This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Clash Of Civilizations
Submitted by Ben Hunt via Salient Partners' Epsilon Theory blog,
Thomas Cole, “The Course of Empire: Destruction” (1836)
In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous.
– Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1996)
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in
– Samuel P. Huntington (1927 – 2008)
The argument now that the spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of Western civilization trivializes Western culture. The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the latter has no implications for their accepting the former.
– Samuel P. Huntington (1927 – 2008)
Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.
– Samuel P. Huntington (1927 – 2008)
Q: What do you think of Western civilization?
A: I think it would be a good idea.
– Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948)
|
Adrian Veidt: |
It doesn't take a genius to see that the world has problems. |
|
Edward Blake: |
No, but it takes a room full of morons to think they're small enough for you to handle. |
– “Watchmen” (2009)
Our civilization is flinging itself to pieces. Stand back from the centrifuge.
– Ray Bradbury, “Fahrenheit 451” (1953)
Upon learning of Cardinal Richelieu’s death, Pope Urban VIII is alleged to have said, “If there is a God, then Cardinal de Richelieu will have much to
– Henry Kissinger, “Diplomacy” (1994)
Corrupt politicians make the remaining ten
– Henry Kissinger (b. 1923)
Poor old Germany. Too big for Europe, too small for the world.
– Henry Kissinger (b. 1923)
The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the
– Henry Kissinger, “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-22” (1957)
Order should not have priority over freedom. But the affirmation of freedom should be elevated from a mood to a strategy.
– Henry Kissinger, “World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History” (2014)
A more immediate issue concerns North Korea, to which Bismarck’s nineteenth-century aphorism surely applies: “We live in a wondrous time, in which the strong is weak because of his scruples and the weak grows strong because of his audacity.”
– Henry Kissinger, “World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History” (2014)
In the end, peace can be achieved only by hegemony or by
– Henry Kissinger (b. 1923)
|
Isaac: |
Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Ya know? I read it in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, ya know, get some bricks and baseball bats, and really explain things to 'em. |
|
Party Guest: |
There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times, just devastating. |
|
Isaac: |
Whoa, whoa. A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it. |
|
Party Guest: |
Oh, but really biting satire is always better than physical force. |
|
Isaac: |
No, physical force is always better with Nazis. |
– “Manhattan” (1979)
Lots of quotes this week, particularly from my two favorite war criminals – Sam Huntington and Henry Kissinger. Everyone has heard of Kissinger, fewer of Huntington, who may have been even more of a hawk and law-and-order fetishist than Kissinger but never sufficiently escaped the ivory towers of Harvard to make a difference in Washington. Like me, Kissinger bolted academia at his first real opportunity for a better gig and never looked back, which is probably why I always found him to be so personally engaging and fun to be around. Sam Huntington … not so much.
But Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” argument is not just provocative, curmudgeonly, and hawkish. It is, I think, demonstrably more useful in making sense of the world than any competing theory, which is the highest praise any academic work can receive. Supplement Huntington’s work with a healthy dose of Kissinger’s writings on “the character of nations” and you’ve got a cogent and predictive intellectual framework for understanding the Big Picture of international politics. It’s a lens for seeing the world differently – a lens constructed from history and, yes, game theory – and that’s what makes this a foundational topic for Epsilon Theory.
Huntington and Kissinger were both realists (in the Thucydides and Bismarck sense of the word), as opposed to liberals (in the John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson sense of the word), which basically just means that they saw human political history as essentially cyclical and the human experience as essentially constant. Life is fundamentally “nasty, brutish, and short”, to quote Thomas Hobbes, and people band together in tribes, societies, and nation-states to do something about that. As such, we are constantly competing with other tribes, societies, and nation-states, and the patterns of that competition – patterns with names like “balance of power” and “empire” and “hegemony” – never really change across the centuries or from one continent to another. Sure, technology might provide some “progress” in creature comforts and quality of life (thank goodness for modern dentistry!), but basically technology just provides mechanisms for these political patterns to occur faster and with more devastating effect than before.
The central point of “Clash of Civilizations” is that it’s far more useful to think of the human world as divided into 9 great cultures (Huntington calls them civilizations, but I’ll use the words interchangeably here) rather than as 200 or so sovereign nations. Those cultures – Western, Orthodox (Russian), Islamic, African, Latin American, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Buddhist, and Japonic – are persistent and profoundly influential in ways that national borders and national institutions aren’t. Huntington argues that these 9 cultures are the most meaningful current expressions of the human animal’s inherent social imperatives, and that the logic of competition between these cultures explains and illuminates human history far better than competing notions, particularly those (like Marxism and liberalism) that assume an up-and-to-the-right direction to the arrow of history.
Marxism and liberalism are inherently optimistic visions of human society. Things are always getting better … or they will be better just as soon as people wake up and recognize their enlightened self-interest … as ideas of proletariat empowerment (Marxism) or individual rights as instantiated by free markets and free elections (liberalism) inexorably spread throughout the world. For realists like Huntington and Kissinger, on the other hand, this is nonsense. Free markets and free elections are good things (as is proletariat empowerment, frankly), but these central concepts of liberalism only mean what we Westerners think they mean if they exist within the entire context of Western culture. To insert the practices and institutions of liberalism into the Sinic culture, for example, might look awfully pretty to the Western eye and fill us with righteous pride, but it’s just a veneer. It won’t stick. The West may very well want to impose the practices and institutions of free markets and free elections for its own self-interest, and China may want to adopt the practices and institutions of free markets (but not free elections) for its own self-interest, but the logic of self-interest is a VERY different thing than the triumphalist claim that the liberal ideas of Western free markets and free elections are “naturally” spreading throughout the world.
