The rise and rise of the right
I hate it when this happens: stroll into a bookshop and see a book that looks good, read the cover notes and spend the money. Get home and start reading and the author is having a giant whinge, in this case how the invasion of refugees is killing Europe: “The Strange Death of Europe” by Douglas Murray.
His other books are also bit of a whinge, whinging about the threats he sees the west facing, The War on the West and The Madness of Crowds: Race Gender and Identity.
In a sense, he is right, the changes we have seen in our lifetimes have been great, and in my view mostly positive, but he tends to cherry pick events and statistics, laying out a bleak future for Europe and the west in general… or should I say the ‘superior white Christian world’.
Since the 1950s there has been a constant flow of migrants around the world. People moving from one country to another, moving from war torn Europe to the relative safety of ‘the new world’, Canada, USA, Argentina, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. At the same time displaced Jews were seeking safety and security in the newly created Israel.
The mass migration left many jobs unable to be filled and so while Europeans were busy leaving Europe, people from the Middle East were encouraged to fill the labour voids in the most basic of service industries. People came, initially thought to just fill the jobs the remaining Europeans thought beneath them, expecting that in time, those ‘guest workers’ would go back home, but they didn’t. They stayed, making comfortable lives in their adopted lands, bringing with them their cultures, languages, and religion. Subsequent generations benefitted from the educational opportunities on offer and the growing economies to become fixtures in their new homelands.
Political stability and growing economies throughout Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand made each of those regions attractive to people in less stable environments. Conflict and political unrest in Africa and the Middle East saw further waves of migration as people sought to escape from the various threats of civil wars, famine, religious conflicts and political and economic uncertainties.
The collapse of empires added to the instability and in particularly in Britain and France, but also the Netherlands and other European colonial powers, citizens from former colonies arrived, claiming the rights of citizenship as permanent settlers, again, initially filling roles which were beneath the dignity of the colonial masters to fill, collecting fares on public transport, collecting garbage, the undesirable jobs, but bringing up families, educating children to become future leaders in commerce, industry and politics.
During the post war period an important political development was the unification of Europe, firstly under the Treaty of Rome with six countries working together but gradually expanding to include 27 countries today, using a common currency and allowing free movement between those countries, including the right to work and study, and enabling the free movement of goods and services between the member nations, effectively a unified economic bloc. To a large extent, the divisions of national identity which had caused so much division in the past, regional wars and two world wars have been minimised, perhaps relegated to the sporting arenas as a unified Europe is a haven of international peace.
With that peace came social changes which broke down barriers, religion become a secondary consideration, national identity, women’s rights, gay rights, a more accepting, liberal culture flourished. But as the populations grew, it was the new immigrants who grew the fastest, birthrates of Europeans fell to below replacement levels but the newcomers – mainly Muslims – saw their populations grow, and instead of becoming liberal like the Europeans, held fast to their religion as migrants have done where ever they have migrated to, forming communities around cultural symbols they bring with them: language, religion, culture, morality. A comfort zone for them but seen as a threat by others.
Tensions in the Middle East, conflicts between the Islamic sects and power struggles, the fall of the Shah’s regime in Iran, ongoing strife between Israel and Palestine, civil wars in Lebanon and Syria and numerous conflicts throughout Africa has seen a continuing flow of refugees head toward Europe as the first destination. Currently the UN estimates there are over 120 million people, either refugees or stateless people. Many seek refuge in Europe, and Europe has been a welcoming destination for a number of years. But this is fuelling discontent.
Angela Merkel’s immigration policy and humanitarian approach to refugees and asylum seekers has been a factor in the rise of the far-right; Alternative fur Deutschland party in Germany. Recent elections in The Netherlands and France have seen nationalist, right-wing parties increase their vote. Hungary, under the Prime Minister Viktor Orban has sealed the borders, not allowing the flow of refugees access to Hungary, not even as a transit route to other, more welcoming European nations.
Britain, under the recently ousted Tory government saw a retreat from the European Union and a harsh anti-immigrant approach as refugees kept crossing the English Channel from France. Following the Australian policy of off-shore detention, there was the attempt to send those seeking refuge to Rwanda.
The recent election in the US had immigration and unwanted foreigners front and centre as there has been a constant stream of illegal immigrants crossing from South and Central America and from strife ridden island nations in the Caribbean. The flow of people seeking ‘a better life’ seems to never end. What is it that makes Europe and the USA (and for that matter, Australia) such sought after destinations for the stateless and the refugees, for poor people looking for employment and a living wage?
What is wrong with the ‘rest of the world’? Why are other regions not seen as worthy destinations for those seeking refuge or economic opportunity?
What is wrong with wealthy Middle Eastern states; Iran, Saudi, Qatar, UAE and so forth. Each has burgeoning economies based on the wealth generated by liquid gold, oil. Each imports labour to do the hard work of construction as well as in the service industries, employing guest workers from Pakistan, the Philippines and other impoverished countries.
Some of the problems being faced in Europe which would not, should not be an issue in the Middle Eastern nations is religion since all nations listed are Muslim. And their skin colour is brown cultural values are similar. (Sorry if that is a bit racist, but colour of skin, religion and cultural differences are really the issues here.)
And they are the constants in the books by Douglas Murray. He does not like change, he wants to live in a perfect world where all are like him. The changes which have given rights to other people, different people are dangerous, they upset the sensibilities of good white people who know who they are because they have the bits which define them as man or woman, and they know their special place in relation to their religion, they are literate, they are educated and know their place in the world.
He asks not why people seek to travel from their homelands, whether it is because of famine, poverty, climate change, persecution, civil wars or religious bigotry, but looks only at them being where they should not be, behaving as they should not behave, believing what they should not believe. They are different and do not belong.
