Posts
http://www.polskapanorama.org/plightofeuropean.html
Upon reading this interesting article, a number of thoughts came to mind.
The viability of a union of Centroslavia is unlikely but closer cooperation is more likely to work. The interests of the supposed allies or partners are always a secondary priority for the major power as it has other interests and a limited attention span. From this, a Centroslav alliance would be more likely to police itself keeping its members honest and provide a large enough force to leverage honesty out of those interacting with it.
The worry is that a unified set of principles would have a lot of trouble getting agreed upon but most importantly, is there the ability to produce a coherent cultural transformation. Most simply the question is “What vision of life and the world will be held?”. The Nihilism of the Russian elites and the stupidity of Western elites discredit them. But is there a credible force to act within Centroslavia?
Germany still possesses considerable economic power and diplomatic contacts. Any such effort would be likely hampered by German influence attempting to convince the US and the West of its position as the “modernizer of Eastern Europe”. The interest of the US in it is a somewhat transient phenomenon given the number of matters a global power must deal with, the competition international concerns hold versus domestic ones, and just plain lack of an attention span.
Putting ones security needs and cultural needs (not to mention economic ones) in the hands of a senior state is unlikely to prove beneficial if the senior state shares neither a common outlook nor frequent attention in the area. This is true of all major powers as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. Russia has some interests but the failure of leadership and the focus on other concerns makes Russia unlikely to protect the interests of the nations in Centroslavia.
What countries does it refer to? It would of course include Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, the Republica Srbska (if possible), Moldova, and Bulgaria. It might be extended to include the Baltic states, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Cyprus. It would not include Albania, Bosnia, and Croatia for their support of Jihad and their war crimes.
How close a Union? Perhaps monetary union would go too far but certainly free-trade between the members would be essential. Agreement by all parties regarding tariffs outside the Union would help build mutual interests. Most importantly is that the Union would provide close diplomatic support for members in conflicts like those that ravaged Yugoslavia in the 90’s and that gave Kosovo over to Jihadists. Greek concerns with Cyprus are another case.
A cultural element is crucial to such an undertaking. There must be a common understanding about the world that differs from the West as it currently stands. This does not mean disagreement with the West’s fundamental ideas from long ago but with the fanaticism of the current leadership class. Centralslavia is not against the free-market but against the cronyism of the state support for major companies in the West. Centroslavia is not against the ideas of Free Speech and Liberty, just against Jihadist propaganda and immoral publications that degrade the humanity of people. Centroslavia is not against a secular government, just against the atheism and war against religion that poses for secularism in the West.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden on NATO
The return of Biden and the Idealists.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden threatened Romania to block its NATO entry
August 28, 2008
SERBIANNA
Former US ambassador to Romania Jim Rosapepe says that he witnessed Obama's vice-presidential pick, Joseph Biden, shout at Romanian officials of whom he was seeking information on Serbia and its politics in order to inflict political and diplomatic damage.
Rosapepe says that the most extraordinary meeting Biden and him had was with the president of the Romanian Senate, Petre Roman, whom Biden met before but this time "Biden grilled him on Serbian politics" and Roman "helped defeat Milosevic in the 2000 elections".
However, when Biden asked the Romanian delegation why Romania seeks NATO membership, Biden was offended at the answer.
"'If we're in NATO,'" Romanian said "'we won't have to worry about NATO attacking Romania over our relations with our Hungarian minority the way you attacked Yugoslavia. Since Turkey has been in NATO for decades, you let them do what they want with the Kurdish minority.'"
Biden got visibly angry that former communist Romania has an existential reason for joining NATO so Biden "rose from his chair, leaned across the table and said: 'If that's why you want to get into NATO, I'll make sure you never do!'" writes Rosapepe.
Biden has long been on the payroll of Kosovo Albanian extremists so that he can lend support for their desire to annex Serbian province.
During the ongoing Democratic Convention, Biden met with the separatists.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden threatened Romania to block its NATO entry
August 28, 2008
SERBIANNA
Former US ambassador to Romania Jim Rosapepe says that he witnessed Obama's vice-presidential pick, Joseph Biden, shout at Romanian officials of whom he was seeking information on Serbia and its politics in order to inflict political and diplomatic damage.
Rosapepe says that the most extraordinary meeting Biden and him had was with the president of the Romanian Senate, Petre Roman, whom Biden met before but this time "Biden grilled him on Serbian politics" and Roman "helped defeat Milosevic in the 2000 elections".