A brief aside here on the distinction between personal beliefs and useful models. I’m not saying that I believe that authoritarian regimes and jihadist despots have some sort of moral equivalence to liberal governments, or that human rights don’t matter, or any of the other tired bromides used to tar realists. On the contrary, I personally believe that everyone in the non-Western world would be better off … MUCH better off … if their governing regimes gave a damn about individual rights and liberties in the same way that ANY governing regime in the West does. I believe that the principles of liberalism are the best ideas on social organization that the human animal has ever devised, and I’d like to spread these ideals into every corner of the globe. And you know what? On a personal level, Sam Huntington and Henry Kissinger believed exactly the same thing. Kissinger fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He won the freakin’ Bronze Star for his work tracking down Gestapo agents in Hanover. Does that sound like a moral relativist? Huntington served in the Jimmy Carter administration, for god’s sake. Talk about personal sacrifices …
But what a realist recognizes is that our personal vision of how we would like the world to be is not an accurate representation of The World As It Is, and – as Huntington wrote – it’s false, immoral, and dangerous to pretend otherwise. The World As It Is today includes the birth of an Islamic Caliphate, effectively erasing Western colonialist borders from Iraq to Syria to Libya as it spews anti-modern carnage. The World As It Is today includes the violent sundering of Ukraine along Orthodox/Western cultural lines. The World As It Is today includes an insane Sinic theocracy in North Korea with nuclear weapons. The World As It Is today includes a Japonic culture that is, in a very real sense, dying. Is a realist happy about any of this? Is a realist satisfied to shrug his shoulders and retreat into some isolationist shell? No, of course not. But a realist does not assume that there are solutions to these problems. Certainly a realist does not assume that there are universal principles like “free and fair elections” that can or should be applied as solutions to these problems. Some problems are intractable because they have been around for hundreds or thousands of years and are part and parcel of the Clash of Civilizations. They’re not going away no matter how hard some American President stomps his feet or how many drones he releases or how stern an op-ed piece is printed in the New York Times or how warm and fuzzy we feel when we see a picture of an Iraqi woman proudly displaying her finger freshly inked from voting. Yes, I know I’m an a-hole for criticizing the whole “purple revolution” thing. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Kissinger wasn’t kidding when he said that there were two and exactly two solutions to international problems: 1) hegemony (i.e., empire) over the opposing Civilization, or 2) balance of power with the opposing Civilization. The problem, of course, is that Door #1 is awfully expensive. For example, if you’re not prepared to push Germany into recession and risk a lot of lives – and I mean a LOT of lives – by expanding the NATO umbrella over Ukraine, then there’s no way you’re going to reverse a basic balance of power reality like “Russia gets a warm water port on the Black Sea, no matter what the petty satraps in Kiev think about that”. Sorry, but that’s the “solution” if you’re not happy with Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and I have yet to meet anyone who’s willing to pay that price. Are there aspects of The World As It Is where you ARE prepared to pay the high price of empire to prevent a balance of power equilibrium? It’s a short list for me, but yes, there is a list, headed by the preservation of Israel and South Korea as (largely) Western outposts in the middle of non-Western cultures. Is nation-building in Afghanistan on the list? Don’t make me laugh.
I think the crucial issue here (as it is with so many things in life) is to call things by their proper name. We’ve mistaken the self-interested imposition and adoption of so many Western artifices – the borders between Syria and Iraq are a perfect example, but you can substitute “democracy in Afghanistan” if you like, or “capital markets in China” if you want something a bit more contentious – for the inevitable and righteous spread of Western ideals on their own merits. This is a problem for one simple reason: if you think Something happened because of Reason A (ideals spreading “naturally” and “inevitably” within an environment of growing global cooperation), but it really happened because of Reason B (practices imposed or adopted out of regime self-interest within an environment of constant global competition), then you will fail to anticipate or react appropriately when that Something changes.
And here’s the kicker: change is coming. The Clash of Civilizations is not going to get better in 2015. It’s going to get worse. Why? Because for the past five years we have had a US government that was willing to pay the high price of empire to extend its monetary policy hegemony over the entire world to save the infrastructure of modern Western civilization: the US banking system and its collateral assets. Five trillion dollars later, the Fed has now declared victory and is demobilizing the QE troops. Is it a lasting victory? I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. It’s a useless question. In the immortal words of Bill Parcells, you are what your record says you are, and the Fed’s record looks pretty darn good. So they’re declaring victory and that’s how it will go down in the history books. The better question is: what now? What happens in the rest of the world now that the peace-keeping and price-raising and prosperity-bringing delivered by five trillion dollars in asset purchases … stops?
Part of the answer – a small part of the answer – is that other central banks with printing presses will try to take up some of the slack. The BOJ will continue to weaken the yen and monetize the government’s debt, and the ECB will do the same thing, although they will do less and will be forced to jump through bizarre hoops to preserve the pleasant fiction that they’re not monetizing government debt. I say that this is a small part of the answer to the question of “what now?” – even though if you listen to the prognosticators in financial media you would think that this is the entire answer – because monetary policy divergence, as important as it is, pales in comparison to political divergence. I don’t think it’s an accident that Ukraine starts ripping itself apart as the largest monetary experiment in the history of man starts to wind down. Or that ISIS starts to remap the entire Middle East. Or that North Korea attacks Sony. Or that the price of oil drops by half as OPEC faces its greatest existential threat. Did the Fed cause these events? Of course not. But they’re not unrelated. They’re all part of the fabric of global deleveraging. This is what happens when you have a global debt crisis and politicians respond to maintain the status quo by any means necessary – the political center does not hold. Whether you’re talking about the 1870’s or the 1930’s or today, it’s always the same story … domestic coalitions and sovereign nations and international alliances that were held together by mutual absolute gains in the good times are driven apart by relative gains and losses in the bad times, and those domestic coalitions and sovereign nations and international alliances that bridge two ancient civilizations are thrown into the centrifuge most of all.