And he has a broad following, not that his followers know who they are following, but the language of hate, of division, of fear marks the vitriol of so many politicians on the right, and those who feel threatened by difference can be as far removed from the problem they see as the woman who was afraid of a trans person using the women’s toilet when she admitted she knew no trans person, but was responding to social media commentary, or the young man who hated ‘gays’, but when asked about racism, understood what hatred was since he is Maori, a minority in Australia.
Or witness the ugly debate in the Senate on Wednesday, Pauline Hanson, Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe in verbal conflict, all to do with race and religion, with people being different. Each is an Australian citizen, each has a position as Senator, each representing their constituents.
But the discrimination has its seeds in colonisation, just as the immigration dilemmas in Europe and America, were it not for colonisation, neither Pauline Hanson or Fatima Payman would be here in Australia.
I visited the holiday destination Rottnest Island recently and was reminded of colonisation and the treatment of difference since the island was used as a prison for Aboriginals in the early days of settlement. A story was told of an An Aboriginal man having his spear in the woomera, ready to kill a kangaroo when a rifle shot sounded and the kangaroo was claimed by the white settler who was grazing sheep on that land. Rather than let his mob go hungry, the aboriginal killed a sheep which was nearby. He was arrested, charged with theft and sent to Rottnest to serve out his sentence.
I fear that with the upcoming election, difference will play a significant part. Hatred of difference, hatred of ‘illegal immigrants’, hatred of First Nations people with a tough on crime strategy, criminalising poverty and race, hatred in one of the most ethnic and culturally diverse nations on earth.
Why?
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
62 comments
Login here Register here-
Harry Lime -
Lawriejay -
Harry Lime -
Steve Davis -
Bert -
Arnd -
John C -
Bert -
Cool Pete -
Bert -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Andyfiftysix -
Patricia -
Steve Davis -
Canguro -
Beret -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Andrew Smith -
wam -
leefe -
Andyfiftysix -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Terence Mills -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
Clakka -
Andyfiftysix -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Andyfiftysix -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Clakka -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Michael Taylor -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis
Return to home pageBert, I’d suggest that the opposition leader is basically racist,and that fear and loathing is stock in trade for right wingers to stir up discord and garner votes.It’s worked in other countries,aided and abetted by similarly inclined media, and online foghorns.We can be certain that we will cop more of the same bullshit,ramping up until election time.Misinformation, disinformation(where have I heard that before?), and a largely credulous public,who value gossip and rumour above critical thinking. In the meantime, this assault has been assisted by a lame Labor government,despite some accomplishments,threatening to saddle us with one of the worst, most incompetent members of the last,worst government in our history.And while we pay lip service to climate change,are there any plans afoot to deal with the coming millions of refugees displaced by climate catastrophe?Maybe that’s what the ephemeral subs are really for. Our best hope is keep putting our clearly hopeless duopoly last on the ballot.
the headless chook approach to a backlog of bills is not a good look either.
“Our best hope is keep putting our clearly hopeless duopoly last on the ballot.”
And; that gets us where precisely ?
Hopefully a minority Labor government,who will,when they come to their senses, pass some badly needed reforming legislation with the help of the crossbench, Lawriejay.?
“Why?”
Divide and conquer Bert, divide and conquer.
Now, ask “why?” again.
Why indeed, as the clueless ones seeking power depend on the cluelessness of the electorate to achieve it…. and give us even more hopeless governments.
I must comment on the inflation rate which was released yesterday…. inflation is down but the RBA, true to its blue-blood Liberal core will do nothing about lowering the interest rate…. hoping for a change in government after the next election just to demonstrate that Labor cannot manage the economy despite three balanced budgets.
I agree with Harry, a minority government with independents holding the balance of power will look a lot more like democracy than the oligarchy, the two and a bit party system, we have currently.
Perhaps then we can look more compassionately at issues such as asylum seekers, immigration, poverty, and the other problems we face…. oh and perhaps have a long hard look at the marriage we are in with the USA.
“Why indeed” … would you buy a book by Douglas Murray? AT BEST, I can tolerate maybe 5 mins of him crapping on on YouTube. The man is insufferable. (Word of advice: don’t get sucked into buying J.Peterson’s account of his wresting God.)
Since 1950? Bert, try 1850. Or perhaps 1650:
Looks like you, Bert (and Douglas Murray, and Matt Walsh, and Dinesh Sousa, and …, and …, and …,) may need to brush up on history a bit more?
Hatred and fear of those we consider different to us shows that we homo sapiens still have a long way to go before we can be considered as civilised or enlightened. We are all human and descendents of the same ancestors if we go back far enough but we continue to maim and slaughter each other over such petty differences.
If there is intelligent life out there that we are not yet technologically evolved enough to find, I doubt they would want anything to do with such a violent aggressive species as us. They would be looking down their noses (or whatever features their faces have) at us as beneath contempt just like ‘whitey’ looks down at all other colours of the human race thinking ourselves to be superior.
Arnd, I think if we really go back far enough to understand human migration, we may need to go back several million years, starting in Africa.
My intent with the 1950 starting point was to focus on post WWII migration, a migration most of us would have some experience with, either as migrants ourselves, so perhaps understanding what it is that motivates migration, whether it be adventure of new places or fear of threats such as the sabre rattling of Khrushchev after he took over from Stalin in the USSR and posed a threat of a new European war (Real or perceived threat, remembering that the devastation of war was still fresh) .
As to reading the books, it is important (at least to me) to try to understand the underpinnings of the hatred and threats which so fill our politics, to mount, if possible, a counter narrative which may offer hope.
Interesting that you are a willing critic, I would love to see your attempts at writing and publishing.
