Sunday, February 10, 2019
Online devices are borders without effective defence
Why is everybody so enthusiastically embracing the possibility of coupling ever more devices to the internet? And this even more as we enter the 5G semi-paradise with its even better possibilities of letting all sorts of things work efficiently and quickly online. It is especially strange that this is happening at the same time as governments and intelligence agencies are fearing espionage and what is worse from Huawei and Putin, and when everybody should know that spying by the Americans has for a long time been a fact.
Every responsible governmental administration should be aware of the possible dangers. For every new device which goes online a new badly protected flank is added.
Of course it is of limited importance if a coffee machine is hacked or destroyed. But many other devices are more crucial. This could be equipment for medical purposes or the control of transportation, distribution and transmission of communication, administration, mobile phone communication, radio and TV transmission, or drones or cars just to mention some areas. Not least important is the production and distribution of energy.
It is thoughtless and stupid to allow the proliferation of equipment and activities which are depending on the internet. This no matter who is expected to carry out the hacking or to inflict damage. It creates an increased vulnerability for private and public organizations, service providers and producers. Whole societies become more and more easy to hurt (also by things like strong electromagnetic pulses no matter their origin). There is no such thing as a 100% effective defence against digital warfare. It is deeply problematic that politicians unconsciously let their countries slide into an ever greater dependance on IT accessible from or dependent on cyberspace. Often just because users and providers want it, or commercials praise it, or because it is new and smart.
Thus a government with a sense for the security of important sectors of society and the whole of the country can not allow the decisions about whether to let devices go online to be made by market mechanisms or wishes for convenience. In countries with a will to defend themselves a governmental commission with experts in security in the different branches of society must be established, a commission with the task of deciding whether a piece of equipment is too important to be allowed to go online. Guidelines for these decisions should be made. Producers and users which plan the implementation of new online devices or categories of such devices must ask this commission, which should have the power to prohibit the implementation of such equipment.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Schisms 1054 and 2019
In 1054 the Western and Eastern branches of the church split in the so-called Great Schism. At this time it was a sign that the emerging Western civilization was rising and felt itself unique and distinct from the Orthodox Byzantine civilization, which can be regarded as part of the Oriental civilization.
Recently the Ukrainian Orthodox church gained autocephaly meaning that its break with the Moscow Patriarchate was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The situation may be seen as similar to the Great Schism 1000 years ago. Not because of the schism between the Russian and Ukrainian churches, but because of the ensuing break of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is the true new Great Schism. Politically seen the branches of the Orthodox church under the Patriarch in Constantinople have become representatives of the now all-dominant Western civilization. The Russian Patriarchate can be seen as a representative of a potential emerging East European civilization wanting to liberate itself further from the West. Therefore it had to take this step, creating a schism. Just as the Western church to liberate itself from the Byzantine or Oriental civilization broke of from the Eastern church in 1054.
Obviously like in 1054 lots of political and power-related conflicts are mixed into the present schism.
In earlier posts I have talked about the phenomenon called a pseudomorphosis . It is the name for situations where a new civilization is dominated or overlain by an all-mighty older one which in its modernity has expanded into areas of an emerging new civilization. This causes the new civilization to develop in the forms of the older dominating one. If there indeed now is a new civilization rising in Eastern Europe, it has to develop in Western forms. Instead of a feudal order normal for early civilizations we see political forms of the Western modernity. But the dominance is manifesting itself in all spheres, not only the political. A such domination creates a resistance from the dominated, a resistance which can be difficult to understand in the dominating civilization, which believes itself to be in a state (in our case liberal democracy) which is a step in all historical developments and lies on the way to an ever better future. But this state is in the specific form of only one civilization. For others it is alien and creates resistance, a resistance which cannot merely be seen as the result of political propaganda from the state. Two thousand years ago the emerging Oriental civilization was rising under a comparable domination from the old Greco-Roman world. This caused extreme resistance, eg. from the Jews. Only the continuous reduction of the cultural radiance of the declining older civilization permits the new one to exert its uniqueness. This may be what is happening with Russia today. Culturally Russia is still dominated by the West, but opposing this more and more.