However, when Biden asked the Romanian delegation why Romania seeks NATO membership, Biden was offended at the answer.
"'If we're in NATO,'" Romanian said "'we won't have to worry about NATO attacking Romania over our relations with our Hungarian minority the way you attacked Yugoslavia. Since Turkey has been in NATO for decades, you let them do what they want with the Kurdish minority.'"
Biden got visibly angry that former communist Romania has an existential reason for joining NATO so Biden "rose from his chair, leaned across the table and said: 'If that's why you want to get into NATO, I'll make sure you never do!'" writes Rosapepe.
Biden has long been on the payroll of Kosovo Albanian extremists so that he can lend support for their desire to annex Serbian province.
During the ongoing Democratic Convention, Biden met with the separatists.
Thoughts on Kafka
Franz Kafka is remembered as the author of several surreal novels where strange irrational things affect characters who are treated with bigotry in response. The most famous such book is Metamorphosis. The focus on difference and bigotry was likely the result of the eternal question of Jews, “why do they hates us, is it because we are different?”.
Kafka aside, life in the supposedly tolerant modern society we know as the West is getting stranger and stranger with added portions of bigotry. Ironically, the worst perpetrators of irrational bigotry are those who focus upon being good or who are regarded as good by society.
I mentioned my strong dislike of Rap “music” to a person and what person apparently assumed that my reference to the cultural elements of it (Gangsta culture) as an object of disdain was proof of my racism. Where I thought that I was talking about music, the other person assumed that race and music were the same.
There certainly is an overlap between ethnic groups and music. We talk of Celtic music being a genre and refer to Chinese music being atonal whatever more modern composers have produced. There is a close relationship between music and a culture. It is hard to imagine the English-speaking Atlantic fishing and whaling industry without its shanties and songs.
The same might then be said of Rap music and Blacks? The applicability here is hampered by the question of race. When Americans use the term Black or African American, they assume they are the same thing. They are not. Suppose that a Boer emigrated from South Africa to the US. He would be an African-American (being from Africa) but not Black. The conflicts between Black immigrants from the Carribean and Blacks more entrenched in American culture also indicates that perhaps the relevant term is not of race but a racial term used when the meaning is ethnicity.
The meaning is the specific American sub-culture produced in relationship to African Blacks brought from Africa centuries ago and holding a continuity with that history as a cultural and ethnic identity. The term used to denote this is “Black” or “African-American” when the actual meanings of those terms is very different. Nigerian Ibos are not included in some cases despite clearly having high melanin content as they do not always identify with “Black culture”.
Even still, there are multiple cultures within this already fractious term. There is more than just the Black Gangsta or Hip-Hop culture. Only the KKK and Black activists try to equate Gangsta culture as the whole of Black society and culture. A statement regarding Rap and the sub-culture associated with it should not be considered as regarding general Black society as if Rap were all that popular among the Yoruba or Masai and people would drop suites for the garb of American Black hoodlums.
Rap extends beyond just America and has impacted Western and finally Eastern Europe. The themes are sometimes different. The operative word is sometimes. Most often the themes of greed, power, violence, and sex and a purely animal act abound in other countries’ Rap cultures.
Here is some French Rap and it is just as disturbing as American Rap.
A more acceptable evolution of Rap music's interaction is this but the aggressiveness remains.
Despite whatever different messages are presented, the medium (if not all) is at least a major part of the message. The aggressive beat of Rap and the melody convey ideas and attitudes beyond whatever the words are. Music invokes emotions and, in doing so, evokes them. The emotional effect of a dirge with violins and cellos is undoubtedly different from a song of spring with a flute even if the words were reversed.
Let us compare this mild video with visible themes of money and opposition to the law. The references are not the heart of the core message of the video but essential peripheral concepts. The questions posed to the woman he refers to indicate a severe lack of discipline in referring to an affair as "mistakes we make". It is almost touching but still the beat must draw back to a certain hardness that the rest fails to temper.
A much worse one is this video about sex. No respect is paid to women or sex. Little more need be said.
On criticism brought of in defense of Rap is Christian Rap. That is not a sufficient argument. The lyrics may say one thing but the overwhelming aspect is the beat and melody. Christian Rap is best understood as an ideologicaly driven imitative parasite on the body of Rap. Rap is itself a parasite on society at large. It harms not just organized governments or groups by urging on disrespect of authority but the beat and melody are aggressive in nature and listening to it has an effect.