The question of why they don’t go to some Middle Eastern nations has the same answer as to why the Pilgrims went to the USA, along with the Brethren and why Germans settled in Adelaide. Religious persecution. It’s not as simple as saying, “Oh, but these countries are Muslim.” It’s also noteworthy that some of the second and third-generation Muslim immigrants to Europe have actually become more liberal. There are Muslim girls who are allowed to choose their own boyfriends, and young Muslims who come out as LGBTIQA for whom grandma and grandpa may tut-tut but mum and dad do not!
What happened yesterday in the Senate was an abuse of procedure by idiot hanson (no, she doesn’t deserve a capital). And what she and arseholes like Whittle Johnny Coward and Tone the Botty and Potty Boy Dutton are responsible for is a source of national shame. Muslims will welcome you to their mosques, and if hanson is criticised for carrying a copy of the Koran around in her handbag, all criticism of her is 100% justified!
I meant that as a bit of sarcasm Cool Pete. The treatment of people of difference in those countries is abysmal, men rule, women are less that human and foreigners even less human than women.
What you mention about successive generations of migrants is true… as my own story and that of my children and grandchildren would confirm.
“…a counter narrative which may offer hope.”
I look forward to reading that Bert.
But I find it odd that of all the possible hatred and threats factors causing migration you chose Khrushchev’s “sabre-rattling”.
Why was that?
Hi Bert,
That was kind’a the point I was trying to drive at.
Of course your concentrating on post-WWII migration patterns especially is patently valid and could generate many very useful insights.
I doubt it. After many, many false starts, I did eventually manage to get about 50,000 words into a first draft attempt to outline what I think is wrong about how we organise ourselves, and how I think we should go about fixing it. I did pass it around to a few people who did express interest, and basically never heard anything back about it. One kind soul did provide feedback: UNREADABLE!
I knew it was dense! But “completely unreadable”? Fair enough, though: I asked for honest feedback, and I got honest feedback!
All that played out well over ten years ago now. I’m still committed to making an outline of my thoughts available to those who might be interested, even if they are very few and far in-between. I may have developed a new way of organising what is, after all, an exceedingly complex subject.
Which in all probability is the first of a number of underlying problems about getting my ideas across: The sheer complexity of the issues we are trying to manage and, eventually, resolve. Someone famous – Daniel Kahnemann(?) – made observations about the difficulty of sensibly discussing the manifold and tightly interdependent problems of contemporary politics with “people who do not understand compound interest”.
An even bigger part of the problem seems to derive, not from providing a new understanding, but from the need to first deconstruct old, long-establishing and widely held and cherished ideas. This is a well enough recognised problem. Mark Twain quipped that: “It’s not what you don’t know that is the problem, but what you know for sure and certain that just ain’t so!”
Or Socrates, on being told that the Oracle of Delphi had proclained him the wisest man alive. “Who? Me? But I know nossinck!” (No, wait, that was Sargent Schulz!) Socrates lead himself to another kind of realisation: “People are ignorant. I, too, am ignorant! But my ignorance is superior to everyone else’s ignorance to the degree to which I am at least aware of it, and thus in a position to do something about it – whereas others are ignorant even about their own ignorance (and get very cagey with anyone who would want to point it out to them).”
A further foundational problem derives from an almost ubiquitous, and not entirely unreasonable fear of freedom: mostly, people seem to have some intuitive appreciation of the notion that freedom brings with it responsibility in corresponding measure, and as a consequence reflexively(?) back away from claiming and exercising genuine freedom.
Except that, and as the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. have demonstrated time and again, outsourcing decisions about the responsible use of freedoms does not secure public policy success, but, sooner or later, the exact opposite: comprehensive public policy failure.
Still, they are the audience who gladly receive the likes of Trump, Putin (and Wilders, Höcke, etc.), who keep sprouting their nonsense with the convicted self-assurance bestowed by utter ignorance.
These are some of the very serious obstacles to clear, and I am not at all confident that I am the one to clear them. But I still would like to try and make a contribution.
As Steve Davis said a few days ago, our present travails might well be the death throes of the dying monster of totalitarianism. It’s what comes after for which we should try to prepare.
Rascism is as old as war itself. Some of us are so damn programmed to be so protective of our micro family and its possessions. Something to do with mixed messages from their instincts. Rape, pillage, kill, control and head of the pack.
You say its right wing i say its more nuanced than right or left. To me its more like the right refuses to engage in empathy or logic. It doesnt want to follow science ands is preoccupied with accumulating money. The end justifies the means. The right has defined itself as being nasty with no moral qualms about it.
I hope Steve is right that its in its death throes, but i suspect it will take something far more devestating to root the shit out of humanity.
Why, is a very good question.
Most Australian citizens would not exist if it were not for immigration, that includes people of different colours, cultures, ethnicities, religions, faiths and beliefs.
The simple fact is that unless you are a full blood First Nations person you are the product of immigration, that includes people with indigenous blood ties who also have European or other ethnic DNA connections.
Many Australian citizens forbears came here by boat, some in chains, some fleeing war, famine and discrimination in their country of origin, some came as ten pound poms, some as economic refugees, all have added to the melting pot that is a modern society, all have given much to be here, all have eventually fully integrated into a homogeneous society where we all benefit from the differences that we each bring to this our country.
When I grew up in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s in a country town in New South Wales the only “ethnics” in the town were the Chinese family who owned and ran the only Chinese restaurant, there were no other immigrants, we were all snowy white of British descent, now in a pretty standard Australian city suburb my neighbours are from a multitude of different cultures, Chinese, middle eastern, Asian, British, islander, Vietnamese and many others and no one bats an eye, we live side by side in harmony.
99% of people all want the same thing no matter where they come from, a safe place to live, a job that allows them to provide a home, food, clothing and some entertainment for themselves and their family, stability. To hate because of something as superficial as skin colour, religious difference or language is absurd.