The market flash points for 2015 are not limited to the obvious suspects, like Ukraine and ISIS. In fact, most of the obvious suspects are not terribly impactful on major markets, and some have the perverse effect of providing “good news” for markets the worse their situation becomes. For example, to the degree that Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia damage German growth rates, the market believes that this forces still greater ECB market accommodation and direct propping-up of financial asset prices in the Eurozone. The non-obvious suspects I’m looking at are countries that, like Ukraine, find themselves with one foot in one civilization and one foot in another but, unlike Ukraine, are much more central to global markets. Those countries are Greece, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and South Korea. I wrote about Greece two weeks ago, so won’t repeat all that here. Turkey, Iran, and Egypt are all the same basic story – ancient civilizations that had their day in the sun many centuries ago and are now being consumed by the Borg-like entity that is Islam. Persia, the most potent of the three cultures, is completely lost. Egypt is lost but hasn’t realized it yet, like a chicken running around with its head cut off. Turkey, the least of the three, has adopted enough Western antibodies to provide some resistance, but it’s just a matter of time before it becomes the Sick Man of Europe once again. South Korea … judging from how little it is discussed in the Western press it sometimes seems like no one cares about South Korea, and that’s a mistake. No country on earth is split between more civilizations, and no country is as sensitive AND vulnerable to the clashes that are coming down the pike.
So … am I terrified by the Clash of Civilizations? Am I getting out of the market and running for the hills? No. Not yet, anyway. So long as the market is dominated by the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence, any of these flash points that I’ve mentioned will inevitably be seen through the lens of monetary policy accommodation, making bad news in the real world good news for major stock markets, particularly here in the US. Global growth will get even more pathetic, of course, but that’s positive for major government bonds. Of all the flash points above I’m probably most concerned about Greece, but even then the concern is more for what Greece ultimately means for Italian politics than for what it means to Europe or major global markets directly.
What scares me about the Clash of Civilizations is that the three leaders of the three biggest civilizations – the US (Western), China (Sinic), and Russia (Orthodox) – will misplay their hands and take on another civilization directly or, worse, take on each other, and that will vaporize the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence in a nanosecond. The existential risk here for markets is not that China/Russia/Europe/America might “collapse”, whatever that means. No, the existential risk is that the great civilizations of the world will be “hollowed out” internally, so that the process of managing the ten thousand year old competition between civilizations devolves into an unstable game of pandering to domestic crowds rather than a stable equilibrium of balance of power. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of America’s finest diplomat since Benjamin Franklin, writing in his final book and delivering his most important warning.
Side by side with the limitless possibilities opened up by the new technologies, reflection about international order must include the internal dangers of societies driven by mass consensus, deprived of the context and foresight needed on terms compatible with their historical character. As diplomacy is transformed into gestures geared toward passions, the search for equilibrium risks giving way to a testing of limits. …
Because information is so accessible and communication instantaneous, there is a diminution of focus on its significance, or even on the definition of what is significant. This dynamic may encourage policymakers to wait for an issue to arise rather than anticipate it, and to regard moments of decision as a series of isolated events rather than part of a historical continuum. When this happens, manipulation of information replaces reflection as the principal policy tool.
– Henry Kissinger, “World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History” (2014)
I can’t over-emphasize how important I think this passage is, and I’ll be returning to it again in future Epsilon Theory notes. For now, though, I’ll just introduce two key game theoretic concepts at the core of Kissinger’s warning.
First, the proliferation of the most dangerous game of all – Chicken. When Kissinger writes about how “the search for equilibrium risks giving way to a testing of limits”, he’s talking about how ordinary diplomatic maneuvers can deteriorate into brinksmanship, the hallmark of the game of Chicken. I’ve written a little bit about this game in the context of the Fed-inspired “Taper Tantrum” in the summer of 2013, when Bernanke et al misread the market impact of a change in the acceleration of monetary easing, but that little episode will look like a gentle spring shower compared to the market storm that could result from a full-scale game of Chicken between, say, China and Japan over trade, exchange rates, and offshore oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. Chicken is such a dangerous game because it has no equilibrium, no outcome where all parties prefer where they are to where they might be. This constant cycling of one unstable outcome to another typically ends in disaster because the least worst outcome for each player – the “move” that each player makes to respond strategically to the other player’s most recent limit-testing actions – doesn’t remain constant but gets progressively worse over time. The game of Chicken is a mutual spiral into oblivion, and once you start down this road it’s really hard to stop because stopping means admitting defeat.
Second, the dumbing-down of all political games into their most unstable form – the single-play game. When Kissinger writes about how political leaders come to see “moments of decision as a series of isolated events”, he’s talking about the elimination of repeated-play games and shrinking the shadow of the future. Most games seem really daunting at first glance. For example, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is famous for having a very stable equilibrium where everyone is worse off than they easily could have been with some very basic cooperation. But there’s a secret to solving the Prisoner’s Dilemma – play it lots of times with the same players. Cooperation and mutually advantageous equilibria are far easier to achieve within a repeated-play game because reputation matters. The shadow of the future looms large if you’re thinking not only about this iteration of the game and the moves ahead, but also about the next time you have to play the game, perhaps for larger stakes, and the next, and the next. Imagine if you sat down at a poker table, were dealt one hand, and were then informed that everyone would have to get up and find another table with new players, at which point only one hand would be dealt there, too. That’s a series of single-play games, and it’s just as unpleasant as it sounds, whether you’re playing poker or you’re playing politics.
It won’t surprise many regular readers of Epsilon Theory if I say that I think much of what Kissinger warns about – “societies driven by mass consensus”, “gestures geared towards passions”, “manipulation of information” – has now reached, if not its full fruition, then at least a new quantum level of advanced and ubiquitous practice. And not just in the US, but also Russia and China and everywhere in between. Twenty-three years after Sam Huntington first presented his “Clash of Civilizations” argument, the conditions for that realist confrontation to be terribly severe are finally met. 2014 wrote an unpleasant story of nascent international splintering and conflict. Unfortunately, I think it was just an introductory chapter in a much longer book.
