Posts
It is perhaps a monument to the evolution of language that a worker at a fastfood restaurant (if it could be considered food or a restaurant) managed to confuse me in asking what I wanted for Breakfast in such a way that it sounded like "rifle". Given the lack of any "ifle" sounds in "Breakfast", that is no mean feat.
I would instead say that it is not a case of favorable evolution of the English language given that the general purpose is to be able to communicate. Some evolution is needed to encapsulate new concepts and simplify the means of transmission. To some extent this can be handled and the new terms and pronunciations assimilated. There however reaches a point where the differences are too great for an ordinary mind and the ability to communicate perishes in a flurry of unknown words.
Over time, languages separate an become new ones. Some look upon this process and see nothing amiss when dialects and variants appear. Admittedly, there is some ability to handle them and languages survive and are sometimes enriched by their dialects. Despite that, the argument that "if the point is understanding, the specifics of spelling and grammar (and to some extent pronunciation) do not matter" is worrying to all but the more complacent.
While languages can survive and others grow and appear, the process is rarely pleasant for those in that process. The suffering of the breakdown of the Roman Empire in the West was softened by educated men knowing Latin and Greek to communicate. In places where such skills were absent, the fall was harsher and the recovery took longer. The eventual growth of Latin into various Latinate languages such as French and Spanish began to divide the educated people from each other. The adoption of national languages instead of Latin did however ease to integration of most common people into civic life whose ignorance of Latin had little impact on their needs.
Languages evolve over time and interaction to the point where one language can split either according to social ties or linguistic ones. These are not always the same as the joys of modern Bosnia show. Serbo-Croatian is/was considered one language with two scripts. Despite some differences between the two, they would have been considered the same had it not been for the recent hostility between the two communities since WWII. Bosniak is now a language supposedly distinct from Croat (they are both written in Latin characters) and are written slightly differently for the sake of differentiation.
The question is if those differences are due to any major differences between the way Muslims (now categorized as Bosniaks) speak or due to dialects that overlap the different groups. Official Bosniak dictionaries contain spelling primarily of one dialect found in parts of Bosnia but is only one of the major dialects in the Former Yugoslavia. One dialect is spoken mainly in what is now Serbia, another in Croatia and southern and eastern parts of Bosnia, and yet another dialect in parts of Bosnia and parts of Serbia. The overlap with the various ethno-religious groups is more scattered than a purely "ethnic" approach would give.
The result is that A Muslim who feels no need to express his identity might speak his dialect and consider it Serbian. Another would speak the same and consider it Bosnian. Yet a third Muslim would speak a different dialect and still consider that Bosnian. The term "language" is thus used where the actual differences are slight.
The more applicable problems ensuing from excessive variety in a language is the near incomprehensibility that one suffers approaching Transylvanian or Swiss German. They are technically considered German but the pronunciation is so distant from most German that in practice Swiss and Transylvanian German speakers have to switch to a more understandable dialect for the sake of a regular German even understanding them.
Slavic eventually was one language and one finds traces of it in the various Slavic languages where there are numerous similarities between Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Ukrainian and Serbo-Croatian (interestingly, Romanian also has many slavic import words and possibly grammar although this is strenuously denied by many). A similar process is taking place in Arabic so that an Arabic speaker from Morocco is essentially incomprehensible for an Iraqi unless a more common dialect is used such as Egyptian Arabic.
The use of Television has substantially eased comprehensibility between dialects either by homogenizing them or by broadcasting both enough that people learn both. One the other hand, the idea that understanding is achieved easily can lead to divergences that begin the process again.
In my view, one can choose a rigorous enforcement of received pronunciation, a rigorous enforcement of spelling, or a clear division between terms. One can still operate with two but not on one. Each then may be considered non-essential and so some conclude that enforcing them is irrelevant given that the common language is usable with just to. The problem is that people cannot decide which two. Many people do not bother with maintaining a common pronunciation having judged already too divergent to enforce or "racist" and oppressive of other cultures using the same language. One cannot then chastise a person for badly mispronouncing "breakfast".
As for spelling, people grow weary of the enforcement of spelling and grammar seeing it as an impediment to quick communication. Misspellings are then seen in messages sent by University professors who see the task of communicating whatever his intent is being unhindered by a need to maintain consistency of spelling. The process simply encourages a division between a formal language and a common language (the lack of which has been one of the more distinctive aspects of English). Already many students have difficulty reading long passages of books using the common terms of a few decades ago and we of today find it requires specialization to read Middle English and Shakespeare's spelling are politely updated for the sake of legibility.
The overlap of terms becomes problematic at points. While this is not the most polite example, it is a very acute one. The term "Ethnic-Cleansing" is frequently used yet rarely defined. Is it, as some use it, mass murder of members of an ethnic group not of a scale to warrant the term genocide and with the intent to intimidate survivors? Is it mass expulsions with the threat of force is people stay? Is it the exclusion from the standard of a society such as the revoking of citizenship? The term has been used in describing the Croatian actions in the Krajina in which people incapable of fleeing were found later with their throats cut even when they were elderly incapable of posing a military or demographic threat to Croatia. Serb mass expulsions of Muslims with the occasional demolition of a house were also called ethnic-cleansing" even when few people actually died. The term has also been applied to the Croatian citizenship laws that revoked Croatian citizenship from non-Croats and thereby made life very difficult for anyone so living in Croatia.