Human beings have done so well and so badly at the same time, surely we can put aside the superficial differences and see each other as humans and not those who are different as “other”, unless and until we do we will not be able to reach our true potential and we may very well decimate our species in our attempt to see ourselves as different when we are actually all the same.
“99% of people all want the same thing no matter where they come from, a safe place to live, a job that allows them to provide a home, food, clothing and some entertainment for themselves and their family, stability.”
Exactly Patricia, nicely put.
The division is stirred up by those with an agenda.
Arnd, you probably know this already, but the statistics on book publishing are daunting: globally, around 500,000 to a million published annually, include self-published and the number rises to around 4 million. I’ve met a number of authors over the years, some very successful, some moderately, and some whose remittance for their efforts is almost nothing.
It still surprises me how much junk gets published…clearly a market for such material, and of course the obverse also applies, that is, works of real value and significance rarely find large audiences. Oxford University Press, for example, publishes around 6,000 titles p.a., and likely no more than a few hundred of each book find an audience.
I had a crack at writing a book some years ago… 600+ pages, ~180,000 words. It’s unfinished. I realised eventually it wasn’t the sort of effort that would appeal to a broad audience, and I don’t have the drive to develop the craft of writing to create something that might generate that level of attractivness for a mass market. I read all of Richard Flanagan’s work, read & watched lots of primers on becoming a writer: Margaret Atwood, Malcolm Gladwell, Joyce Carol Oates, James Patterson, Natalie Goldberg, Neil Gaiman, Salman Rushdie, Lawrence Block, Jorge Luis Borges, Elmore Leonard, Kurt Vonnegut… just to reel off a few of the many… but at the end of it all I realised that being a writer is a commitment to a vocation that is absolute and serious, and that for an ADHD ASCA in the moment survivalist that defined my being for the largest part of my existence I was only pissing in the wind. ‘s fine, I’m good with it.
Steve, 1953 tensions in Europe were high and fear was that war was possibly imminent. Many people left Europe at that time. The refugee situation had settled, those displaced by the war had moved on, 2 of my school friends who had been born in refugee camps had settled in Australia, others had moved to other countries, and when Stalin died, cold war tensions grew. People, including my family feared a new war so they moved to Australia. About a third of the people in the town I was born emigrated to various countries, Canada, US, South Africa, Australia and New Zealsnd.
Bert, thanks for that.
It’s a subject that’s worth an article on its own, but my feeling is that the principal cause of instability in Europe at that time will turn out to be Operation Gladio, run by NATO.
From wiki — “According to several Western European researchers, the operation involved the use of assassination, psychological warfare, and false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries, and even went so far as to support anti-communist militias and right-wing terrorism as they tortured communists and assassinated them, such as Eduardo Mondlane in 1969. The United States Department of State rejected the view that they supported terrorists and maintains that the operation served only to resist a potential invasion of Western European countries by the Soviet Union.”
Canguro:
Why, thank you, Canguro, from the bottom of my heart, for your kind words of support and encouragement. I feel so much more confident now!
:-)))
(I might have to stick with pitching roofs and hanging doors for a little while longer yet.)
Patricia:
Maybe so – but why, then, do the remaining 1% find it so easy to whip large parts of the 99% into murderous excitement? Time and again?
Is it because that “stability” you talk about is utterly illusory: nothing is as permanent as change!
Douglas Murray is also identified with the US ‘intellectual dark web’ or Pinkerites inc. Niall Ferguson & partner, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan through Russell ‘born again Christian’ Brand, Alex Jones etc.
Platformed to focus on & criticise anything centrist eg. woke, climate science, gender, ‘elites’ etc., but avoid or disappear the ‘right’ & power?
In the background are Koch ‘freedom of speech’ Spiked, Tanton Pioneer Fund, ‘Bell Curve’ etc…
Whiff of fossil fuels & eugenics
https://www.pinkerite.com/p/who-is-behind-pinkerite_25.html?m=1
Bert, the German replacements were godly and mildly dark (like our meridionali of the 50s) whilst today’s are seriously dark with the god no longer accepted.
Perfect for the right to exploit the natural fear of ‘different’.
ps
Beauty, Arnd, 1620 had religious nutters sailing and it is the same today The former happy to kill women and Native Americans and the latter happy to kill??
pps
Arnd love your 99% at last someone who understands Margaret’s mad ‘there is no such thing as society’
I doubt it. After many, many false starts, I did eventually manage to get about 50,000 words into a first draft attempt to outline what I think is wrong about how we organise ourselves, and how I think we should go about fixing it. I did pass it around to a few people who did express interest, and basically never heard anything back about it. One kind soul did provide feedback: UNREADABLE!
A little advice from someone who has been published (albeit in a very small way): First, define your intended audience. Learn how they think and generally express themselves. Then, as clearly and concisely as possible, say what you have to say to them in a way they will understand. There is no point in writing like an academic if you’re trying to reach the “average” person. Keep the beginning simple; you can expand and elaborate later. Stylistic idiosyncrasies are best kept to a minimum; ditto the references to other writers (especially philosophers) – fine as footnotes, but not constantly intruding in the main body of the writing.
My usual conversation style is remarkably similar to your writing, but I learnt a long time ago that there’s no point in writing like that if I want people to understand and follow my thinking. It’s like speaking Polish to someone who only knows English.
Steve, you never stop pushing your self hate agenda. “..my feeling is that the principal cause of instability in Europe at that time will turn out to be Operation Gladio…”.
You conveniently leave out the part about the influence the fear of Stalin had in post ww2 europe. Nato was not designed in a bubble. The cold war was always about fighting dirty against an even dirtier opponent. Stalin’s russia had FORM.
