A Case of the Creation Destroying the Creator? The West’s Many Frankenstein Monsters

March 26, 2017 at 8:32 pm (tWP) (, , , , )

Roosevelt and Churchill met in Newfoundland on board the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 to draft the Atlantic Charter and inaugurate a century of transatlantic cooperation structures

The Cold War was unprecedented in its geographical scope and technological risk. Never before in the history of Mankind had the average citizen been forced to contemplate annihilation on a daily basis. To ensure victory, both blocs introduced new means of warfare. The West chose to employ propaganda against the East, even though by then the Western liberal democracies held higher standards for their own societies. Indeed, RFE/RL was exclusively meant for external consumption and not meant for Americans. A military establishment was built to deter Moscow from further advance into Europe and an economic establishment soon followed to ensure widespread prosperity in Western Europe and vaccinate it against communist influence. Along with NATO and the EEC, a Marshall Plan guaranteed the reconstruction of Europe and the social-democratic model kept social peace. Finally, a network of NGOs and QuaNGOs such as the Soros foundations or the National Endowment for Democracy, were in charge of civil society subversion along with the Catholic Church, to undermine Soviet control of the occupied states and client-regimes.

All these arrangements were set up in the context of a zero sum struggle for planetary hegemony, within a fiercely charged ideological atmosphere. They were by their very nature ad hoc and purely instrumental. Previous wars had depended on loose alliances and minimal civil society involvement.

Similarly, the leaders of the First World War decided to use instruments that would later cause the exponential devastation of WWII such as WMDs, total war, mass mobilisation; and to bring the latter about, ideological propaganda. Indeed, unlike the previous conflicts of the XIX century, WWI was not fought by professional armies, it featured weapons that would later be forbidden and it relied on highly indoctrinated conscripts. Total industrial warfare would then take on prohibitive proportions up to 1945.

The USSR did the same and unlike the West, Moscow was then interested in subverting half the planet on behalf of an ideology (Stalin, Brezhnev doctrines notwithstanding). The roles have however, reversed. Modern Russia is conservative and particularist and it is Brussels and Washington D.C. that seek to evangelise the world with Western values. What changed?

It is certainly the fault of the May 68 generation coming to power and fanatically pushing a progressive agenda but there is a structural component to the entire affair: bureaucratic inertia. Nature hates a vacuum and given that lazy short-term thinking Western politicians were too preoccupied to dismantle the Cold War structures, those same structures took matters into their own hands and kept fighting a war which was supposed to be over.

The capitalist bloc’s soft power arm remained engaged in fomenting colour revolutions and subverting unaligned regimes in the West’s periphery. The bloc’s hard power arm took care to find new enemies gratuitously and expand the list of allies – superfluously. Finally, the founded economic structures moved to exacerbate their competencies by expanding its reach into the political realm and the social-democratic model continued its push towards further governmental subsidisation, eventually putting Western Europe on the brink of bankruptcy.

Ukrainian revolutionary soldiers during the Donbass War

Even in the realm of intelligence, technocratic reactionaries are now attempting to influence domestic politics. Reagan’s big push towards high-tech expenditure meant to bait the USSR into ruin, is now coming back to exert its power on reforming politicians. After the #womensmarch and Antifa violence against conservatives in the US, there are those of us who fear an attempted colour revolution in Washington itself. Will domestic political subversion stop at war-mongering and witch hunts? If an impeachment is attempted with demonstrations outside the White House, months on end, the USSS may be pushed into a corner. This bears eery resemblance to the Yanukovych affair in Ukraine.

In Europe too, celebrating the 60 years of the Rome Treaties, EU leaders who seem mostly subservient to Brussels eurocrats, were egged on by the Pope to fight “populism”. Populism is never defined but seems to encompass any political force that puts the national interest ahead of supranationalism. This then necessarily means that, following the Haider and Wilders precedent, not all political forces are equal. Democracy is only desirable provided the citizenry deliver the ‘right’ votes. If not, then a supranational overseer is put in place (à la Monti) or referenda are organised in succession until the ‘right’ result is achieved. International institutions only serve the agenda of specific – mainstream – parties. Were a communist or paleoconservative party to come to power, the foreign policy of the state and that of supranational institutions, could not possibly be changed.

Imagine Napoleon’s legions dictating to Napoleon; the Comintern lecturing the Politburo on ideology; the crusaders taking power in the Holy See.

Ukrainian revolutionary paramilitary during the Donbass War

What seems certain is that the current climate of radicalisation and mainstream media instigation to violence, is going to continue.

Trump and Brexiteering Tories signified a change in paradigm but they are being undermined by a bloated governmental bureaucracy which leans on intellectual elites for civil society manipulation. If the algorithm turns on the user, at what point will the struggle remain peaceful given the eroding avenues for consented change? Western regimes have expiration dates too but if the end requires a reboot rather than a refresh, cooler heads will not prevail.