»
- 35625 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
And then there were three...
I'd place a hedge bet on one of the not-so-great civilisations too.
This map is a little more clear than the one in the article.
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/58/World_map.jpg
Note particularly the position of France.
north africa looks like the place to be. morroco, libya is sweet as honey.
The US Government has already committed an Act of Aggression against the Russian Federation by making into law the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 and Executive Order 13685. Under International Law, Russia is entitled to retaliate with of all conceivable means available at their disposition, including the military option (UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51).
War is on.
Based on the news today, the Russians have pretty much said "FU" and are preparing to either retaliate or take us out if we keep screing with them as our Emperor wished to do:
2015 Russia to Return to a Nuclear Cold War Policy – Strategic Forces now a PriorityLabels. Words. Blah blah blah. Let's face it, there have always been, are, and will always be two and only two types of government. There is the type of government that contributes to the wealth of its people, and there is the type of government that steals all the wealth from its people. Don't over complicate it.
Agree. And I don't agree that there is a clash of civilizations. Only clashes of rulers. I've traveled much of the world and the middle class is pretty much the same everywhere. They want to be left alone, work hard to get ahead, have their kids get a good education, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
There is only one type of government, one of rulers and the ruled, and no matter how you slice it, government is a net loss.
And Ben Hunt, what is this bullshit about free markets? They are just a mythic ethos of western civilization.
Are you daft or working for the propaganda machine?
Here is the only thing you need to be concerned about. Once the 18-wheelers stop rolling and delivering food, it's martial law USA. Prepare accordingly.
Time to change UN with United Civilizations...
i do not share with someone who do not drink alcohol, neither eat pork, fuck em. fuck retard civilization, someone saying pork is too close humans is crazy.
because they do not have right to cunt fuck their girls before wedding this entire arab world do ass fuck and even gay fuck and do not assume, those get caught are beheaded...
they do not assume what they are, retard gay hairy towel heads.
no need petrol so neither them, their land is hot shit sand, nuke em.
Clash of Civilizations my ass. This is a clash of the elites (the banking class and their enablers) for total control. I hope they all lose, for that is the only hope for the people to win.
Calm down bro. Some people don't drink because of their health. Plenty of Muslims drink because they like being drunk. Some people don't eat pork because of the fat content. Plenty of Muslims like bacon sandwiches. No one says "pork is too close humans" - that isn't even a sentence, let alone the basis for the prohibition on eating pork.
I'm not going to address the rest - just calm down and get to blaming the real pork-avoiders.
While what you say is true, the author's premise is that it no longer matters. The middle class as it were is too insignificant to be the fulcrum of a society in equillibrium. And that's the author's point - more destructive economic and political forces outside this "center" are in the kitchen . The only real debate is how hot the oven gets.
I disagree with you, and agree with the others above who pointed out that this is a clash of sociopathic elites who can never have enough and cannot simply leave people alone to live their own lives.
History is written in the blood of the small people, who kill each other at the behest of the empire builders. It is the empire builders who are the enemy. There is no greateness in them, only death, destruction and misery. There are too many who are willing to serve them (cops, military) in the name of "honor" and "glory" and "to protect and serve (that is, to serve themselves a portion of what the small people produce, at the muzzle of a gun). We need a military, but only to protect us from the other sociopaths who seek wealth, power, and "greatness". We wouldn't need nearly so many cops if there weren't so many victimless "crimes" defined in "law", and the small people could peacefully go about their affairs without violent interference from the state.
The people who need to be locked up are the ones who want to be "great leaders".
Re-watching Network after all these many years. Still amazing how prescient Chayefsky's words were in Howard Beale's mouth.
..
'Clash of Civilizations' - what bull.
You have a clash between one group of psychopaths with a monopoly of force within a given territory, and another group of psychopaths. 'Enlightened' leadership is that which isn't so greedy for money, power, and blood - - that they kill off their host population which they feed off of as parasites.
US 'leadership' seems to be proving itself uncontrollably exploitive . . . and insane.
The wall fell and we had a nuclear stand down.
20+ years of clashing by one civilization and here we are.
A bi-partisan effort.
Well done, lads.
too bad GPS is replacing cartography...
Until they flip the switch.. Get a compass, learn to use it..
stickin it right in the sahara
Asshole - you need to say NSFW!
when two civilizations fight, the one that has the most resources to use, is most organized and most brutal usualy wins. For the forseeable future this favors the USA.
It would be a stupid, destructive, unwinnable war. They better fight it in a third party region. Just like russia cant be conquered physically; the US and China would be just as cataclysimic for anyone stupid enough to invade.
Everybody loses. Hell, even the rothschilds(if you buy that one) would be fucked.
There won't be an invasion in any of the big 3. That will all be taken care of with push-button technology.
I don't know how I screwed up the post 'cause it's empty now... I tried to edit and place this link to a very interesting article. Please comment after you read it...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40561.htm
My original post said: My bet is on Vlad...
Can't say I don't understand the sentiments of the "russian" in that post, but that is one screed based on pure envy. Russians calling Americans imperialistic warmongers?! Hell, I know there is some truth to that; that's why we need to shrink the fuck out of govt, and take most of the power away from it.
That article, however, just screams to me how the russians are just pissed because our ways worked. They couldn't manage themselves out of a paper bag. They had half the eastern hemisphere and they lost it through malfeasance and incompitence. Now they're jealous.
Ha! Had it handed to 'em and they squandered it. Too bad.
But, with that said, yeah, we need to fall back to our own "civilization" borders and worry about ourselves. Let the russians have another chance if they want. They'll fuck it up, they cant manage their own country.
Good article with one blindspot and that is the role that the largely Jewish Neocon/Likudniks are playing in the formation and cheerleading of US foreign policy, particularly regarding the ME. Oil companies were'nt fabricating Iraqi WMDS, the Neocons were. The US empire inertia existed before this influence, no doubt, but he should call out its role today.