The rest of Eastern Europe may be part of the same emerging civilization as Russia. But because of historical experiences and because of the power of Russia, the rise of this civilization with its feeling of new uniqueness strengthens the political opposition against Russia in parts of East Europe. This even though the underlying cultural trends may be the same as in Russia. This political antagonism between Russia and parts of East Europe is worsened because the degree of Westernization is greater in East Europe than in Russia. For natural reasons the political resistance towards Russia is bigger the closer geographically a country is to Russia. We see this in Poland and the Baltic states. This means that the least westernized country, Ukraine, shows the greatest resistance towards Russia.
But the opposition against Western liberal democracy and openness is very clear in East Europe, not only in, but also outside Russia. Thus an emerging East European civilization is part of the explanation for the increasing estrangement between the eastern and western countries of the EU. Obviously we also see populist opposition to this system in the West, but here this development is only a sign of the general political decline in the late modernity of the West. The radiance from our modernity is vanishing causing a contagious spread of decline and a deplorable loss of human rights both within and beyond the core of the Western civilization.
As mentioned there was a comparable situation two thousand years ago in the Middle East where the Oriental civilization was dominated by the Greco-Roman civilization and trying to liberate itself. In this case large parts of the whole area of the new civilization, ie. the area from Egypt and Asia Minor to the limits of India, were culturally dominated by Hellenism. Politically and militarily only the western parts of the large area were under Roman control. Much of the rest was part of the Parthian Empire. The areas under Roman control can be compared to East Europe today, while the Parthian areas resemble Russia. Obviously the parts under Roman control were mostly Hellenized.
Parthia and Russia, even though heavily Westernized, felt/feel it as their mission to defend the emerging civilization from being swallowed completely. Even though as said emerging civilizations normally are on primitive levels when it concerns political and military organization and technology, the need for defense against the civilizations to the west forced and forces Parthia and Russia to match their opponents. Naturally this is especially relevant for todays Russia. The closest we get to the feudal knights typical for early civilizations may be the oligarchs in parts of east Europe and Russia.
Militarily and when it concerns political allegiance from countries, the Western civilization may continue to dominate a few centuries still. But culturally and especially when we talk about political ideals, the West is already loosing its appeal as the political decline and the splitting of the societies get worse.
In the 90es East Europe enthusiastically embraced the West. Our culture, our stable political systems and our wealth were seen as indivisible parts of a whole. Now this is turning out to be an illusion. Wealth did not result for everybody, and now politics are decaying. This is another reason why East Europe is beginning to find its own way in opposition to both the West and Russia. As the West stagnates and declines further, also culturally, and the new East European civilization gains strength, the cultural influence will begin to reverse and go westwards.
Obviously this does not mean that East Europe automatically will become politically integrated into Russia. Civilizations are not normally politically united. As the West emerged as its own civilization around 1000, it had to break definitively with the Oriental world, ie. the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphates and Emirates of the Muslim world. The Great Schism in 1054 marked this. But except for short periods of unification under the Carolingians the West was split into different countries, not united into one. Similarly the emerging East European civilization will be split into several countries in the area from Poland and Serbia to Siberia. (We may see the short de facto unification from the Iron Curtain to Vladivostok from the end of WW2 as a phenomenon similar to the short Carolingian unification of the West). For some time the Eastern European countries will continue to stay culturally Westernized in different degrees, mostly in the western parts. They will liberate themselves gradually from this Western cultural dominance with the Eastern parts as frontrunners.
This gradual liberation from the West is the true meaning of the schism between Moscow and Constantinople. It is also part of the dynamics in the Russian behavior towards the West and in Ukraine. In reality this is defensive and a result of the Western political and military expansion into its sphere of interest AND landscapes containing cultural roots of Russia, roots considered holy. In the short term this Western expansion will cause a further Westernization of parts of East Europe, parts which historically were Russian. Religion is of immense importance for early civilizations. Also therefore the Westernization of the Ukrainian church on holy Russian grounds is seen as an extreme provocation.
NOTE
In the above I am talking about trends in the intermediate term. Obviously short term developments are not linear. In East Europe like elsewhere incompetent governments, political demonstrations and elections can mean shifts between administrations following more and less liberal democratic ideals and between pro- and anti-russian policies.