As we see played out now, Russia always had nasty intentions. The proof is the total number of people in russia that like to fly out of windows. Putin’s early years gave hope for a new way forward. But now his true game plan has brought russia to its knees….
With russia out of play, the right will be looking for a new way forward, or a new enemy to silence. As much as i think the right has been intellectually bankrupt, its push back against russia has proven to be the correct strategy. Know your enemy.
“Stalin’s russia had FORM.’
Gee Andy, it would be nice if you actually read some history before posting.
The FORM Stalin had was to adhere to his agreement with Churchill and Roosevelt as to who would control what when the war ended.
Greece was outside Stalin’s agreed sphere, and despite the civil war that raged there for years after the war, Stalin stuck to his word and did not interfere despite the communist leanings of the partisans who were eventually overcome by the UK and US.
If ever there was an opportunity for Stalin to show BAD FORM, that was it.
Thanks for your advice, leefe. Unfortunately I have been given these helpful tips numerous times before.
In fact, it is precisely the advice I gave myself when I first began to realise that what I thought was patently, and indeed painfully obvious, is in fact proving impossible to communicate.
Who am I writing for? The general public? Those members of the general public who are interested in asking some of the more challenging questions (as one might find on The AIMN, for example)?
Politicians? The budding hopefuls? Or the successfully established ones?
Academics? Which silo? Law? Economics? Sociology, ecology, psychology …?
I think it’ll have to be “A book for all and none” (Nietzsche in “Also, Sprach Zarathustra”. And no, I’ve never read it.)
How do any those people think? Well, they obviously think in the ways that result in the outcomes that we are trying to change. Hence, their thinking might have to change, at least in some ways.
Or like speaking “communist” to someone who only understands “capitalist”.
‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.’ – Mark Twain
No point in taking a leaf out of someone else’s book, Arnd. Just write the bloody thing yourself if you’re so compelled. Whatever it takes…. crazy brave, obsession, a feverish determination to manipulate, each author whether prosaic or radically brilliant brings their own sense of making something of their life that will perhaps persist. It’s part of the madness that accompanies the journey of being a human being.
On a side note, I was in Adelaide for a day last week, a quick business trip over and back, and had to kill a few hours before the appointment. I went to the State Library on North Terrace, and up into the old original section, the stacks, as it were, where hundreds of thousands of books, many of them close to a hundred years old, were arrayed. I pulled a few out at random, curious as to what was being written back then… it’s fair to say, same old same old… there are only a handful of writers across the whole universe of that art that have left a deep & significant impact on humanity. But that, in itself, shouldn’t dissuade anyone from having a go if that’s their wish & determination.
Years ago, a mate of mine had a letter to the editor published in the Sydney Morning Herald… a singular success in that competitive arena… the gist of which was, as he wrote, that everyone had a book in them awaiting to be written.
Nietzsche, btw, said that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was dictated to him as he tromped along the mountain ridges; the words flowed into his consciousness, just as Mozart would describe how he wrote his pieces similarly, with the music pouring into him from above.
More power to your pen, Arnd, and good luck with it.
Arnd, that’s good advice from Canguro.
Here’s my two-bob’s worth.
I’ve mentioned before that some writers are great at essays and terrible at the book format.
Try writing each chapter as a stand-alone essay.
You can still have an overall theme that can be revisited in the Conclusion, but by staying short and sharp you’ll avoid drifting into “unreadable”
Everything is a device.
I love that for an article setting out, and titled The Rise and Rise of the Right, the commentors and author (the usual players) all contributed freely, observations and advice on process and meaning of writing a book.
Ha haaar, anarchism at work …. 😎
you dont get it do you Steve. Russia had form , not on the negotiation front, it had form on the cruelty front. How many people died under stalin? How many people were sent to Siberia?
“To the American scholar George F. Kennan, Stalin is a great man, but one great in his “incredible criminality…a criminality effectively without limits,” while Robert C. Tucker, an American specialist on Soviet affairs, has described Stalin as a 20th-century Ivan the Terrible. To the British historian E.H. Carr, the Georgian dictator appears as a ruthless, vigorous figure, but one lacking in originality—a comparative nonentity thrust into greatness by the inexorable march of the great revolution that he found himself leading. To the late Isaac Deutscher, the author of biographies of Trotsky and Stalin—who, like Carr, broadly accepts Trotsky’s version of Stalin as a somewhat mediocre personage—Stalin represents a lamentably deviant element in the evolution of Marxism. Neither Deutscher nor Carr has found Stalin’s truly appalling record sufficiently impressive to raise doubts about the ultimate value of the Russian October Revolution’s historic achievements.”….ref Britannica
Ask anyone of european decent, family stories are truly horrifying. This is the background you wilfully ignore.
As If Churchil and Roosevelt just signed agreements with nothing to back up. Stalin had no choice about expanding his empire. The army that just saved his skin was parked just outside. but he made sure he was ruthless inside his enclave. Katyn Massacre comes to mind, thats how they treated conquered people. This is the FORM i am talking about.
You keep on going for the “we were acting in bad faith to the russians” during negotiations crap all the time. He said this and he said that. Never once do you acknowledge that the russians them selves were acting in bad faith…..ie invading crimea.
Skepticism of russian intent was proven to be the right approach.
“How many people were sent to Siberia?”
I don’t know Andy, how about you tell us?
What I do know is that we were fed lies about the prison camps. It turns out that while conditions were harsh, they were better than in many Western countries.
A 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:
Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon “economic accountability” such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners’ food supplies. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were mainstream criminals.
You’ve “quoted” Trotsky to back your claim that Stalin had FORM, but it was Trotsky who wanted global revolution and Stalin who wanted “socialism in one country”, hence their falling out. So not quite the monster many would have you believe.