That is quite a propaganda piece.
Chinese offering Russia heartfelt assistance in the time of trouble brougton by Russian agression. Just a few years ago they were exchanging gunfire over their border dispute. Further, the Chinese are now attempting similar territorial gabs themselves.
The suggestion tha the troubles of Venezuela and Eritrea result from some US policy is nonsense. Of course the governmets implementing these bad policies must find some other party to hold responsible, other than themselves. It seems about as truhful as an Obama speech.
It wasnt making sense till i realised it was from world net daily....then i understood it was fiction.
Do you come to glorify Caesur, or to bury him ?
But there can only be One!
The civilisation of the Desert is hell bent to rule over them all.
wish I had another passport. then I could hedge my life accordingly. but for now I live in the ussa. I shudder to think of how bad it will get.
Oh clearly you jest! The world has never been better according to the propagandizing, Polititard's ass-kissing, shit-soaked rag we call "THE TELEGRAPH"
------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/11310456/Goodbye-to-one-of-the-best-y...
Newspapers can seem like a rude intrusion into the Christmas holidays. We celebrate peace, goodwill and family – and then along come the headlines, telling us what’s going wrong in the world. Simon and Garfunkel made this point in 7 O’Clock News/Silent Night, a song juxtaposing a carol with a newsreader bringing bad tidings. But this is the nature of news. Whether it’s pub gossip or television bulletins, we’re more interested in what’s going wrong than with what’s going right.
Judging the world through headlines is like judging a city by spending a night in A&E – you only see the worst problems. This may have felt like the year of Ebola and Isil but in fact, objectively, 2014 has probably been the best year in history. Take war, for example – our lives now are more peaceful than at any time known to the human species. Archaeologists believe that 15 per cent of early mankind met a violent death, a ratio not even matched by the last two world wars. Since they ended, wars have become rarer and less deadly. More British soldiers died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme than in every post-1945 conflict put together.
The Isil barbarity in the Middle East is so shocking, perhaps, because it comes against a backdrop of unprecedented world peace.
We have recently been celebrating a quarter-century since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which kicked off a period of global calm. The Canadian academic Steven Pinker has called this era the “New Peace”, noting that conflicts of all kinds – genocide, autocracy and even terrorism – went on to decline sharply the world over. Pinker came up with the phrase four years ago, but only now can we see the full extent of its dividends.
With peace comes trade and, ergo, prosperity. Global capitalism has transferred wealth faster than foreign aid ever could.
A study in the current issue of The Lancet shows what all of this means. Global life expectancy now stands at a new high of 71.5 years, up six years since 1990. In India, life expectancy is up seven years for men, and 10 for women. It’s rising faster in the impoverished east of Africa than anywhere else on the planet. In Rwanda and Ethiopia, life expectancy has risen by 15 years.
This helps explain why Bob Geldof’s latest Band Aid single now sounds so cringingly out-of-date. Africans certainly do know it’s Christmas – a Nigerian child is almost twice as likely to mark the occasion by attending church than a British one. The Ebola crisis has led to 7,000 deaths, each one a tragedy. But far more lives have been saved by the progress against malaria, HIV and diarrhoea. The World Bank’s rate of extreme poverty (those living on less than $1.25 a day) has more than halved since 1990, mainly thanks to China – where economic growth and the assault on poverty are being unwittingly supported by any parent who put a plastic toy under the tree yesterday.
Britons don’t need to look abroad for signs of progress. The Lancet report showed that, since 1990, life expectancy in Western Europe is up by five years – thanks, mainly, to fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease.
Ministers are now fretting about something else: a “time bomb” created because citizens are living longer and healthier lives than ever; the Queen now needs a team of seven people to send birthday cards to centenarians. Even the winter, one of our biggest killers, is losing its bite. For decades, at least 25,000 pensioners have died of cold-related diseases. A few weeks ago, it emerged that last winter the figure had fallen to 18,200 - the lowest ever recorded. Almost half a century after the moon landing, we’re finally working out how to insulate the homes of the elderly.
Prosperity is bringing benefits without trashing the planet. Since 1990, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are down, in spite of our economy being about 60 per cent larger – thanks to more efficient technology. Our roads are safer, as well as greener. Traffic deaths are down by two-thirds since 1990, and are lower now than when the Model T Ford was on the road.
Prosperity does bring new problems; obesity, the resulting diabetes and the costs of far longer (and better) end-of-life care. But these are the problems of success.
Just over a century ago, a period of similarly rapid progress was coming to an abrupt end. The Belle Époque was a generation of scientific, medical and artistic advances, which, then, felt unstoppable. John Buchan summed up this mood in his 1913 novel The Power House. “You think that a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism,” one of his characters says. “I tell you: the division is a thread, a sheet of glass. A touch here, a push there, and you bring back the reign of Saturn.” So it was to prove.
Nothing is irreversible. And there will be a great many people for whom life is tough, and looks set to remain so for some time. We still have a lamentably long list of problems to solve. But in the round, there’s no denying it: we are living in the Golden Era. There has never been a better reason for people the world over to wish each other a happy and prosperous new year.
Fraser Nelson is editor of 'The Spectator’
Give the man a Pulitzer!
"You've never had it so good."
I have 2 passports.
Unfortunately, both are for countries run by Zionists, so it doesn't really help.
And then there were two, the double helix of Russia and China. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/29/outlook-new-year-paul-craig-r...
Civilizations don't clash government's do. Maybe free msrkets will emerge as a result.
I think he left out a 'civilization' - one which has a particularly megalomaniacal eschatology and mythos and ethos.
The Beasts of the Apocalypse (1959)
Nothing civil about them....
I try to avoid looking at the Drudge Report as much as possible, but a couple minutes ago I thought I'd take a quick look to see what propanda the blue team was pushing these days (for complete disclosure, I actually used to believe in the red/blue divide BS).