Recently the Ukrainian Orthodox church gained autocephaly meaning that its break with the Moscow Patriarchate was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The situation may be seen as similar to the Great Schism 1000 years ago. Not because of the schism between the Russian and Ukrainian churches, but because of the ensuing break of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is the true new Great Schism. Politically seen the branches of the Orthodox church under the Patriarch in Constantinople have become representatives of the now all-dominant Western civilization. The Russian Patriarchate can be seen as a representative of a potential emerging East European civilization wanting to liberate itself further from the West. Therefore it had to take this step, creating a schism. Just as the Western church to liberate itself from the Byzantine or Oriental civilization broke of from the Eastern church in 1054.
Obviously like in 1054 lots of political and power-related conflicts are mixed into the present schism.
In earlier posts I have talked about the phenomenon called a pseudomorphosis . It is the name for situations where a new civilization is dominated or overlain by an all-mighty older one which in its modernity has expanded into areas of an emerging new civilization. This causes the new civilization to develop in the forms of the older dominating one. If there indeed now is a new civilization rising in Eastern Europe, it has to develop in Western forms. Instead of a feudal order normal for early civilizations we see political forms of the Western modernity. But the dominance is manifesting itself in all spheres, not only the political. A such domination creates a resistance from the dominated, a resistance which can be difficult to understand in the dominating civilization, which believes itself to be in a state (in our case liberal democracy) which is a step in all historical developments and lies on the way to an ever better future. But this state is in the specific form of only one civilization. For others it is alien and creates resistance, a resistance which cannot merely be seen as the result of political propaganda from the state. Two thousand years ago the emerging Oriental civilization was rising under a comparable domination from the old Greco-Roman world. This caused extreme resistance, eg. from the Jews. Only the continuous reduction of the cultural radiance of the declining older civilization permits the new one to exert its uniqueness. This may be what is happening with Russia today. Culturally Russia is still dominated by the West, but opposing this more and more.
The rest of Eastern Europe may be part of the same emerging civilization as Russia. But because of historical experiences and because of the power of Russia, the rise of this civilization with its feeling of new uniqueness strengthens the political opposition against Russia in parts of East Europe. This even though the underlying cultural trends may be the same as in Russia. This political antagonism between Russia and parts of East Europe is worsened because the degree of Westernization is greater in East Europe than in Russia. For natural reasons the political resistance towards Russia is bigger the closer geographically a country is to Russia. We see this in Poland and the Baltic states. This means that the least westernized country, Ukraine, shows the greatest resistance towards Russia.
But the opposition against Western liberal democracy and openness is very clear in East Europe, not only in, but also outside Russia. Thus an emerging East European civilization is part of the explanation for the increasing estrangement between the eastern and western countries of the EU. Obviously we also see populist opposition to this system in the West, but here this development is only a sign of the general political decline in the late modernity of the West. The radiance from our modernity is vanishing causing a contagious spread of decline and a deplorable loss of human rights both within and beyond the core of the Western civilization.
As mentioned there was a comparable situation two thousand years ago in the Middle East where the Oriental civilization was dominated by the Greco-Roman civilization and trying to liberate itself. In this case large parts of the whole area of the new civilization, ie. the area from Egypt and Asia Minor to the limits of India, were culturally dominated by Hellenism. Politically and militarily only the western parts of the large area were under Roman control. Much of the rest was part of the Parthian Empire. The areas under Roman control can be compared to East Europe today, while the Parthian areas resemble Russia. Obviously the parts under Roman control were mostly Hellenized.
Parthia and Russia, even though heavily Westernized, felt/feel it as their mission to defend the emerging civilization from being swallowed completely. Even though as said emerging civilizations normally are on primitive levels when it concerns political and military organization and technology, the need for defense against the civilizations to the west forced and forces Parthia and Russia to match their opponents. Naturally this is especially relevant for todays Russia. The closest we get to the feudal knights typical for early civilizations may be the oligarchs in parts of east Europe and Russia.
Militarily and when it concerns political allegiance from countries, the Western civilization may continue to dominate a few centuries still. But culturally and especially when we talk about political ideals, the West is already loosing its appeal as the political decline and the splitting of the societies get worse.