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Fall of the Johannesburg Wall

June 22, 2010 at 7:34 pm (tWP) (, , , , , , )

Japanese Imperial Navy defeats its Chinese counterpart at the Battle of Yalu. Japan was the first non western power to join the 'Berlin Consensus'. It is also one of the most homogeneous Asian societies.

In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. The GDR citizens flooding the streets of West Berlin was an image that sent a powerful message throughout the world: it symbolized the end of the alternative socio-economic development model of the Communist Bloc. Those states and regimes which until then had been reliant on Soviet force projection and/or which had based their economies on state driven principles suffered a shock. The Moscow elites did away with the USSR and prevented a counter-coup soon after, in order to as quickly as possible, adopt the western liberal-democratic model. The same happened throughout the communist bloc, with socialist federations falling everywhere and giving place to democratic capitalist states.

For the next two decades the Washington Consensus reigned supreme. In fact, the US model of development inspired and imposed itself not just on the ‘east’ but also on the ‘west’. During the Cold War, in spite of American leadership, an offshoot of sorts developed in the west which disputed the reasoning of the ‘leaders of the free world’. The isolationist strain of the Capitalist Bloc resisted the narrative of the superpowers and oriented its efforts towards the possible preservation of the pre Cold War status quo. The entente which intermittently gathered France, South Africa, Israel, Portugal, Rhodesia or Taiwan, was actually the first incarnation of the authoritarian-capitalist model and sought at times to resist the Atlantic-Warsaw-Bandung narrative which ended up changing the world order by subverting the old European establishment.

A first Bandung had been attempted by Japan during the Second World War. Throughout the Cold War Beijing simply replaced Tokyo’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere with its self proclaimed leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement. In any regard, the purpose was the same: to gather the non-European world against the European colonial powers – USSR and USA included…

The Suez crisis was the last attempt to preserve some part of the European order but whereas London decided to join America in the lead of the capitalist bloc, Paris chose to trade isolationism from the new narrative for the preservation of its own territories and interests. This more staunch defence of the old order was able to on occasion, resist the antagonism of the new order. The Biafra war is perhaps the best example in which this entente was confronted, not with one of the two Blocs but by the two plus the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

However, the twilight of European global rule was the defeat of Germany in the two world wars. The utter defeat of the two Reich denied the west European naval power projectors, their traditional source of capital and technology, and the replacement of German financiers with American ones replaced also the old narrative for a post-modern extra-European one.

Thus, what can be called the ‘Berlin Consensus’ – which emerged out of the Berlin Conference of 1884 – of mercantilist imperialism ended up being replaced by the Washington Consensus seventy years later, itself spawning from the San Francisco Conference, which in creating the UN, ensured the tools for the international law which was to regulate decolonisation. This new International Law also ensured that the world was bound by the standard of the Atlantic revolutions given that the UN Charter was almost a facsimile of the American and French constitutions.

The Niponic 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' was for all intents and purposes a proto-Bandung

Like the Bandung regimes and the US, the Soviet model aspired to replace the European one but proved in time to be inferior to the American. It was inferior economically but also politically and socially. The west however seems to have only apprehended the defects of the two first instances.

In fact, both the communist and capitalist models were socially multicultural by nature and here lies one of the great stress tests for the Washington Consensus because in a multipolar world, no one pole aims to compete for global supremacy and the need to appeal to universal values fades. This in turn, creates room for identity politics. The stress test comes from the danger that the west’s Achilles Heel may very well be its multicultural model of society, emulating the American ‘melting pot’.

Multiculturalism is a feature of the Anglosphere as a whole but America’s victory – by attrition – in the Cold War, did much to anchor the belief that it was an essential component of a prosperous and modern society. Following the collapse of the USSR, it was thought that the ethnic strife which immediately plagued the communist federations was a by-product of economic depression and undemocratic regimes but nowadays, after the Bush 43rd Administration’s demonstration of American hubris there has been a backlash in the world which is increasingly questioning the Washington Consensus.

Many now point to the possible emergence of a Beijing Consensus which based on authoritarian capitalism and hegemonic ethnicity, can rival with the American model of development. Recent events in Burma, Sri Lanka and the Sudan would seem to indicate that not only China is willing to accommodate regimes which are strategic for Chinese interests but that these regimes may even inspire themselves on the Chinese example: in Sri Lanka the government has just militarily defeated its long term Tamil minority rebellion (with Chinese aid), in the Sudan, the Arab government has been trying to establish its authority over African Darfur and in Burma the government tries to keep the state united by establishing a ruling ethnicity while fighting the centrifugal minority resistance movements.

In truth, the fight between the liberal and socialist narratives throughout the Cold War, contributed only to empower the third narrative, that of the 3rd world represented in the NAM. Incidentally, both the NAM states in general, and their long time spokesman China in particular, have been quite proficient at securing hegemonic ethnicities: there was such a trend in Africa where white European settlers were ‘incentived’ to leave – Ian Smith for example was quite right in claiming that for the africanists and communists, the problem with his government was not that it was a minority ruling a majority but that it was a white minority at that – in Indonesia where the Javanese elites transformed the United States of Indonesia into the Republic of Indonesia and in China where the Han ethnicity is the core of the empire.