When is the term clarifying? When GEN Rose and several journalists discussed the devastation in Gorazde, they used the term ethnic cleansing. The damaged houses were used by GEN Rose but he used the term with the understanding that it could mean mass murder or intimidation. An article in the Slavic review used the term to describe Croatian citizenship laws. Each use intends to present with clarity but placing each term next to the other does not clarify. Certainly GEN Rose in no way intended to say that the destroyed houses were the result of an administrative process and Mr. Hayden likely did not intend to say that Croatia was destroying Serb houses and killing them in Zagreb (which was taking place but not the consideration of the article). The term is thus too broad to be of use. Instead the terms "mass killings", "intimidation", and "administrative harassment" provide the information and specify what exactly is taking place.
Understanding requires any two of the three but ability to jettison any one inadvertently results in the abandonment of all even if all three are maintained perfectly. All three provide some degree of redundancy that allow some failures in all of the areas but which still allows people to understand each other. In that spirit, I wulod lkie to odrer smoe hsah bonrws peslae.
Understandable? Only if one believes that the mind only pays attention to the first and last letters of a word and one has the patience for anagrams in everyday life.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A Class in Classics
I remember with fondness the learning of the old Greco-Roman myths.
I learned the concept of cauterization of wounds from Hercules fight with the Hydra, whirlpools from Charybdis and Scylla, and the dangers of inspecificity from the tale of King Midas. Such little lessons are the congealed ideas of a long ago time who bring to the modern mind enjoyable settings to timeless lessons.
As I grew, my childhood schooling was far too fragmented to get a classical education (even had the US or French systems even offered them) and that is something I have ever since attempted to remedy. Sadly, little can make up for the lack of learning Thucydides at an early age or Herodotus slightly later. They are enjoyable authors but the rush of life once one has left secondary does not allow much for anything other than work related or pure entertainment in reading.
In all things there will be regret for that which was not done but this is one of the greater sadnesses of my life.
I learned the concept of cauterization of wounds from Hercules fight with the Hydra, whirlpools from Charybdis and Scylla, and the dangers of inspecificity from the tale of King Midas. Such little lessons are the congealed ideas of a long ago time who bring to the modern mind enjoyable settings to timeless lessons.
As I grew, my childhood schooling was far too fragmented to get a classical education (even had the US or French systems even offered them) and that is something I have ever since attempted to remedy. Sadly, little can make up for the lack of learning Thucydides at an early age or Herodotus slightly later. They are enjoyable authors but the rush of life once one has left secondary does not allow much for anything other than work related or pure entertainment in reading.
In all things there will be regret for that which was not done but this is one of the greater sadnesses of my life.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Book Less Seen
One frequently hears the injunction not to judge a book by its cover. Nonetheless, when handling actual books, used bookstore owners frequently do so. The whole romance novel genre has a tendency towards certain types of images on covers and the size and format is what gave rise to the term "pulp fiction".
Thus it is understandable how The Road Less Traveled: A new Psychology of Love (a book on psychology) was stacked with western romance novels in a bookstore in Bucharest, Romania. He likely had no training in Psychology other than that obtained by seeing people every day and the cover depicted a rose. Such covers generally are romance novels in the Western press hence the placement with other such novels.
While their may be depths unseen in an unostentatious cover, frequently the cover actual serves a similar function to the title in that it conditions the expectations of the reader. Few would pick up a copy of a historical work on the Gulags if the cover depicted Mikey Mouse. The actual practice of life is such that people need to simplify and generalize to acheive a moderate efficiency and comfort. Using covers as yet another means of classifying books uses visible traits to correlate with less visible ones (the genre) serves to make the life of the bookstore owner easier.
Thus in that vein, we may judge a book by its cover but be aware that the cover itself says little.
Thus it is understandable how The Road Less Traveled: A new Psychology of Love (a book on psychology) was stacked with western romance novels in a bookstore in Bucharest, Romania. He likely had no training in Psychology other than that obtained by seeing people every day and the cover depicted a rose. Such covers generally are romance novels in the Western press hence the placement with other such novels.
While their may be depths unseen in an unostentatious cover, frequently the cover actual serves a similar function to the title in that it conditions the expectations of the reader. Few would pick up a copy of a historical work on the Gulags if the cover depicted Mikey Mouse. The actual practice of life is such that people need to simplify and generalize to acheive a moderate efficiency and comfort. Using covers as yet another means of classifying books uses visible traits to correlate with less visible ones (the genre) serves to make the life of the bookstore owner easier.
Thus in that vein, we may judge a book by its cover but be aware that the cover itself says little.
Historical Alzheimers
First of all, a joyous Christmas.
I am routinely amazed and irritated by the supposed "best and brightest" of Western society. This is not so much the semi-aristocratic divisions they make but the degree of culture and competence of those making the distinctions.
One easily gets fed up with entire fields when respected people in them make very simple mistakes. James Barber wrote a book in which one example was the refusal of Herbert Hoover to institute welfare policies. This is galling as economic historians have seen that he did institute several such policies as well as those favoring unions and the like. The historians in favor of such policies praise him for his foresight and those opposed revile him for bringing on or aggravating the Great Depression. The only place where one finds the claim that Hoover did not intervene in the economy is in the electoral propaganda of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who tried to present himself as a radical transformer of the economy and society compared to Hoover.
This was not hard to find but nonetheless the claim remains in the most recent version of his textbook that has for many decades been taught in University classes. The simplicity of such a mistake indicates a failure to research properly. Sadly, this is not the only case. In studies of international relations, long papers have been written about the impact of air power on diplomacy but then fail to note major land offensives. A little common sense and memory would have avoided such blunders but they are made by "respected" people who are not questioned on what contradicts common sense and precedent.
I certainly believe that some division between the cultured and educated compared to the less civilized. The cultured core can exert its influence and guide a society and preserve the norms, direction, and preserve ideas and learning beyond daily stresses and collapses. Nonetheless, as education means less and less in the West, the ability to assess such a privileged position is oriented not around contribution to society but around alternatively wealth or ideological objectives.
