral viewpoint. And this even less if the last viewpoint is based on science. Of course scientists can disagree on theories, and some scientists may support a theory about a manmade Corona-virus. BUT all scientists agree that theories must be judged on the basis of knowledge and data and not out of public or political opinion.

 

Besides, this rule of thumb about the truth in the middle does not seem to be used by many Americans except for Biden and Faucy. The truth is more and more typically assumed to be at one of the extreme ends in US politics. This new heuristic is an immensely dangerous threat to democracy.

 

The rest of the world still often uses the mentioned truth-in-the-middle-rule. As said, this can also be misleading if one viewpoint is extreme, and the other is neutral. Concerning the topic in this post the rule lends a certain credibility to a version of the Wuhan lab theory. If somebody claims that an epidemiological devil resides in Beijing while others say this is not the case, the truth is assumed to be in the middle. Thus there must at least be a smaller epidemiological demon in Beijing. 

 

 And if China is perceived as a Communist dictatorship suppressing democracy and as not cooperating fully with investigations into the origin of the virus, the global public opinion and the world’s media and politicians are more likely to believe myths about Corona despite their implausibility.

 

 Biden in his  diplomatic foreign policy only wants to confront China in one third of the aspects of the relationship. We must wait and see if this will suffice in his polarized nation obsessed with China.

 

Be assured, if reelected the Chosen One will expel the Devil in all his aspects from the World.

 

Democracy - Ideology or Idea?

  Increasingly the term democracy and its definition is becoming a major battleground in the rivalry and competition between the West and its major opponents. In this post I will try to clarify the concept in light of civilizations and history. 

 

Clearly democracy can be defined in numerous ways. We may understand it as any direct or indirect involvement of the people or parts thereof in either legislation and / or the conduct of governing, the control of this or the replacement of rulers. Or simply that rulers in any way embody or implement the wishes of the people.  

 

Understood in this broad sense we observe elements of democracy in many civilizations. Only to mention a few examples, before or in early stages of some civilizations we often see that on the level of villages or on higher levels the inhabitants together decide in matters of common interest based on voting. On the local level this system often continues through the history of civilizations. In bigger cities in many civilizations the merchants and guilds often decided for themselves in matters important for the city. In old China even according to Confucian thought the people had the right to depose bad rulers. The same was the case for infidel rulers in the Muslim world.

 

In this post I am talking about democracy in the specific sense characterizing the European civilizations. That is the greco-Roman and the present Western civilization. 

 

In earlier posts I have been using the term “Western” in the sense meaning our present civilization in general, not in the sense of the specific political system in the European and North American parts of this Western civilization. The rest of the world has arrived in and is now part of this western civilization. This indeed also concerns the ideological opponents of the Western powers.

 

But to avoid confusion I will in the remainder of this post instead of the Western civilization talk about the “Euro-Global civilization” or simply the “Global civilization ”. The compound is constructed in parallel to the term Greco-Roman civilization. In both cases the first geographical term denotes the place of origin, and the second the later spread of the civilization. Thus in this post “Western” has its normal political sense and refers to West Europe, North America and Japan.

 

Democracy in the Greco-Roman civilization and the Euro-Global civilization has certain characteristics implying a continuous participation of the public or its representatives in and the control of legislation and the running of government, not only the right to insurrection against bad rulers. I term this form of democracy simply “European democracy”, because it characterizes democracy in the two civilizations, which originated in Europe.

 

Clearly European democracy can be practiced in several ways from the direct democracy in the Swiss cantons to the present representative democracy. Also in the course of the history of the two civilizations the implementation of democracy in the sense of the word meaning rule by demos, the people has been practiced to very different degrees. For example on the state level it was de facto more or less absent under the old Greek tyrants and under the absolute rule of the West European kings roughly 1650 to 1800 or later. 

 

What is crucial is that fully implemented or not, we are talking about European democracy as an idea, a principle, which is all-pervading in these two civilizations. Also under tyrants and absolute ruling kings this principle was officially still valid, and it was being practiced albeit in a very limited way. Even under kings like Louis XVI we saw that despite his “L’état c’est moi” the local estates still had powers to approve or disapprove laws. The idea of European democracy is also found in most ideologies of the Euro-Global civilization. “Communism” as the postulated original society and as the utopian end-goal in Marxism is yet another version of European democracy, maybe best compared to the Swiss direct democracy.

 

Thus European democracy is not simply a present arbitrary ideological concept constructed by Western powers even though it is not only used where it is appropriate to criticize internal and external authoritarian tendencies, but also used and abused in the fight against other powers.