I almost fell off my chair when I saw Drudge's current headline:
World's wealthiest, healthiest and safest than ever!
Chutzpah knows no limit.
Isnt that RED team propaganda ???
Unpossible! Drudge is gay!
It's a picture of Mexico...so I've already got some doubts.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/03/article-0-11948BB0000005DC-914...
It's a photo centred on Spanish North America, with French and British North America and excludes the colder parts of what would become Canada. No Portuguese colonies, either. Brasil and most islands off the map or hidden.
Reading comments by Americans from other nations, really makes many of you appear to be idiots.
You should spend 5 or 10 years outside. Do you some good.
No, Drudge is exposing blue team propaganda. He's red team, himself.
Like, say, HuffPo is blue team. If you can wade through all the ads and crap, they'll sometimes expose red-team prop.
The mere fact that you use blue-red shows you have been brain-washed. The colours switched teams in the 90's for no good reason. TPTB just change things out of boredom, PC is the same thing - once they solve one ''problem'' the org survives and attacks another ''problem'' forever.
Your point is valid on a macro scale but its a little more nuanced than that.. Throwing brain washed into the mix is a great way to piss off one of the wakening and to what purpose, your ego?
1.) Why are you such a self-assured prick?
2.) We don't change colours in my neck o' the woods.
3.) Urban ain't talking about the typical denizen of this realm. Most of this crowd are aware of Hegel and Cloward and Piven and Bernays.
However, out in the great wide world, red-blue is all too real.
Oh, is that when the Republicans finally became the party of the KKK?
Or are you talking about the 1890s, like you guys touting the "switched sides" theory normally do?
edit: why the hell does the comments section attach my comment to a completely unrelated comment on the 2nd page from the one I hit reply on?
I was replying to comment # 5603376 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-29/clash-civilizations#comment-560...
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=xx&l=en
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=30&c=xx&l=en
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=29&c=xx&l=en
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=xx&l=en
there is a simpler solution to peace in the world. looking at the totality of world history the east has been the "peaceful" side of the earth and the west the violent side. the east did not become violent again, afer centuries of relative peace, until the west showed up and "discovered" asia.
genocide the west(and its corrupt abrahmic philosophy) for peace in the world.
lol what? That's not even remotely true. All corners of this wold are soaked in blood.
asia is not immune to violence but when compared pre west and post west, asia was as peaceful as civilization ever was for hundreds of years....and then the west showed up to continue their nonstop, continuous warmongering on the euro continent since the romans on the asian continent.
china(with japan and the other asian countries including russia) will finally expel the uncivilized west once and for all this century, forever confining the beasts to their neanderthal homelands.
While I would agree that westernization of the unique cultures of Asia is lamentable, thinking that these groups were at peace for "hundreds of years" is pure fantasy that 10 minutes of research would disprove. However I will indulge. What dates were this cornucopia of peace achieved? I'll be nice and let you round to the nearest 100s.
i will turn it upon you. pre west, name all the international conflicts involving asian nations from post khan brothers to western colonization, a period of roughly 500 years. there is nothing remotely on the scale of what happened in europe from the roman empire to ww2 and onto the mid east conflict.
ignoring the super violent history of the barbaric west compared to the east is simply ignorance.
Khan's death was in 1227, so that puts your timeframe from 1200 to 1700.
1262 C.E. Berke–Hulagu war
1274 C.E. 1,281 C.E. Mongol invasions of Japan
1274 C.E. Battle of Bun'ei
1281 C.E. Battle of Koan
1351 C.E. Red Turban Rebellion
December 1359 C.E. - November 1,360 C.E. Red Turbans invasions of Korea
1370 C.E. Siege of Balkh
1381 C.E. Ming conquest of Yunnan
1300s C.E. 1,400s C.E. Miao Rebellions
1399 C.E. 1,402 C.E. Jingnan Campaign
1400s C.E. 1,500s C.E. Ming–Turpan conflict
1406 C.E. 1,407 C.E. Ming–H? War
1405 C.E. 1,433 C.E. Treasure voyages
1410 C.E. Ming–Kotte War
1206 C.E. 1,337 C.E. Mongol invasions
1449 C.E. Battle of Tumu Fortress
1336 C.E. — 1646 C.E. Vijayanagara Empire Conflicts
1520 C.E. Battle of Raichur
1407 C.E. — 1427 C.E. War against the Ming Dynasty
1467 C.E. Onin War
1467 C.E. — 1573 C.E. Sengoku period
1510 C.E. Prince of Anhua rebellion
1519 C.E. Prince of Ning rebellion
1521 C.E. First Battle of Tamao
1522 C.E. Second Battle of Tamao
1526 C.E. — 1857 C.E. Mughal Empire Conflicts
1526 C.E. Battle of Panipat
1527 C.E. Battle of Khanwa
1556 C.E. Battle of Panipat
1615 C.E. — 1682 C.E. Ahom-Mughal conflicts
1649 C.E. — 1653 C.E. Mughal–Safavid War
1553 C.E. — 1592 C.E. Le-Mac civil war
1548 C.E. — 1549 C.E. Burmese–Siamese War
1568 C.E. — 1603 C.E. Azuchi-Momoyama period
1560 C.E. Battle of Okehazama
1575 C.E. Battle of Nagashino
1582 C.E. Battle of Yamazaki
1600 C.E. Battle of Sekigahara
1592 C.E. — 1,598 C.E. Japanese invasions of Korea
1592 C.E. Siege of Busan
1592 C.E. Battle of Dadaejin
1592 C.E. Siege of Dongnae
1592 C.E. Battle of Sangju
1592 C.E. Battle of Chungju
1592 C.E. Battle of Imjin River
1592 C.E. Gangwon Campaign
1618 C.E. 1683 C.E. Manchu conquest of China
1619 C.E. Battle of Sarhu
1626 C.E. Battle of Ningyuan
1640 C.E. Battle of Songjin
1644 C.E. Battle of Shanhai Pass
1627 C.E. First Manchu invasion of Korea
1627 C.E. — 1673 C.E. Tr?nh–Nguy?n War
1633 C.E. Battle of the Southern Fujian Sea
1636 C.E. Second Manchu invasion of Korea
1637 C.E. — 1638 C.E. Shimabara Rebellion
1642 C.E. Battle of Nanyang
1644 C.E. Occupied Beijing
1677ish C.E. Conquest of the Tarim Basin and war with the Central Asians
1652 C.E. 1689 C.E. Sino–Russian border conflicts
1674 C.E. 1681 C.E. Revolt of the Three Feudatories
1683 C.E. Battle of Penghu
1690 C.E. 1757 C.E. First Oirat–Manchu War
September 3, 1690 C.E. Battle of Ulan Butung
1696 C.E. Battle of Zuunmod
You might want to try reading some history. Violence, power grabs, rebellion, and war are not unique to the western sphere.