Gone are the days when a student was expected to learn the classics, the great wars of the Greeks, Romans, and others. Through such studies, an understanding of a complex situation with real human actors and intents is formed. Now, the recipe approach to History results in such normal and human interactions being reduced to a simple formula that almost never captures even the basic situation. The quality of modern Western political discourse when invoking History gives the same effect as seeing The Merchant of Venice reduced to an episode of the Simpsons (worse exists but I have never watched such shows hence the lack of a more apt comparison) with the vocabulary of supposedly educated men being reduced to what most children surpass in primary school.
There are several factors that I can find for now.
The lack of memory is a crippling problem in any analysis. One may compare a situation to WWII. Many people resort to a Munich Analogy but the validity of a comparison also depends on the similarities between the situation and WWII. One notorious example is many describing the 1991-1995 Bosnian war as a relapse of WWII. That is not far from the truth. The suspicions and goals of all three groups evolved primarily from WWII and all three sides invoked images and ideas from WWII in bother their domestic and international propaganda (often taking place in Bosnia but aimed at foreigners). The problem was that the lack of memory (ie. remembering that Croats and Muslims hade predominatly been allied to Nazi Germany and commited a very entheusiastic genocide against Serbs and Jews) meant that the similarities blamed Serbs for being supposedly the revival of Naziism wheras others with a longer attention span remembered the dubiousness of certain claims.
If you cannot remember data, your theories may be perfect but your result will be wrong due to insufficient or false input. Nonetheless, the whole cult of "self-development" and modernism scorn memory. This is also applicable in the small scale. I learned the Pi number at the behest of my father and since first grade have been noted for a good memory and making connections otherwise impossible without a better grasp of multiple things at once. LTGEN Ion Mircea Pacepa was taught to memorize the phone book and as a result could recal events from years ago providing him with valuable information much more easily.
Such a poor memory results in a strengthening of the bias in favor of immediate circomstances. If one has barely learned of the Punic Wars or of Celtic human sacrifice, it is much harder to formulate arguements against Neo-Paganism when they claim Paganism was kinder than Judaism or Christianity. In many cases, people simple buckle out of a lack of information leading to an inability to formulate an arguement.
The blind narcissism is the worst aspect. The human mind naturally endeavors to protect its ego and so subtly misinterpets things in its favor. The direct approach of building self-esteem has resulted in a habit of approaching History as a cookbook (why do I need to study it?) or as a morality play in which they are the hero (the habit of fighting WWII over again in completely unrelated circomstances) and as a result, such things badly distort History. The cult for understanding can also be subborned into "understanding" such peoples as the Indian allies of France in their wars against the British. Such studies simply are sympathetic portrayals that try to hide the massacres such allies commited against British settlers in an attempt to create an image of the author rising above the conflicts of the past. The result is instead a different kind of distortion but even less respectful of the people of the time.
In short, I hate the idiots of the Western intellegentsia. At least the function as a repositiory of ideas is still handled by the status of those who protect such ideas is in the isolated counter-establishment.
I am routinely amazed and irritated by the supposed "best and brightest" of Western society. This is not so much the semi-aristocratic divisions they make but the degree of culture and competence of those making the distinctions.
One easily gets fed up with entire fields when respected people in them make very simple mistakes. James Barber wrote a book in which one example was the refusal of Herbert Hoover to institute welfare policies. This is galling as economic historians have seen that he did institute several such policies as well as those favoring unions and the like. The historians in favor of such policies praise him for his foresight and those opposed revile him for bringing on or aggravating the Great Depression. The only place where one finds the claim that Hoover did not intervene in the economy is in the electoral propaganda of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who tried to present himself as a radical transformer of the economy and society compared to Hoover.
This was not hard to find but nonetheless the claim remains in the most recent version of his textbook that has for many decades been taught in University classes. The simplicity of such a mistake indicates a failure to research properly. Sadly, this is not the only case. In studies of international relations, long papers have been written about the impact of air power on diplomacy but then fail to note major land offensives. A little common sense and memory would have avoided such blunders but they are made by "respected" people who are not questioned on what contradicts common sense and precedent.
I certainly believe that some division between the cultured and educated compared to the less civilized. The cultured core can exert its influence and guide a society and preserve the norms, direction, and preserve ideas and learning beyond daily stresses and collapses. Nonetheless, as education means less and less in the West, the ability to assess such a privileged position is oriented not around contribution to society but around alternatively wealth or ideological objectives.
Gone are the days when a student was expected to learn the classics, the great wars of the Greeks, Romans, and others. Through such studies, an understanding of a complex situation with real human actors and intents is formed. Now, the recipe approach to History results in such normal and human interactions being reduced to a simple formula that almost never captures even the basic situation. The quality of modern Western political discourse when invoking History gives the same effect as seeing The Merchant of Venice reduced to an episode of the Simpsons (worse exists but I have never watched such shows hence the lack of a more apt comparison) with the vocabulary of supposedly educated men being reduced to what most children surpass in primary school.
There are several factors that I can find for now.
The lack of memory is a crippling problem in any analysis. One may compare a situation to WWII. Many people resort to a Munich Analogy but the validity of a comparison also depends on the similarities between the situation and WWII. One notorious example is many describing the 1991-1995 Bosnian war as a relapse of WWII. That is not far from the truth. The suspicions and goals of all three groups evolved primarily from WWII and all three sides invoked images and ideas from WWII in bother their domestic and international propaganda (often taking place in Bosnia but aimed at foreigners). The problem was that the lack of memory (ie. remembering that Croats and Muslims hade predominatly been allied to Nazi Germany and commited a very entheusiastic genocide against Serbs and Jews) meant that the similarities blamed Serbs for being supposedly the revival of Naziism wheras others with a longer attention span remembered the dubiousness of certain claims.
