Save the EU !

 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.