In the 90es East Europe enthusiastically embraced the West. Our culture, our stable political systems and our wealth were seen as indivisible parts of a whole. Now this is turning out to be an illusion. Wealth did not result for everybody, and now politics are decaying. This is another reason why East Europe is beginning to find its own way in opposition to both the West and Russia. As the West stagnates and declines further, also culturally, and the new East European civilization gains strength, the cultural influence will begin to reverse and go westwards.
Obviously this does not mean that East Europe automatically will become politically integrated into Russia. Civilizations are not normally politically united. As the West emerged as its own civilization around 1000, it had to break definitively with the Oriental world, ie. the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphates and Emirates of the Muslim world. The Great Schism in 1054 marked this. But except for short periods of unification under the Carolingians the West was split into different countries, not united into one. Similarly the emerging East European civilization will be split into several countries in the area from Poland and Serbia to Siberia. (We may see the short de facto unification from the Iron Curtain to Vladivostok from the end of WW2 as a phenomenon similar to the short Carolingian unification of the West). For some time the Eastern European countries will continue to stay culturally Westernized in different degrees, mostly in the western parts. They will liberate themselves gradually from this Western cultural dominance with the Eastern parts as frontrunners.
This gradual liberation from the West is the true meaning of the schism between Moscow and Constantinople. It is also part of the dynamics in the Russian behavior towards the West and in Ukraine. In reality this is defensive and a result of the Western political and military expansion into its sphere of interest AND landscapes containing cultural roots of Russia, roots considered holy. In the short term this Western expansion will cause a further Westernization of parts of East Europe, parts which historically were Russian. Religion is of immense importance for early civilizations. Also therefore the Westernization of the Ukrainian church on holy Russian grounds is seen as an extreme provocation.
NOTE
In the above I am talking about trends in the intermediate term. Obviously short term developments are not linear. In East Europe like elsewhere incompetent governments, political demonstrations and elections can mean shifts between administrations following more and less liberal democratic ideals and between pro- and anti-russian policies.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Are you crazy?!
On request from the United States, Canada has arrested Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's chief financial officer.
Another line has been crossed. Where are we, if it is a part of political and trade relations to arrest a leading person from a economically competing company from a politically competing nation under some pretext? As if the countries of the world were just small appendixes you can treat like pieces of shit. To repeat myself once more, the Romans were in that position, the United States is not. The Europeans may often behave like American puppets, but other powers are too strong for this. Or maybe the American behavior is a compensation for perceived weakness, a sign showing that the United Sates has fallen into Thucydides's Trap. Anyway, it is another clear example of the political decline and the descent back to the law of the jungle.
The United States has been crossing one line after another these last two years. Crossings which make the world more dangerous and push us closer to barbaric conditions. Clearly other countries have behaved likewise, but one may have expected a more civilized behavior from the “leader of the free world”.
Chinese IT-companies, not least Huawei are accused: They MAY abuse their hardware and software to spy, and they are assumed to do so even more in the 5G-future. Therefore they should be stopped. But in fact there is very little proof of spying by Huawei.
Have the disclosures by Mr. Snowden already been forgotten? The Americans already DO abuse their IT dominance to spy. They sit heavily on the servers and arteries of communications in large parts of the world.
Here to refresh our memory, a few examples of US espionage and control. Some are well-known facts, some were disclosures by Mr. Snowden and others.
- The American intelligence agencies are connected directly to servers and IT communications in Europe.
- American spy-hardware is built into computers sold to China and who knows where else.
- The NSA is spying on ordinary citizens in the USA and abroad. Metadata from many mobile phones in the world are stored.
- Also the position of cellphone users is tracked.
- Apparently also all internet activity from almost all users in the world is registered.
- As has turned out, foreign statesmen, ambassadors, EU politicians etc. are being listened to, and other forms of their communication spied.
- Through the british vassals the Americans are also spying in hotels where foreign politicians stay.
- All the thus gained information is being used for political purposes and also economic gains in connection with negotiations at conferences and meetings.
- The methods are also used for economic espionage against foreign firms competing with American companies.
- The Swift system for int'l financial transactions permits US control. The EU was forced to accept this.
- Generally the United States controls financial transactions in dollars all over the world. And as we see in connection with sanctions against Iran only valid in the United States, this is abused to control independent countries.