If you cannot remember data, your theories may be perfect but your result will be wrong due to insufficient or false input. Nonetheless, the whole cult of "self-development" and modernism scorn memory. This is also applicable in the small scale. I learned the Pi number at the behest of my father and since first grade have been noted for a good memory and making connections otherwise impossible without a better grasp of multiple things at once. LTGEN Ion Mircea Pacepa was taught to memorize the phone book and as a result could recal events from years ago providing him with valuable information much more easily.
Such a poor memory results in a strengthening of the bias in favor of immediate circomstances. If one has barely learned of the Punic Wars or of Celtic human sacrifice, it is much harder to formulate arguements against Neo-Paganism when they claim Paganism was kinder than Judaism or Christianity. In many cases, people simple buckle out of a lack of information leading to an inability to formulate an arguement.
The blind narcissism is the worst aspect. The human mind naturally endeavors to protect its ego and so subtly misinterpets things in its favor. The direct approach of building self-esteem has resulted in a habit of approaching History as a cookbook (why do I need to study it?) or as a morality play in which they are the hero (the habit of fighting WWII over again in completely unrelated circomstances) and as a result, such things badly distort History. The cult for understanding can also be subborned into "understanding" such peoples as the Indian allies of France in their wars against the British. Such studies simply are sympathetic portrayals that try to hide the massacres such allies commited against British settlers in an attempt to create an image of the author rising above the conflicts of the past. The result is instead a different kind of distortion but even less respectful of the people of the time.
In short, I hate the idiots of the Western intellegentsia. At least the function as a repositiory of ideas is still handled by the status of those who protect such ideas is in the isolated counter-establishment.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Part of me is still amazed by the everyday absurdity of most self-professed "people of compassion". Their thought process is far from what I consider rational.
Let us take the subject of crime. The acts of crime are generally cruel as are the punishments. By punishing such acts though, the total cruelty of the crimes drops due to less frequent occurrence. The use of coercion may seem to be cruel but overall the effect is to make life more livable for the weakest. The in low crime areas, poor businessmen may still sell without fear of robbery, the elderly can go out and lead a more active and hopeful life, and children can play and experience more of the world without parents rationally locking them indoors for their own safety.
Order is essential for most aspects of what we consider civilized life. Other aspects also include the reduction in cruelty when possible. None but a sadist would desire more cruelty than necessary but the disagreements are generally over what is necessary for what. If the concern is over allowing people freedom to travel around their city, laws punishing assault would be in order. If the goal is to allow different neighborhoods to develop separately, they would see no problem with an assault of an outsider. The goal of reducing cruelty calls for the least severe punishment that gets the job done. A person focused on separate development would consider a prison sentence for assault to be excessive and thus sadistic. A person who believes in a unitary city would consider beating someone up for trying to buy a house to be excessive as well.
The consideration then is in how one approaches a situation to reduce unneeded cruelty. The "Compassionate" argue against prison discipline despite the preferences of most prisoners to live under the stern (sometimes brutal) rule of the warders instead of the consistently brutal rule of their fellow inmates. The compassion is made manifest in the periodic murders of prisoners by prisoners in gang violence continuing in prison.
Such compassion is more concerned with the procedure of law (a good thing to prevent random acts or some deliberate miscarriages of it) in cases involving a violent crime with a harsh punishment (imprisonment or death) than for child custody cases where the crime is usually minor and the punishment excruciating (almost all parents agree that separation from their child is more painful than death). The frequent violations of procedure and the extremely incompetent nature of the US child protection bureaucracies warrant inquiry. They go by various names but frequently employ people of little intelligence whose sole claim to employment is that they are willing to sit through the inanities of bureaucratic life. Such organizations often degenerate into job schemes for the least skilled and such people get some petty fulfillment by flaunting their power.
This comes in many ways. Humiliating a family by driving up in a marked vehicle (knowing that it will render neighbors suspicious of wrongdoing even in the most innocent of cases), making decisions without actually examining the subjects in question (frequently the worst of the lot simply talk to the parent and leave without even asking to see the supposed object of their investigation), and using their bureaucratic-knife-fighting skills to press an obviously innocent case as a test of their power when the victimized family has no recourse to the courts.
Technically, they can go to a family court but the judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and assorted activists, bureaucrats, and assorted ilk all know each other violating one means of assuring a fair trial, anonymity not in identification but in interests. The entire system is incestuous but the poor education of most of their victims or their timidity makes them unlikely to carry it even that far. These are what some might otherwise characterize as "the weak".
The interest of the "compassionate" disappears for those trapped in such a system pleading for a more uniform legal system where the same standards of evidence would be used as in a criminal trial. The poor, uneducated, and timid are usually used as justifications for the conspicuous acts of government compassion advocated for by the "compassionate" but the actual plight of many is ignored.
Why? Their compassion is naught but an outgrowth of their selfishness. They are self-obsessed but some dim glimmer recognizes it and attempts to correct it. The healthy state of balance in a human being entails some concern for others. There is a phenomenon that people carry on their personal struggles into the public sphere. People who have negative views of another ethnic group might take up their cause in politics or society as a means of purging their own bigotry. The individual selfishness then gets translated into the public sphere as a call for collective actions and concern. One example might be that Jakie Kennedy was a strong advocate of government largess but she herself was very careful with money.