Society is built upon individuals coming together and suppressing their aggressiveness for a common purpose that may yield them benefits. Mindless aggression is not likely to keep society together unless it can be controlled. Often this is done with force or the threat of it.
Do the defenders of Rap really want to equate it with Black Culture? Do they really want to make its themes those of Black society?
Kafka aside, life in the supposedly tolerant modern society we know as the West is getting stranger and stranger with added portions of bigotry. Ironically, the worst perpetrators of irrational bigotry are those who focus upon being good or who are regarded as good by society.
I mentioned my strong dislike of Rap “music” to a person and what person apparently assumed that my reference to the cultural elements of it (Gangsta culture) as an object of disdain was proof of my racism. Where I thought that I was talking about music, the other person assumed that race and music were the same.
There certainly is an overlap between ethnic groups and music. We talk of Celtic music being a genre and refer to Chinese music being atonal whatever more modern composers have produced. There is a close relationship between music and a culture. It is hard to imagine the English-speaking Atlantic fishing and whaling industry without its shanties and songs.
The same might then be said of Rap music and Blacks? The applicability here is hampered by the question of race. When Americans use the term Black or African American, they assume they are the same thing. They are not. Suppose that a Boer emigrated from South Africa to the US. He would be an African-American (being from Africa) but not Black. The conflicts between Black immigrants from the Carribean and Blacks more entrenched in American culture also indicates that perhaps the relevant term is not of race but a racial term used when the meaning is ethnicity.
The meaning is the specific American sub-culture produced in relationship to African Blacks brought from Africa centuries ago and holding a continuity with that history as a cultural and ethnic identity. The term used to denote this is “Black” or “African-American” when the actual meanings of those terms is very different. Nigerian Ibos are not included in some cases despite clearly having high melanin content as they do not always identify with “Black culture”.
Even still, there are multiple cultures within this already fractious term. There is more than just the Black Gangsta or Hip-Hop culture. Only the KKK and Black activists try to equate Gangsta culture as the whole of Black society and culture. A statement regarding Rap and the sub-culture associated with it should not be considered as regarding general Black society as if Rap were all that popular among the Yoruba or Masai and people would drop suites for the garb of American Black hoodlums.
Rap extends beyond just America and has impacted Western and finally Eastern Europe. The themes are sometimes different. The operative word is sometimes. Most often the themes of greed, power, violence, and sex and a purely animal act abound in other countries’ Rap cultures.
Here is some French Rap and it is just as disturbing as American Rap.
A more acceptable evolution of Rap music's interaction is this but the aggressiveness remains.
Despite whatever different messages are presented, the medium (if not all) is at least a major part of the message. The aggressive beat of Rap and the melody convey ideas and attitudes beyond whatever the words are. Music invokes emotions and, in doing so, evokes them. The emotional effect of a dirge with violins and cellos is undoubtedly different from a song of spring with a flute even if the words were reversed.
Let us compare this mild video with visible themes of money and opposition to the law. The references are not the heart of the core message of the video but essential peripheral concepts. The questions posed to the woman he refers to indicate a severe lack of discipline in referring to an affair as "mistakes we make". It is almost touching but still the beat must draw back to a certain hardness that the rest fails to temper.
A much worse one is this video about sex. No respect is paid to women or sex. Little more need be said.
On criticism brought of in defense of Rap is Christian Rap. That is not a sufficient argument. The lyrics may say one thing but the overwhelming aspect is the beat and melody. Christian Rap is best understood as an ideologicaly driven imitative parasite on the body of Rap. Rap is itself a parasite on society at large. It harms not just organized governments or groups by urging on disrespect of authority but the beat and melody are aggressive in nature and listening to it has an effect.
Society is built upon individuals coming together and suppressing their aggressiveness for a common purpose that may yield them benefits. Mindless aggression is not likely to keep society together unless it can be controlled. Often this is done with force or the threat of it.
Do the defenders of Rap really want to equate it with Black Culture? Do they really want to make its themes those of Black society?
Thoughts on Georgia
The media response in even the more analytical organizations is disappointing. The assumptions the organizations are relying upon are that the Georgian government is trustworthy, the Russian Government is not, that International Law dictates that infringement into a country is impermissible, and that the US must back the Georgians.
Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.
Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.
Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.
The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.
The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.
All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.
McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.
International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?
International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.
Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.
With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.
Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.
Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.
Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.
The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.
The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.
All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.
McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.
International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?
International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.
Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.
With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)