I think the list of the 200+ plus years of American wars would be longer and more global than the regional and tribal wars you mention. Note, however, that despite these wars, at the time the Europeans and later Americans arrived in Asia, China was still China, Japan was still Japan and Korea was, believe it or not, a unified Korea.
Additionally, Okinawa was the sovereign Ryukyu kingdom, paying light tribute to Japan and China and under their joint protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Here, have a free link about war - an impressive list to be sure, but far less then a war a year. The list is comprable to the list of asian war during the period with the exception of the 1800s when the majority was under the thumb of the East India Company. As a US person of Native ancestry the 1800's is particualarly painful for me as well, but it is what it is. You have to look at history with an open mind though. Never forget he victors write history, and the glorious unification to one is the bloodthirsty iron fist of a dictator to others. The US has enough blood on it's face to drown in, but so does every nation on Earth - the nations of the East very much included.
almost all of your examples are internal power struggles that ultimately led to the current nation states. only the mongols were inerested in empire building.
I'm sorry that you are letting current events color your perception of history. Keep convincing yourself that the east is the good guy, while the west is bad and the source of all your troubles. There is no debate possible with a closed mind so influenced by current events.
Nonsense.
You clearly don't know much about the topic - why pretend otherwise? There was unceasing war in China, Japan, and Russia, within and without.
From about 1630 to 1853 (when the Americans graciously forced open Japan to the world), Japan was isolated. Other than some trading through a Dutch outpost in the harbor (not even on the mainland) of Nagasaki and with limited trade with Korea and China, no foreigner could enter Japan and no Japanese could leave. They fought no external wars with anyone.
And then the Americans came and everything changed.
"fought no external wars"
Your "Internal Power Strugges" are only considered "internal" because the factions involved are all within a current nation-state's borders. Would you call the Three Kingdoms "internal"? What about the Mughal dynasty wars? I assure you, nobody considered them "internal power struggles" at the time.
Your position is a massively ignorant statement that borders on idiocy and propaganda. China has a history with over a dozen massive kill events, some within your timeframe, and one of which was possibly the most catastrophic in terms of the percentage of human lives lost since the Toba Eruption bottleneck 75,000 years ago.
Killing up to 20% of ALL HUMANS ALIVE is non-trivial.
Are you like some type of professor at one of our esteemed universities that teaches "Queer Theory"?
Evil: Why are you so compulsively obsessed with homosexuality?
Methinks your mindless focus on this sexual theme on almost every subject (where the homosexual meme is totally irrelevant)bespeaks of a deeper-perhaps latent- passion.
ya mean he is a closet queen? lol
Methinks you missed the point.
"Queer Theory" is cultural Marxist gibberish designed to undermine traditional western values. Hatred of the West, hatred of normal sexuality, hatred of white people, hatred of religion, etc - all wrapped in the same pseudo-intellectual bullshit, all part of the same propaganda effort. Hence, in comparing the other poster's comments to "Queer Theory," I think he was saying they were, likewise, cultural Marxist bullshit.
The Japanese called the Westerner "nanbanjin" meaning barbarian.
Remember Japan was forced to open to trade and commerce by violence.
That is a very interesting topic. The Japanese government continues to gloss over the issue of the Perry invasion. There is even Black Ship Festival in Shimoda, Japan. A monument to Perry was erected overlooking the harbor in 1954 with the following inscription:
Built for the centenary of the establishment of relations between the US & Japan in 1954. A stone monument with relieffs of Townsend Harris [1804-1878] & Matthew Perry [1794-1858] & quotations from their writings. Perry's quotation is 'I have come here as a peace maker,' and Harris' is 'My mission was friendly one in every respect.'
Yet, even today, Japanese know this episode as an invasion.
Ironically, the treaty that Perry forced the Japanese to sign is officially known as "Japan–US Treaty of Peace and Amity."
I guess Mao and Pol Pot were westerners.
Uh, Genghis Khan?
Any relation to Jenjiss?
Or Kublai? Still working on my "stately" pleasure dome.
the only empire builder from asia. How many have there been in the west? favorite quote referring to the abrahamics' god. "your god must not be very happy with you to have sent me to punish you."
Right. Except for the Sumerians. And the Babylonians. And the Assyrians. And the Persians. And the Parthians.
They're called "eastern despots" for a reason, duh...
ancient history not matched followed by a long history of relative peace until the romans showed up followed by the ottomans to the brits and now the usa.
The first western empire builder was Alexander, who went through the Persians like crap through a goose. The Parthians were coexistent with the Romans and prevented them from conquering much in Asia. None of the above were "abrahamic" in their religion, unless you count the Romans after Constantine. The Ottomans were Muslim, and the British and Americans are Christian. "Abrahamic" I suppose, although how that trite designation bore or bears upon how each has pursued its imperial goals is far from obvious. And when it comes to empires, let's not forget the Mayans, Aztecs and Incans of the Meso and South American New World. Or in North America, the Iroquois League. I'm not sure what the burr in your saddle is, insisting that the West is somehow more evil than the rest. In my book any honest reading of history bears out exi1ed0ne's observation, that "All corners of this wol[r]d are soaked in blood."