“ The army that just saved his skin was parked just outside.”
You’re dealing in impressions again. How do you think that it came about that it was the Soviets who took Berlin?
From historyireland.com — “At first all went well for Operation Barbarossa—the codename for the German invasion—as Hitler’s armies penetrated deep into Russia, reaching the outskirts of Leningrad and Moscow by the end of 1941. In 1942, however, the Soviets turned the tables on the Germans and won a great victory at Stalingrad that spelled doom for the Wehrmacht. In 1943 and 1944 the Red Army expelled the Germans from the rest of Russia and then began an invasion of Germany that culminated in the capture of Berlin in May 1945.
Eighty per cent of all the combat of World War II took place on the Eastern Front. During the four years of the Soviet–German struggle the Red Army destroyed 600 enemy divisions (Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak and Spanish as well as German). The Germans suffered ten million casualties (75% of their total wartime losses), including three million dead, while Hitler’s Axis allies lost another million. The Red Army destroyed 48,000 enemy tanks, 167,000 guns and 77,000 aircraft. In comparison, the contribution of Stalin’s western allies to the defeat of Germany was of secondary importance. Even after the Anglo-American invasion of France in June 1944 there were still twice as many German soldiers serving on the Eastern Front as in the West. On the other hand, Britain and the United States did supply a huge quantity of material aid to the USSR that greatly facilitated the Soviet victory over Germany.”
So who saved who?
I see you’ve done some research. Did you happen to stumble across Operation Unthinkable?
Wiki — This was the name given to two related possible future war plans developed by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee against the Soviet Union during 1945. The plans were never implemented. The creation of the plans was ordered by Churchill in May 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces’ Joint Planning Staff in May 1945 at the end of World War II in Europe. One plan assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany to impose “the will of the United States and British Empire upon Russia”
So yes, Stalin was ruthless, but do you think Churchill was any better? Your “family stories are truly horrifying” line applies equally to Churchill.
Isn’t history fascinating?
Trouble is, you’ve got to know where to look.
And it takes time.
But it’s a great exercise to rid the brain of impressions.
When discussing Russia, I think it’s best to focus on the the words and actions of the current leader.
° For example, let’s recall Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson. Putin defended Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2
It seems Hitler just wanted to ‘realize his plans’ and Poland was ‘uncooperative’ and ‘forced’ Hitler to attack and start World War II, according to Putin
Hitler apparently had no choice.
° We also have Putin saying Ukraine joining NATO “was a matter for Ukraine and NATO”.
That’s a serious about face.
° Let’s not forget Putin assuring that Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine, just 3 days before Russia invaded Ukraine.
There is a long list of examples of Putin’s dishonesty. But that will do for now.
AC is making an issue of Putin’s honesty, when both France and Germany have admitted that the Minsk Agreements were delaying tactics that were never intended to be honoured.
What’s going on here?
Why is he re-living old lost battles? (Who are the Narcissists? and NATO Provoked Putin)
Something is troubling AC, whatever can it be?
Steve, again you deny and deny that the other side was wilfully as culpable. Again, all western decisions were conducted in a vacuum in your blinkered view. Just once, admit the Russians have been utterly despicable.
I am not saying decisions made by the allies were perfect in any way, i am saying they had reasons to think as they did. Valid reasons you dismiss off hand. History has many angles and you ignore the ones you dont like, the ones that dont fit your narrative.
Applies equally to Churchill? I dont remember reading churchill sending the crimean population to siberia. I dont remember reading churchill sending war prisoners to eternal banishment. False equivalence is not your best suite.
Andy says the allies “had reasons to think as they did” while “the Russians have been utterly despicable”.
I suppose I should not be surprised that Andy has such a dismissive view of history.
After all, he did tell me at NATO Provoked Putin that I was “looking for the Logic to the war in all the wrong places. It doesnt lay in historical facts.”
You might explain why Merkel was wrong when she said-
“It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time”
It seems reasonable.
But you don’t bother with the other examples of Putin’s dishonesty.
Tomorrow I might post a few more examples for you to attempt to justify
“But you don’t bother with the other examples of Putin’s dishonesty.”
All been explained before, and all showing your refusal to provide context in order to misrepresent.
Why are you revisiting lost arguments?
Something must be really bothering you.
Come clean, what is it, I might be able to help.
“Tomorrow I might post a few more examples for you to attempt to justify”
But I might not want to play a childish game tomorrow.
The comments by Merkel regarding the Minsk Agreement are often misrepresented by the pro Putin brigade.
The full text should be read, there is nothing surprising, nothing devious.
Link please.
You’re the one who raised Merkel’s comments, so you’re welcome to justify your claim by providing the full text
But do her comments represent dishonesty to the extent of –
° Russia has no plans to invade Ukraine
° Ukraine joining NATO is a matter for Ukraine and NATO
° Hitler was justified in starting WW2
If “The full text should be read, there is nothing surprising, nothing devious” then why no link?
Merkel gave at least two interviews on this so it’s important that we all sing from the same song-sheet.
But details do not suit AC. As we shall see.
I suspected that his quote was truncated or lacking context and so asked for a link to his source. And whadyaknow! He left out a vital extra detail. No wonder he refused to provide a link.
Let’s go with businessmirror.com — “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.” Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, what can the West say about this clear admission of deceit?
So, nothing to see here. But one thing we can see is the level at which AC likes to debate.
And he did get a chuckle out of me. Did you see that he knew he had stepped in too deep, and so has already diverted away from “a full text that should be read”. Suddenly, it’s not important anymore.
So to elevate the discussion for those who might be interested, I just came across this, dealing with the period in question.