The resulting system is one in which parents cannot raise children without the collective call for "society" doing something to help. Society does not mean private associations helping bring food or clothes. It does not mean home-school coops. It means government intervention. The upside is the vast resources of the government. The downside is that all government activity is essentially based on coercion. Even if actions are voluntary, the taxes to support it are not.
Much as aristocratic Romans would compete for the loyalty of their patronage circles and the glory of their political careers by acts of largess. The "compassionate" do the same in their circles but merely to maintain the lie to themselves that they are not unhealthy people who only care for themselves.
In this state, they care more for the sentiment expressed than the truth or effect. It is in this vein that Oprah has become so popular with the obligatory nods of commiseration or agreement and the murmurs of disapproval for anyone who challenged the atmosphere of therapeutic agreement by actually invoking facts and judgments. It is also in a more political environment that one man praised Ted Kennedy for his stand against welfare reform. Ted Kennedy expressed outrage at the idea on the grounds that it would cause suffering for single poor mothers who could not get a job. The eventual statistics showed his fears to but unwarranted but the man praising Kennedy did so because this mistake was one on behalf of compassion.
Such compassion might be seen more clearly in the welder who is given the rest of the day off and who in his excitement forgets to weld part of a bridge support. The concern that might have motivated the foreman to give the man time off might be sound but the consequences of a bridge collapse are far worse than his individual problem.
Such compassion does not prioritize because priorities conflict with comfort. One would rather live in a society with less "compassion" unless one were one who lived by guile. As it stands, that is exactly what rent-seeking is. Seeking to manipulate the government or other large concerns in order to support an unprofitable endeavor.
This much should be obvious but sadly there are many of genuine goodwill who simply follow the trail of "compassionate" topics because they lack the interest or imagination to evaluate the priorities of actually helping people.
Let us take the subject of crime. The acts of crime are generally cruel as are the punishments. By punishing such acts though, the total cruelty of the crimes drops due to less frequent occurrence. The use of coercion may seem to be cruel but overall the effect is to make life more livable for the weakest. The in low crime areas, poor businessmen may still sell without fear of robbery, the elderly can go out and lead a more active and hopeful life, and children can play and experience more of the world without parents rationally locking them indoors for their own safety.
Order is essential for most aspects of what we consider civilized life. Other aspects also include the reduction in cruelty when possible. None but a sadist would desire more cruelty than necessary but the disagreements are generally over what is necessary for what. If the concern is over allowing people freedom to travel around their city, laws punishing assault would be in order. If the goal is to allow different neighborhoods to develop separately, they would see no problem with an assault of an outsider. The goal of reducing cruelty calls for the least severe punishment that gets the job done. A person focused on separate development would consider a prison sentence for assault to be excessive and thus sadistic. A person who believes in a unitary city would consider beating someone up for trying to buy a house to be excessive as well.
The consideration then is in how one approaches a situation to reduce unneeded cruelty. The "Compassionate" argue against prison discipline despite the preferences of most prisoners to live under the stern (sometimes brutal) rule of the warders instead of the consistently brutal rule of their fellow inmates. The compassion is made manifest in the periodic murders of prisoners by prisoners in gang violence continuing in prison.
Such compassion is more concerned with the procedure of law (a good thing to prevent random acts or some deliberate miscarriages of it) in cases involving a violent crime with a harsh punishment (imprisonment or death) than for child custody cases where the crime is usually minor and the punishment excruciating (almost all parents agree that separation from their child is more painful than death). The frequent violations of procedure and the extremely incompetent nature of the US child protection bureaucracies warrant inquiry. They go by various names but frequently employ people of little intelligence whose sole claim to employment is that they are willing to sit through the inanities of bureaucratic life. Such organizations often degenerate into job schemes for the least skilled and such people get some petty fulfillment by flaunting their power.
This comes in many ways. Humiliating a family by driving up in a marked vehicle (knowing that it will render neighbors suspicious of wrongdoing even in the most innocent of cases), making decisions without actually examining the subjects in question (frequently the worst of the lot simply talk to the parent and leave without even asking to see the supposed object of their investigation), and using their bureaucratic-knife-fighting skills to press an obviously innocent case as a test of their power when the victimized family has no recourse to the courts.
Technically, they can go to a family court but the judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and assorted activists, bureaucrats, and assorted ilk all know each other violating one means of assuring a fair trial, anonymity not in identification but in interests. The entire system is incestuous but the poor education of most of their victims or their timidity makes them unlikely to carry it even that far. These are what some might otherwise characterize as "the weak".
The interest of the "compassionate" disappears for those trapped in such a system pleading for a more uniform legal system where the same standards of evidence would be used as in a criminal trial. The poor, uneducated, and timid are usually used as justifications for the conspicuous acts of government compassion advocated for by the "compassionate" but the actual plight of many is ignored.
Why? Their compassion is naught but an outgrowth of their selfishness. They are self-obsessed but some dim glimmer recognizes it and attempts to correct it. The healthy state of balance in a human being entails some concern for others. There is a phenomenon that people carry on their personal struggles into the public sphere. People who have negative views of another ethnic group might take up their cause in politics or society as a means of purging their own bigotry. The individual selfishness then gets translated into the public sphere as a call for collective actions and concern. One example might be that Jakie Kennedy was a strong advocate of government largess but she herself was very careful with money.
The resulting system is one in which parents cannot raise children without the collective call for "society" doing something to help. Society does not mean private associations helping bring food or clothes. It does not mean home-school coops. It means government intervention. The upside is the vast resources of the government. The downside is that all government activity is essentially based on coercion. Even if actions are voluntary, the taxes to support it are not.