Democracy, being a natural guarantor of rights regime is usually quite deadly for multi-ethnic states. Yugoslavia, Russia and the west European naval powers all lost a great deal of strategic assets with democratisation. It would seem that the Washington Consensus was just as toxic for the third world – such trends can be seen in Bolivia, Nigeria or the states already mentioned.

In such a context, there is a significant possibility that the fall of the west will not be brought about by financial troubles in Wall Street or the City but by severe national incoherencies in the social fabric of western society.

The American melting pot model was based on a fallacious premise: that because different nationalities and ethnicities produced a viable new nation-state, all states can extrapolate and achieve the same multi-cultural miracle in whatever circumstances. In fact, the Chinese coolies, the Amerindians or the Hispanics were only integrated as long as they remained minorities against the prevalent WASPs. It is one thing to integrate a society when it is made up of intra-civilisational ethnicities and when the Anglophone ethnicity remains the hegemonic core of the state, it is another when different civilisational ethnicities are incompatible – see Israel. What is being attempted today throughout the world under American and European auspices is blind universalism. If the dismal failure results in another Wilsonian ‘republic’ like Kosovo, the rest of the world will logically conclude that the benefits of liberal society are not worth the risk of state disintegration.

British troops take Johannesburg from the Boers thus laying the seeds for Anglophone multiculturalism

The imminent collapse of Belgium and the significant integration and assimilation difficulties of muslim minorities in the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Germany or the UK, further heighten fears for the western social model. In America, more and more the different racial groups separate geographically from each other. The Baptist African-American (Black Anglophone Baptists – BABs?) in the southeast, the WASP in the north and the Hispanics in the southwest.

It is in South Africa that the western model’s adaptation to the third world has more been praised. It is here that Lib-Dem universalists make their case for the possible coexistence of incoherent civilisational ethnicities. Curiously it is also here that mismanagement on the part of the affirmative actioned black elite is more visible. South Africa remains a poor country with a huge economic divide. More importantly it is in South Africa that we find one of the world’s biggest racial divide. In order for a nation to have a future, miscegenation is a must; alternatively, a federal political model and a long multi-ethnic traditional coexistence would be needed.

If the Washington Consensus’ social model goes critical, South Africa is the country to watch since if it goes wrong there, there’ll be little incentive left for states around the world – Europe included – to keep applying it.

Is it a matter of time before the Johannesburg Wall of tolerated racial divide comes down?

Permalink 2 Comments

The Sun Sets Due West

June 16, 2009 at 6:55 pm (tWP) (, , , , , , , , , , , , )

western-civilization

Geopolitical powers rise and fall. Lets understand why Europe seems to have even failed to become one.

The west experienced its first decline with the 1st World War, but western values and culture lived on through the ideological empires and their Cold War. The USA and the USSR had an essential role in promoting nationalism, centralised state, liberalism and materialism.

After two decades of Pax Americana, the decline of US hegemony might not be so dramatic were the other west faring well. But its not the case. Europe is still trailing behind the US in economic recovery. Stopping short of trying to federalize Europe, some steps to integrate it economically and financially would have been wise. Throughout the past decades however, Washington and Moscow have managed to divide and rule the old world. Excellent initiatives such as common regulation or the European Central Bank took Europe forward. But in any given crisis, Brussels was always superseded: it happened in Iraq, it was repeated in Georgia.

The postponement and even possible scrapping of projects of European (at large) interest such as the Nabucco pipeline or the A-400 transport aircraft, have to be attributed to the lobbying and savvy diplomacy of Russia and America. This in turn should be an eye opener to those end-of-history idealists who still believe Europe will forever live in peace, democracy and liberalism.3271123083_78a3e277bc

Other than disunity, the single most revealing feature of a declining power is its debt. Europe became indebted to the US after WW1 – exception being stalinist Russia – and  the US came to take its place after WW2. Today, the US is heavily indebted with its stimulus and military projects and Europe follows suit trying to maintain an impossibly charitable welfare system. The one exception might be Brazil. It is not a mystery who will take the West’s place in the world, one has but to look at the source of the West’s borrowing

Back in Europe, the coherence of the EU is more threatened than ever. The Commission has lost clout, the Parliament – where all the ideological fanatics are sent by the different national parties – is more and more self-righteous and the European momentum seems to be lost. Many blame the euro-skeptics for this. But by forcing a federal Europe, it was the moderates who dug their own graves. Had the objective of European integration been more realistic and consensual, the backlash might not have occurred.

Sadly Europe will never live up to its potential because its neighbours aren’t comfortable with it and the drivers of the project were utopian idealists. An economically integrated Europe has more power of negotiation but it squanders it when it demands cultural or political reform from its partners.

A geopolitical Europe does not possess the necessary structure to project its power because the promise/threat of federalism has pushed the euro-skeptics to power and they “opted out”.China debt cartoon

Permalink 2 Comments