The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which is close to the German government and has no sympathy for Russia, published a paper “The Donbas Conflict” in February 2019—three years before the current war broke out. It paints a devastating picture, which makes clear that the regime in Kiev has always been concerned with geopolitical goals in the Donbas conflict—linking up with NATO, isolating Russia—and that it was willing to ruthlessly sacrifice the fate of the Ukrainian population to these goals.
“The Kiev discourse on the Donbas war focuses almost exclusively on the geopolitical level and the relationship with Russia,” the paper says. The absence of a “local level of conflict” in this view has “serious consequences for the perception of the affected civilian population,” which is “perceived in Kiev as backward-looking, Soviet-influenced, unproductive, and authoritarian.” In the eyes of most interlocutors, “the Donbas cannot be about ‘reconciliation’ between individual ethnic or social groups.” From Kiev’s point of view, peace-building “will only be possible once the territories have been liberated, i.e., once they are once again completely under Ukrainian control.” The SWP paper also candidly admits that fascist forces play a central role in Ukrainian politics: “Even though right-wing and far-right parties have not achieved significant success in elections since 2014, nationalist ideas have held considerable influence in the social debate over the conflict in the east (as well as on other issues). Time and again, nationalist actors succeed in forcing political leaders to adjust their policies.”
This “absence of a local level of conflict” from Kiev and it’s focus on the geopolitical level confirms the substance of the TV interview I’ve raised previously, given by Zelensky’s right hand man Arestovich in 2019, in which he detailed discussions between Kiev and NATO to draw Russia into an invasion.
The timeline he gave three years before Russia acted was accurate almost to the day.
” … the russians them selves were acting in bad faith…..ie invading crimea.”
Astonishing, left me incredulous.
The Ottomans were slave trading Polish, Muscovites & etc. via Crimean Tatars and making incursions nth westward. The Russians sought help from Britain & France (the ‘West’) to resist the Ottomans, the ‘West’ demurred as they feared Russia, and wished to continue to manipulate the Ottomans.
In 1774, after Russia alone pushing the Ottomans back, Russia made the treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji with the Ottomans, to essentially protect Orthodox Christians and their territorial rights and to retain winter port access to sea trade via the Black Sea. In 1783 Catherine the Great formally annexed the Crimean Khanate. No assistance from the Christian ‘West’, eg. Britain, France, the Habsburgs etc.
Over the next 100 years or so, with the Russians seeking to modernize and ply trade, the ‘West’ continued its deceit and hostility toward the Russians, whilst at the same time seeking to take hold from the Ottomans, North Africa, the Levant and the Fertile Crescent.
It continued on through to the 20thC, and the Sikes-Picot (carve-up) Agreement, where France and Britain, again deceived Russia. And so, the guile of the ‘West’ in all this continued on through the Balfour Agreement, and on into 1947-48, and through to today’s quagmire in those regions and Asia Minor / Persia right through to Kazakhstan in the north. Of course, now America is the ‘West’ imperialist since Britain retired, hurt.
History is long, and in weighing the ‘badness scale’, traversing the intricacies is a must.
Is there a more contorted/twisted/absurd/ laughable example of “logic” than that displayed by Steve?
A compulsive defender of the indefensible. A hole digger extraordinaire, brought to you by the guy who claims economic information, data, statistics are “meaningless” in a discussion about economics!
This time he has possibly achieved a personal best in the ludicrous overstatement.
Steve chose to reply to my comment, which pointed out (just a sample of) Putin’s past duplicity and misrepresentations.
° That Hitler was justified in starting WW2
° That Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine (3 days before invading)
° That Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO.
Steve’s compulsive/reflex action in defending Putin boils down to- Merkel has suggested that Russia reminded untrustworthy (who could argue with that? Steve will), and diplomatic manoeuvring was used to provide Ukraine with time to develop a capacity to defend itself against Russian expansionism.
In Steve’s view, excusing Hitler, lying about invading a neighbour (with no territorial claims), and doing the exact opposite of previous statements is in a similar category to being awake to Putin’s duplicity and his plans to advance his illegal claims.
It’s a fascinating insight.Hilarious too
“Merkel is more honest than Putin!”
“No, Putin is more honest than Merkel!”
That’s the level of debate that AC revels in.
But the fact that he cannot walk away from is that Kiev and NATO planned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This being confirmed by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. In 2019.
Three years before the war.
So all the nonsense promoted by the Western media since 2022 about an unprovoked invasion was lies, and they knew it.
I must thank AC for his fatuous assertions, because before today I did not know the German Institute existed. And boy oh boy, their 2019 report has turned out to be a goldmine.
Hilarious!
Steve really enjoys the ludicrous overstatement.
° Merkel said they planned for Putin’s duplicity and illegally advancing his territorial claims
Steve thinks that’s a similar level of honesty to-
° excusing Hitler for starting WW2,
° to saying Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO, and subsequently invading Ukraine for saying they might do that
° stating that he had no plans to invade Ukraine
I’ve observed previously that Steve doesn’t see shades of grey and is prone to overstatement.
I was being kind.
AC is fighting a battle that’s already lost.
Kiev and NATO planned the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He needs to move on.
You can’t help yourself.
I’ve previously pointed out that your style of commentary is to make contentious exaggerations. When challenged, you either try to change the subject, or modify/qualify your claim.
You’ve done both this time. A double
It’s another PB for you.
Another PB?
Can I put that in Steve’s Greatest Hits?
“Kiev and NATO planned the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
Big call, that one. Lacks credibility.
Michael, from Jacques Baud, who is no fan of Putin — The strategy devised by Zelensky and his team was revealed before his election in March 2019 by Oleksei Arestovitch, his personal advisor, on the Ukrainian media Apostrof’. Arestovitch explained that it would take an attack by Russia to provoke an international mobilization that would enable Ukraine to defeat Russia once and for all, with the help of Western countries and NATO. With astonishing precision, he described the course of the Russian attack as it would unfold three years later, between February and March 2022. Not only did he explain that this conflict was unavoidable if Ukraine is to join NATO, but he also placed this confrontation in 2021-2022!