Much as aristocratic Romans would compete for the loyalty of their patronage circles and the glory of their political careers by acts of largess. The "compassionate" do the same in their circles but merely to maintain the lie to themselves that they are not unhealthy people who only care for themselves.
In this state, they care more for the sentiment expressed than the truth or effect. It is in this vein that Oprah has become so popular with the obligatory nods of commiseration or agreement and the murmurs of disapproval for anyone who challenged the atmosphere of therapeutic agreement by actually invoking facts and judgments. It is also in a more political environment that one man praised Ted Kennedy for his stand against welfare reform. Ted Kennedy expressed outrage at the idea on the grounds that it would cause suffering for single poor mothers who could not get a job. The eventual statistics showed his fears to but unwarranted but the man praising Kennedy did so because this mistake was one on behalf of compassion.
Such compassion might be seen more clearly in the welder who is given the rest of the day off and who in his excitement forgets to weld part of a bridge support. The concern that might have motivated the foreman to give the man time off might be sound but the consequences of a bridge collapse are far worse than his individual problem.
Such compassion does not prioritize because priorities conflict with comfort. One would rather live in a society with less "compassion" unless one were one who lived by guile. As it stands, that is exactly what rent-seeking is. Seeking to manipulate the government or other large concerns in order to support an unprofitable endeavor.
This much should be obvious but sadly there are many of genuine goodwill who simply follow the trail of "compassionate" topics because they lack the interest or imagination to evaluate the priorities of actually helping people.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
A Brotherhood of Nations(in the Manson family)
German politicians humiliate a Czech President and give him a new flag to fly. 1938? 2008.
That was a translation from a statement made on President Klaus' website.
The bullying of President Klaus of the Czech Republic is of great concern. While it is a practice that countries fly the European Union Flag (I will not conflate the EU with all of Europe), the concept of sovereignty would allow each country to decide its own actions.
In this case, President Klaus, as a democratically elected Czech official, had the right to decide if a flag would be flown. The EU officials gave him a new flag (Klaus was famed as an Euroskeptic and had decided not to fly the EU flag from public buildings) and hectored him about his domestic policies.
The self-obsession of some of the EU partisans might be seen from this part of the exchange.
The supposed concern for democracy becomes questionable when internal political decisions in a country not noted for discrimination becomes a matter for EU hectoring.
The supposed modernism of the EU was based on mutual respect, democracy, and a peaceful resolution of disputes. That is not the case in practice and this in part likely stems from the actions of an ideological group who view the EU the same way others saw the Soviet Union. Not as opponents but as idealists who hoped to create a perfect society and were willing to override democracy, sovereignty, and individual rights to do so.
The result is that the famous claim that "George Bush is undermining the international system that has been built up since the Treaty of Westphalia" might be better used to describe the EU.
That was a translation from a statement made on President Klaus' website.
The bullying of President Klaus of the Czech Republic is of great concern. While it is a practice that countries fly the European Union Flag (I will not conflate the EU with all of Europe), the concept of sovereignty would allow each country to decide its own actions.
In this case, President Klaus, as a democratically elected Czech official, had the right to decide if a flag would be flown. The EU officials gave him a new flag (Klaus was famed as an Euroskeptic and had decided not to fly the EU flag from public buildings) and hectored him about his domestic policies.
"Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP (co-president of the Greens): I brought you a flag,
which - as we heard - you have everywhere here at the Prague Castle. It is the
flag of the European Union, so I will place it here in front of you."
"[On Lisbon Treaty:] I don't care about your opinions on it. I want to know what
you are going to do if the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approve it.
Will you respect the will of the representatives of the people? You will have to
sign it."
"President Vaclav Klaus: I must say that nobody has talked to me in such a
style and tone for the past 6 years. You are not on the barricades in Paris here. I
thought that these manners ended for us 18 years ago but I see I was wrong."
The self-obsession of some of the EU partisans might be seen from this part of the exchange.
"President Vaclav Klaus: This is incredible. I have never experienced anything
like this before.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Because you have not experienced me.."
The supposed concern for democracy becomes questionable when internal political decisions in a country not noted for discrimination becomes a matter for EU hectoring.
"Daniel Cohn-Bendit: We have always had good talks with President Havel.Given the margin by which the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty, it would seem to indicate that the claims by Mr. Crowley that most Irish want the treaty to be dubious.
And what will you tell me about your attitude towards the anti-discrimination law?"
The ostensible acknowledgment of sovereignty by EU officials is compounded by their lack of respect for the workings of democracy in their own countries.
"President Vaclav Klaus: Thank you for this experience which I gained from
this meeting. I did not think anything like this is possible and have not
experienced anything like this for the past 19 years. I thought it was a matter of
the past, that we live in democracy, but it is post-democracy, really, which rules
the EU.
You mentioned the European values. The most important value is freedom and
democracy. The citizens of the EU member states are concerned about freedom
and democracy, above all. But democracy and freedom are losing ground in the
EU today. It is necessary to strive for them and fight for them.
I would like to emphasize, above all, what most citizens of the Czech Republic
feel, that for us the EU membership has no alternative. It was me who submitted
the EU application in the year 1996 and who signed the Accession treaty in
2003. But the arrangements within the EU have many alternatives. To take one
of them as sacrosanct, untouchable, about which it is not possible to doubt or
criticize it, is against the very nature of Europe.
As for the Lisbon Treaty, I would like to mention that it is not ratified in
Germany either. The Constitutional Treaty, which was basically the same as the
Lisbon Treaty, was refused in referendums in other two countries. If Mr.