 

Important today is how the pervasive idea of European democracy is defined. Clearly it is not per definition equal to present day’s specific form of democracy in Europe and North America, a form focused on polarization and populist arguments propagated with means payed by enormous sums of money. But at least the defining characteristic, the continuous participation in and control of government and legislation by the people or its elected representatives, this principle is generally seen as meaning democracy in the sense used in the Euro-Global civilization. This has become the ideal the presence or the absence of which determines whether we are talking about democracy or not. Not only Western governments, but global public opinion agree on this.

 

Like many other observers I have often talked about democracy today being in decline and under attack from populists and demagogues. No doubt democracy in the meaning of European democracy will be reduced in the next 100 years. In the end it will be practiced mainly on the local level. BUT the idea will remain, and it will be practiced not only locally, but also occasionally on higher levels of the upcoming empires.

 

If our Global civilization develops like our predecessors the internal and external conflicts of late modernity will around 2100 be terminated by one or two, perhaps three empires under the absolute and hereditary rule by one man. In the Greco-Roman civilization this man was of course Augustus. In most civilizations this ruler is from the start viewed upon as king of kings or emperor or something like it. But in the European civilizations a such title is not appropriate because of the strong principle of democracy. Augustus was from the start not seen as an emperor. Instead he had very republican titles. The same was the case for his followers. These republican titles only gradually became equivalent to what we view as emperor. The idea of democracy was for a long time after 30 BC too strong to permit an openly monarchic position. Something like this could have provoked insurrections as late as a century after the accession of Augustus. Officially the people continued to rule. Later the emperors did become monarchs also in the official understanding, and they were accepted as such by the public. But still as late as in the 6th century corresponding to the 27th century in our civilization, we find that the people had a say in politics. The so-called circus parties in the major cities of the East Roman Empire were a mixture of fan-clubs and political parties. They supported their teams in the arenas of sport entertainment. But they also focused their attention to political matters with opposing views. Or they could even unite and depose an emperor. This shows the longevity of the idea of democracy in the European civilizations.

 

No doubt an openly undemocratic monarchy will be just as unthinkable in our Euro-Global civilization even as late as 2200. The empire(s) must continue to resemble a democracy.

 

Thus despite democracy declining and being reduced on the practical level the idea has and will continue to have an immense power. The public opinions in the present Euro-Global civilization, both the elites and the broad masses are firmly attached to this idea. If it is suppressed they will fight very strongly to defend it. This even in the present era’s politically often indifferent atmosphere. In fact European democracy can only be diminished by its own decline. If it is directly attacked, the idea flourishes and will continue to inspire uprisings and revolutions. This has been so since the French Revolution, and it continues to be the case in our time in uprisings like the Arab Spring and the present one in Myanmar. Direct suppression of European forms of democracy is and will remain the strongest promoter for this idea. And as this civilization covers the entire globe, this is the case in most countries.

 

Thus the idea of European style democracy is not simply an ideological construct created by modern Western powers, and it is certainly not going to die despite its decline on the practical level. To be accepted and respected by rulers and peoples in the Global civilization you must at least seem to practice parts of European democracy or as a minimum respect it. You should certainly not be seen as directly suppressing it, even less do this in an excessive manner. This is even more the case if you want to win over this civilization.

 

I am not implying that authoritarian rule is per definition condemnable. Used in a measured degree it can be necessary to maintain stability when this is under threat. This fact should be recognized, also by the Western powers even though it may be difficult to understand by the public. Dictatorships are not always simply dictatorships. There are necessary authoritarian rules, and there are dictatorships serving only personal greed for power. The West must make this distinction. Its opponents also. Because you in your own country suppress European democracy in order to maintain stability you do not have to support all sorts of dictators only hungry for personal power and brutally suppressing their peoples. You will risk to be judged by the world like it judges those you support. 

 

Above I have argued that European democracy is a very basic idea and not only an ideological construct used by Western powers. It is a strong idea with a long past and a long future. 

 

I have defined European democracy in a way relating to legislation and rule. But the total lists of human rights issued over the centuries of the modernity of the Euro-Global civilization rightly contain other things as well, not least the right to well-being. And in a broader sense we can talk about a right to personal space, the right to realize oneself, ones interests and potentials, the freedom to choose not only your leaders, but also and not least your own way of life. To get a true picture of the level of human rights in a country all this must be taken into consideration. Revolutions can start because of lack of democracy, but very often they start because of poverty or lack of personal choice. 

 

The importance of stability and the fulfillment of other rights alongside European democracy is often ignored by the West when judging other countries.

 

The immense importance of the idea of European democracy in the Global civilization is often ignored by the opponents of the Western powers when they navigate in this civilization which they have entered.