He outlined the main areas of Western aid: In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West. Weapons. Equipment. Assistance. New sanctions against Russia. Most likely, the introduction of a NATO contingent. A no-fly zone, and so on. In other words, we won’t lose it.
Here’s Arestovich — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=449s
Confirmed/supported by the German Institute referred to above.
Yes you’ve changed the subject, because you embarrassed yourself by trying to equate Merkel’s diplomatic manoeuvring with Putin’s deep and brutal duplicity.
And it is a big call to try to pass opinion off as fact.
But that’s also your style – an overwhelming yearning cognitive reinforcement and expertise in YouTube research.
“…expertise in YouTube research.”
Ah yes, there’s nothing AC fears more than a discussion from which inconvenient facts emerge.
So here’s another one for him.
He was deceived by Western propaganda.
I just wish that he’d start the grieving process so we can all move on.
“… deceived by Western propaganda…”
That just so funny in the context of you trying to equate Merkel’s diplomatic manoeuvring with Putin saying –
° Hitler was justified in starting WW2
° Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO
° Russia has no plans to invade Ukraine, just 3 days before Russia invaded Ukraine
Are you able to identify an occasion when you have unequivocally condemned Putin’s brutality and dishonesty?
AC is repeating himself now.
This is not a good sign.
I think it’s time he went for the “phone a friend” option.
You’re only objecting because you don’t being reminded of your ludicrous overstatement and false equivalence , you then tried to change the subject.
It’s as entertaining as your assertion that economic statistics, facts and data are meaningless in a discussion about economics
I see that AC has not phoned a friend.
And he’s still repeating himself.
His repetition has become a devious but brilliant tactic to bend me to his will.
Because I’m now forced to repeat again, economic stats are meaningless when presented without context.
As I’ve observed, your tactics include making a ludicrous overstatement, deliberately provocative. When challenged, you modify or qualify it, or try to change the subject. When you made your assertion that economic statistics, facts and data are “meaningless” in a discussion about economics, you didn’t include the “without context” proviso/qualification . You added that quite some time later. I think a couple of days, or maybe even in another discussion – when I reminded you of the stupidity of your comment. You were in retreat, and couldn’t figure out how to change the subject. Your debating tactics are hilarious!
°°°°°°°°°°°
But let’s not forget the economic information you claimed was meaningless.
Rate of inflation, interest rates, military spending as a proportion of the economy , the threshold of the poverty line and more!
According to Steve, those economic indicators are “meaningless”
But what about the ruble!
Yer forgot the ruble! 🙂
Yeah, a 40% currency devaluation is “meaningless” in a discussion about economics As i said, your debating tactics are hilarious, in a puerile way.
°°°°°°
But I’ll also repeat the question I posed to you-
Have you ever made an unqualified, critical comment about Putin?
Kathleen Tyson is a global liquidity expert, former central banker & author of “Multicurrency Mercantilism – The New International Monetary Order”.
She started her career as a central banker at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. She moved to London to supervise the London Stock Exchange, Clearstream, Euroclear, and Swift, and oversee legal and operational reforms to digitalise UK securities.
She globalised US dollar liquidity with Clearstream, co-inventing Triparty Repo (now $10.2 trillion in daily secured interbank lending) and adding clearing and settlement of US Treasuries, bonds and equities to the Luxembourg depository.
Next she advised on CLS Bank governance and designed its operations with IBM. (Peak foreign exchange settlements in 18 currencies now exceed $14 trillion a day.) From 2013 to 2017 she worked with Intellect Design Arena to globalise fully digital, real-time, integrated solutions for central bank modernisation.
It’s safe to say, Kathleen Tyson knows her stuff.
She recently said on X: “I’m seeing a lot of posts about ‘ruble collapse’. Don’t get too excited.
How does USD/RUB rate ‘collapse’ Russia now that most of Russia’s trade with the world is in its own or partner currencies?
Russia is a storehouse of everything Russians need (and the world also needs) and is at full employment.
There is zero food poverty in Russia. Unlike US-UK, no Russian child ever goes hungry.”
I think I tend towards Kathleen Tyson’s view of the Russian economy rather than our resident economist AC.
Another example of you seeking cognitive reinforcement.
I’ve just read plenty of Russian supporting comments by Kathleen Tyson, so this is no surprise.
I could quote a few prominent economists and bankers that suggest Russia is struggling.
But as you know, I hold that a sign of intelligence is the ability to articulate your own case.
In matters of economics and foreign relations, you make a habit of shying away from that
°°°°°°°°
But great! We’re going to recap the Russian success story!
° Interest rate of 21%
° Inflation rate of 9%
° Currency devaluation of 40%. It’s gone from about 2 cents to less than a cent.
° The value of the Russian share market has fallen by about 40% since the invasion of Ukraine.
° The value of Gazprom, Russia’s most significant energy company, has fallen by about 65% during that time
° Falling business investment due to uncertainty about trade opportunities, interest rates and falling currency
° A chronic labour shortage because its working age population is deployed to war rather than productively adding to prosperity , society and the economy.
° A life expectancy of 73 years, ranking 119th
° A poverty line of $5 a day
° Devotes more of it’s economy to the military than any NATO country.
But let’s also recall that Russia has vast natural resources, an educated population and has never been colonised! So what’s its excuse for being a sh**hole?
°°°°°°°°
But have you ever made an unqualified critical comment about Putin?
I seems from what AC is saying, that Russia is on its knees!
Can this be true?