Crowley speaks of an insult to the Irish people, then I must say that the biggest
insult to the Irish people is not to accept the result of the Irish referendum. In
Ireland I met somebody who represents a majority in his country. You, Mr.
Crowley, represent a view which is in minority in Ireland. That is a tangible
result of the referendum.
Brian Crowley MEP: With all respect, Mr. President, you will not tell me what
the Irish think. As an Irishman, I know it best"
ADDENDUM OUTSIDE THE TRANSCRIPT:The demand for a dignified treatment of others in the EU (made in a later discussion) does not seem to extend to the Czechs. One can only be skeptical of such a system.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit had something to add to Czech reporters after the meeting:
“Your president is a toxic virus of Czech politics.”
The supposed modernism of the EU was based on mutual respect, democracy, and a peaceful resolution of disputes. That is not the case in practice and this in part likely stems from the actions of an ideological group who view the EU the same way others saw the Soviet Union. Not as opponents but as idealists who hoped to create a perfect society and were willing to override democracy, sovereignty, and individual rights to do so.
The result is that the famous claim that "George Bush is undermining the international system that has been built up since the Treaty of Westphalia" might be better used to describe the EU.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Centralslav Culture
A new perspective is needed if Centralslavia is to exist. Such an alliance will be short lived if the only purpose is diplomatic or economic. A change in orientation and perspective is needed.
To simply imitate American popular culture (or German, or whatever) is not going to help. The matter must be one of values. What do other regions value? What do you value?
This does not mean that one should express disdain for all that is Western or Eastern. It means that the actual values of the societies viewed are not the same as the ideals they talk about. This is not often intentional. Most Americans say they value education. When asked if they would walk five miles to school with their child so the child could go to a good school and not a poor one, they would not. The actual values of Centralslavia would hopefully be closer to what the West was like before the post WWI nihilism.
Life is suffering, that does not deride the beauty and hope of life. Life is hard, do not denigrate those who labor. The way of life and the assumptions about responsibility and respect for others needs to be where Centralslavia becomes a beacon of civilization. The West has grown weary of being civilized and is too lazy to stand up for it or even be it. Russia is tired and its leaders will not find the path to a common state of civilization easy. The nihilism of Moscow and St. Petersburg are making things hard to adjust.
Centralslavia has the benefit of historically being more organized than Russia but the suffering under Communism ironically preserved a more sensible outlook that was wiped out in the West by essentially Marxists of a more radical approach than either Stalinism or Maoism. Western Communists are not real Communists but madmen. Eastern Communism was tempered by the realities of life.
Concepts that the West lost are the ability of Centralslavia to exploit. Craftsmanship is to make creating a thing of grace, elegance, and efficiency. To make labor not a drudgery but a joy. Family is not a random biological pairing but a thing to be looked after. The husband and father must look after and listen to his wife and the same to his children. Men are men, Women are women, and children need not ape a hyper-sexualized culture. Life is to be treasured at all ages. The cult of youth is not a good one. The elderly have a different perspective and their wisdom must be cherished.
Religion now in parts of Centralslavia is ignored. People do not go to church nor do they think about moral issues. That must change. If it were to change, Centralslavia would have a major advantage over Western knee-jerk reactions. The Western lack of detail in approaching things is the key weakness of the West, it can be more easily avoided by Centralslavia. The concept of a classical education, detail, study, and debate needs to be brought back. These will bring good governance and that brings most good things.
The important thing is not what you do when you think, it is what you do when youdon't think.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Pope in WWII
The Catholic Church in WWII
The situation in WWII is far more complicated than even the word muddled gives it. The Pope does not seem to have been anti-Semitic but elements within the church hierarchy were. The nature of the church hierarchy is the element that adds the most to complexity. The Catholic Church is organized along national lines for administrative purposes. These divisions had great latitude on practical matters and could act for the most part autonomously.
Right-Ustashi posing with a Serb head. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
That autonomy gave the national branches of the common organization a different character than that in the Vatican. The preferences of the Pope often clashed with those of some advisors, the advisors with those of the local clergy, the local clergy with the local authorities and so on. One of the main concerns of the Pope and many other Catholic thinkers was the tendency of local authorities (governments) to attempt to subsume religion into their political apparatuses and the local clergy that sometimes viewed the totalitarian ideologies as an extension of their Catholic
faith.
The Italian Fascist state under Mussolini tried to co-opt church participation in his state by including clergy input on some small matters and praising the specific legacy the Catholic Church had on Italy. There is famous footage of nuns marching in a fascist parade. Such images are evocative and were intended to be. The Fascist state was attempting to give people the impression that the legitimacy of the Catholic Church was being extended to include the state.
The legacy of popular Catholic intolerance for religious minorities included anti-Semitism. Such sentiments tended to be more imbued in the national church structure than in the Vatican. The effort to unify all members of the Austrian Empire by using the Catholic Church as the tool also drew upon inspiring intolerance of non-Catholics.
The legacy of this was a degree of Clerical Fascism among all the states in the former Austrian Empire. The worst impacted were the Hungarians and Croats. The groups made the most uncomfortable by this were the Jews, Serbs, and Romanians. The Jews were Jewish (evidently) while the Serbs and Romanians were Orthodox. By the time that the Austrian Empire was broken up by the Allies, popular Catholic sentiment had accepted a considerable amount of hatred.
This hatred was easily transferred into fascist ideas with a slight clerical twist. In Austria, the country’s leadership did not give full reign to the urges. The government of Horthy in Hungary was less in control but also was not favorable to Fascism in any variant. In Jugoslavia, the urges did not find a political outlet other than theorizing.