The points are examples of real US espionage and abuse of IT-dominance. Obviously also China and Russia spy on other countries using IT. But in light of the examples of known massive US activities, the accusations against China are highly hypocritical. And even if Huawei is being used for espionage or may be so in the future (!), the arrest in Canada is difficult to justify. Obviously a suspected breech of sanctions against Iran is only a pretext. The suspicions are at least 6 years old. Why suddenly act in 2018?
There has been much outrage over President Trump inside and outside of the United States. But in some countries there does not seem to be a serious will to liberate themselves from US dominance. Partly it is a question of lack of ability to stand on own feet in matters of IT and security. Partly it is a lack of guts.
For Europe it would be wise to have a diversification of their IT-providers and gradually develop its own IT-competences. Europe will be more independent if it from case to case choses which of more than one IT-providing countries to use. This will give a position of strength. With the extreme importance of information technology today, relying on providers from only one country leads to vulnerability, dependency and submission as simple vassals. Many US allies have already been moving in this direction for decades. Remember the embarrassing episode in 2013, where European countries forced the plane with the Bolivian president to land in Vienna and searched it to see if it carried Mr. Snowden. This showed an astonishing degree of European submission. But who except for the Brexiteers wants to be vassals with members of the present US administration as puppeteers?
The arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou is a sign of an increasing US ruthlessness, unthinkable a few years ago. What would be the reaction if China arrested a leading official of Apple? What may come next? The arrest of leaders of European companies? Or even of a member of the European Commission who works to tax and reduce the monopoly of big US companies? Or why not arrest a PM from an irritating European country? Beware Europe and Canada! It is frightening, but such methods can become a normal part of trade relations and politics.
Another line has been crossed. Where are we, if it is a part of political and trade relations to arrest a leading person from a economically competing company from a politically competing nation under some pretext? As if the countries of the world were just small appendixes you can treat like pieces of shit. To repeat myself once more, the Romans were in that position, the United States is not. The Europeans may often behave like American puppets, but other powers are too strong for this. Or maybe the American behavior is a compensation for perceived weakness, a sign showing that the United Sates has fallen into Thucydides's Trap. Anyway, it is another clear example of the political decline and the descent back to the law of the jungle.
The United States has been crossing one line after another these last two years. Crossings which make the world more dangerous and push us closer to barbaric conditions. Clearly other countries have behaved likewise, but one may have expected a more civilized behavior from the “leader of the free world”.
Chinese IT-companies, not least Huawei are accused: They MAY abuse their hardware and software to spy, and they are assumed to do so even more in the 5G-future. Therefore they should be stopped. But in fact there is very little proof of spying by Huawei.
Have the disclosures by Mr. Snowden already been forgotten? The Americans already DO abuse their IT dominance to spy. They sit heavily on the servers and arteries of communications in large parts of the world.
Here to refresh our memory, a few examples of US espionage and control. Some are well-known facts, some were disclosures by Mr. Snowden and others.
- The American intelligence agencies are connected directly to servers and IT communications in Europe.
- American spy-hardware is built into computers sold to China and who knows where else.
- The NSA is spying on ordinary citizens in the USA and abroad. Metadata from many mobile phones in the world are stored.
- Also the position of cellphone users is tracked.
- Apparently also all internet activity from almost all users in the world is registered.
- As has turned out, foreign statesmen, ambassadors, EU politicians etc. are being listened to, and other forms of their communication spied.
- Through the british vassals the Americans are also spying in hotels where foreign politicians stay.
- All the thus gained information is being used for political purposes and also economic gains in connection with negotiations at conferences and meetings.
- The methods are also used for economic espionage against foreign firms competing with American companies.
- The Swift system for int'l financial transactions permits US control. The EU was forced to accept this.
- Generally the United States controls financial transactions in dollars all over the world. And as we see in connection with sanctions against Iran only valid in the United States, this is abused to control independent countries.
The points are examples of real US espionage and abuse of IT-dominance. Obviously also China and Russia spy on other countries using IT. But in light of the examples of known massive US activities, the accusations against China are highly hypocritical. And even if Huawei is being used for espionage or may be so in the future (!), the arrest in Canada is difficult to justify. Obviously a suspected breech of sanctions against Iran is only a pretext. The suspicions are at least 6 years old. Why suddenly act in 2018?
There has been much outrage over President Trump inside and outside of the United States. But in some countries there does not seem to be a serious will to liberate themselves from US dominance. Partly it is a question of lack of ability to stand on own feet in matters of IT and security. Partly it is a lack of guts.
For Europe it would be wise to have a diversification of their IT-providers and gradually develop its own IT-competences. Europe will be more independent if it from case to case choses which of more than one IT-providing countries to use. This will give a position of strength. With the extreme importance of information technology today, relying on providers from only one country leads to vulnerability, dependency and submission as simple vassals. Many US allies have already been moving in this direction for decades. Remember the embarrassing episode in 2013, where European countries forced the plane with the Bolivian president to land in Vienna and searched it to see if it carried Mr. Snowden. This showed an astonishing degree of European submission. But who except for the Brexiteers wants to be vassals with members of the present US administration as puppeteers?
The arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou is a sign of an increasing US ruthlessness, unthinkable a few years ago. What would be the reaction if China arrested a leading official of Apple? What may come next? The arrest of leaders of European companies? Or even of a member of the European Commission who works to tax and reduce the monopoly of big US companies? Or why not arrest a PM from an irritating European country? Beware Europe and Canada! It is frightening, but such methods can become a normal part of trade relations and politics.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Gilets jaunes
The centralization of people and social life into bigger and bigger metropoles is typical for later modernities. This phenomenon is obviously evident today all over the world. The process is partly due to an almost diabolic attraction from the big cities and partly due to bad living conditions outside. In some cases in earlier civilizations such processes went very far. Landscapes could be depopulated, and peasants had to be replaced by ‘coloni’ from other parts of the known world.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Responsible rulers instead of rules
The recent developments around the Sea of Azov represent a good example of one aspect of the end of rule-based int'l politics: the lack of inhibition of escalation. No doubt the dispatch of the three naval ships was a childish Ukrainian provocation. Russia reacts with a disproportionate escalation by using military force, and no doubt the West will react with a further escalation in the form of more sanctions. The ease with which such escalations get started today is a striking newcomer. The diplomatic rules which would earlier have counteracted the spirals, are disappearing. Instead political acts are carried out in the media.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
So what's ten million dead if it's keeping out the Iranians - and makes money for the weapons industry?
Lost sense of proportion has always characterized the parts of the media landscape which we call the tabloid press. A football star having broken his leg is more important than a major political crisis. In todays declining political climate this kind of focus also characterizes some of the political and governmental thinking and actions. A cleaning lady having stolen from an old gentleman can quickly lead to new laws.
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Rules or suffering
Often modernities have seen a succession of violations of established unwritten and written rules for conduct. This both on the internal political level and in the relations between countries. In the beginning of a modernity this process can serve the fight for freedom from traditional oppression, especially when we are talking of internal politics. But in the latest third of modernities these rule-breaking processes clearly lead into barbary. And when we are talking about relations between countries, the rule-breaking processes during most of a modernity means ruthless treatment of peoples and countries, not least in wars. The end of rule-governed behavior between countries lead to destabilizations, more conflicts and the easier start of wars.
An end of modernities in the civilizations before us and probably also including us looks like a rule. It also looks like a rule that this ending involves conflicts and wars. But it is not a law that every modernity and all phases in modernities should be characterized by chaos, wars and suffering caused by rule-breaking decisions. In history we see many very different versions. The Orient was utterly chaotic in most of its modernity 750-1071. The second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty and its neighbors 960-1279 was ordered and relatively peaceful. At least up till the onslaught of the Mongolians.
Specific political decisions play a crucial role in deciding the path of a modernity. Therefore it is very worrying to follow the present US president and administration, the triumvirate Trump - Bolton - Pompeo. They systematically retreat from deals and treaties. They break down rules and int'l alliances, organizations and institutions regulating the relations between countries. Of course they are aided in this by declined politicians all over the world and proteges like MBS. The triumvirate and their likes risk going down in history as those who turned the rest of the modernity of the Western civilization into a series of conflicts and wars (cyber and field).
In the light of the annihilative power of weapons of mass destruction an end to treaties regulating nuclear weapons like the INF Treaty is potentially catastrophic. And this so much more if the end of rule-based behavior in general destabilizes the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)