The strategic situation in the build-up to WWII changed the landscape dramatically. The decision of the Hungarian and Romanian governments to ally with Germany meant that they had to accept German pressure to legalize their own Fascist parties. The Hungarian fascists were brutal but were sometimes kept in check by the Horthy government. Only when the Hungarian state did not have control of an area could the Hungarian fascists carry out atrocities.
The Romanian government was similarly unenthused about Fascism. It took a degree of pressure from Germany to legalize the Iron Legion. They were kept under control but the government caved into pressure to deport Jews to Germany. The acquiescence to German plans for genocide says little regarding the dispositions of the local population. The leadership of Gen. Antonescu was protective of Romanian Jews due to a close friendship between Antonescu and his Jewish college friend Dr. Filderman.
Croatia after the German defeat of Jugoslavia was radically different. Unlike any other country’s participation in the Holocaust, Croatia had wide public support for genocide and this was in part due to explicit support from the Croatian Catholic Church. The moral sanction of the national Catholic Church allowed far ranging support for the crimes of the Ustashi.
Left-1940s — Fascist Croatia committed a genocide against Serbs, Jews and Gypsies: Entrance into Jasenovac death camp number 3, with the sign presenting it as a “Labor Service of the Ustasha Defense - Concentration Camp No. III” The coat of arms above is inscribed: “Everything For the Fuhrer, Ustasha Defense.”(Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
The actions of the Ustashi were unlikely to be favored by the Vatican. The Pope had tried quietly to slow down the Fascist search for people in Italy and there were a number of people hidden in the Vatican. What is most probable is that the Croatian church establishment did not inform the Vatican about its actions in the Balkans. While the Croatian church was overt in the Balkans, the general disinterest in the Balkans made it possible to keep the actions of the Croat church quiet.
Dr. Johnatan Levy: “...the real impetus behind the Second World War slaughter of Jews, Serbs, and Roma by the [Croat] Ustasha was clerical fascism.” Before joining the Ustasha, Croats had to swear an oath on knife, hand-grenade, pistol and Roman Catholic Crucifix. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
During that time, the Ustashi was deeply intertwined with the Croat church and one had to swear an oath to the Catholic Church in order to join the Ustashi. The closest parallel is the Mafia. While the activities of the Mafia utilized the Catholic saints for ceremonies, the Catholic Church kept silent about their activities in Sicily and in America. That did not mean that the Vatican knew that the mafia existed until it leaked out to the general public.
The actions of the Croatian Catholic church are some of the most horrific in WWII however they were probably smart enough to keep their actions quiet from the Pope. The Pope’s other actions particularly diplomatically and in Italy reveal a man trying to keep a clean conscience while slowing down the German actions to the Holocaust, not a man trying to commit it.
Kafka's Tolerance
I am puzzled by those who do not find the rise of tolerance as an overriding value troubling. Tolerance seems to me as an extremely brutalizing factor when taken as an independent good.
Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).
The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.
Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.
In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.
The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.
Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.
The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.
Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.
Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.
This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?
Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.
Is that intolerant?
By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.
Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).
The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.
Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.
In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.
The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.
Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.
The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.
Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.
Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.
This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?
Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.
Is that intolerant?
By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Strategic Thoughts on Centralslavia
If a united Centralsalv alliance is achieved, Turkish expansion would likely grind to a halt due to a lack of weak targets to pick off. The increasingly Islamic nature of the Turkish government makes this a very real concern. The ideological imperative for Western elites to back the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians would have to be weighed against a much more heavy concentration of powerful opposition from a major power block.
The discrediting of absolute state power justified by “technocratic skills” that now dominates Western European governments gives Centralslav governments a better restraint. That restraint gives a more realistic assessment as to where their strengths and priorities lie. Unlike the British government, deciding what people’s diversity schooling is less important than deciding the national security strategy. Generally, greater experience and less trusted governments give Centralslav nations an advantage as they are likely to be more realistic.
Russia is a force as is Western Europe. Both are led by nihilist elites. The West fails as its elites grow more autocratic as the day passes while the lack of direction and feedback stymies Russia. Neither is a good force. Independently, each country in Centralslavia would be vulnerable to either and be led by them culturally as well as in other aspects. Given the dead ideologies of the two major blocks, this is a danger to the survival of the various nations.
As there are far fewer Muslims in Centralslavia and the various nations possess greater historical sense and common sense, the onslaught of Jihad is likely to be more effectively combated by Centralslav nations than by Western ones. Russia sadly lacks the larger social framework to support a modern society and would not be as effective for that save its position.
By forming a major barrier between the West and Russia, a degree of neutrality would be needed given the inherent fear of siding with one or the other.
The discrediting of absolute state power justified by “technocratic skills” that now dominates Western European governments gives Centralslav governments a better restraint. That restraint gives a more realistic assessment as to where their strengths and priorities lie. Unlike the British government, deciding what people’s diversity schooling is less important than deciding the national security strategy. Generally, greater experience and less trusted governments give Centralslav nations an advantage as they are likely to be more realistic.
Russia is a force as is Western Europe. Both are led by nihilist elites. The West fails as its elites grow more autocratic as the day passes while the lack of direction and feedback stymies Russia. Neither is a good force. Independently, each country in Centralslavia would be vulnerable to either and be led by them culturally as well as in other aspects. Given the dead ideologies of the two major blocks, this is a danger to the survival of the various nations.
As there are far fewer Muslims in Centralslavia and the various nations possess greater historical sense and common sense, the onslaught of Jihad is likely to be more effectively combated by Centralslav nations than by Western ones. Russia sadly lacks the larger social framework to support a modern society and would not be as effective for that save its position.
By forming a major barrier between the West and Russia, a degree of neutrality would be needed given the inherent fear of siding with one or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)