"followed by the Ottomans"
The Ottomans were Asians, from Central Asia..
In any case, the idea that Asia was generally more peaceful than Europe prior to the arrival of the Europeans is nonsense - hardly worth a reply, really. Just Google "Asian history" and follow the wiki links relating to wars and battles. You might find the exploits of the Mongolians interesting, if you want to see some incredible levels of slaughter and destruction. Bottom line: every society where there are agricultural surpluses sufficient to feed soldiers experience war on a regular basis. And even in extremely primitive hunter-gather societies, they still had violent conflict, but it wouldn't rise to the level of what we call war. It's just human nature - people want what others' have and they often find theft easier than trade.
As long as humans look to leaders, there will be wars.
When humans learn to think for themselves things may change.
I guess we're fucked.
Imagine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
The situation in Ferguson demonstrates what happens when some communities "think for themselves."
It may not be called war but ask those who ive there if hy consider it peaceful.
The West conquered the world not because it was more prone to violence, but because it had more wealth, the cause of which being its unique political system: namely, classical liberalism ("life, liberty, and property"). It is because of that system that the West, alone in the history of the world, achieved sustained per capita economic growth - to the point that old men in 1900 enjoyed higher standards of living than had the kings under whom they were born. That, more so than all of its cultural accomplishments, is why the West is superior.
No other civilization could ever challenge the West, it could only ever be destroyed from within, through the abandonment of the principles which made it great. But, sadly, that's precisely what's happening. The rot has been growing for a hundred years, and I hope to God it can be arrested before the ship sinks. Tyranny is the perennial form of human social organization, the natural state of affairs. By contrast, freedom is young and rare - if once lost it might never be regained.
The West conquered the world because it could and because it had no moral objection to using violence against people of other cultures to accomplish it. It is as simple as that.
But the West is no different from the other empires throughout history, whether it be relative wealth, morality, respect for others, or ultimate collapse. The West's domination of the globe, in historic terms is a blip, nothing extraordinary.
"The West conquered the world because it could and because it had no moral objection to using violence against people of other cultures to accomplish it. It is as simple as that."
Any civilization that could conquer the world would do so - the salient point is that only the West could (because of its unique political system which gave it unprecedented wealth).
"But the West is no different from the other empires throughout history, whether it be relative wealth, morality, respect for others, or ultimate collapse. The West's domination of the globe, in historic terms is a blip, nothing extraordinary."
The Western economic experience over the last five centuries is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the world - there was never anything remotely approaching the level of per capita economic growth achieved in Europe during that time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_c...
What was the cause? Liberalism.
http://mises.org/library/european-miracle
It's the reason we're having a conversation on an internet forum, rather than shivering in our huts after a long day of turnip farming.
"It's the reason we're having a conversation on an internet forum, rather than shivering in our huts after a long day of turnip farming."
That great shift in wealth has only come in the last century with industrialization, mass distribution of cheap energy and, lately, technology. The West got lucky.
And I do believe that 500 years is a stretch as Asia was not dominated by Western colonialists until the late 1700s, early 1800s. Asia might be considered as part of the world by some.
As for Liberalism (referring to government) being the reason for Western superiority, perhaps it is. However, one must realize that America claimed it was the Manifest Destiny of being a superior race that obligated it expand its presence, first to the Pacific and later across it to Asia. The point being, rationalization can always be found for claiming superiority by anyone who chooses to enslave others through violence for their own benefit. Of course, Manifest Destiny is not something Americans want to talk about any more. Perhaps Liberalism, especially the kind that is forced on others, may likewise be discredited by future generations.
"That great shift in wealth has only come in the last century with industrialization, mass distribution of cheap energy and, lately, technology. The West got lucky."
Always the refrain of the left – it wasn't capitalism, it was technology! Theoretical discoveries can occur in an impoverished society (though a richer society has better odds since it has more leisure time) but discovering the principles of the steam engine doesn't cause railroads to materialize out of thin air – they have to be built. And that requires past capital accumulation (e.g. factories to smelt iron), and the proper economic incentives (e.g. private ownership will ensure the railroad is built better/cheaper), etc. I'll give you two empirical examples of the impotence of mere scientific knowledge. First, the European miracle began about 250 years before any of the major discoveries of the industrial revolution (see the data I posted in my other post) – it was that growth which permitted the rapid adoption of the new technology once it was discovered. Second, look at the USSR and the US in the late 20th century. The Soviets were behind in military technology, but they certainly had the technical knowledge to produce civilian goods and services – yet they did so very poorly. For instance, the Soviets knew how to make razor blades just as well as the US, but there was a constant razor blade shortage. That is not explainable by any differences in knowledge or raw materials – it is explained by political consideration alone (the US had a liberal economy, the USSR did not).
“As for Liberalism (referring to government) being the reason for Western superiority, perhaps it is. However, one must realize that America claimed it was the Manifest Destiny of being a superior race that obligated it expand its presence, first to the Pacific and later across it to Asia. The point being, rationalization can always be found for claiming superiority by anyone who chooses to enslave others through violence for their own benefit. Of course, Manifest Destiny is not something Americans want to talk about any more. Perhaps Liberalism, especially the kind that is forced on others, may likewise be discredited by future generations.”
Do you have any ethical views of your own, or do you think all cultures, political systems, social systems, laws, etc are equally good?
I have no problem with capitalism above any system. In fact, I wish we had a capitalist system today but I don't see it. And I am by no means a leftist (thanks for attempting to categorize me in order to discredit my comment). While I recognize the critical part the capitalism plays in the advancement of any culture, one can not overlook the fact that two of the most profound events in human history (cheap energy and technology) have occurred in the past century. Perhaps you could give credit to Western superiority but it is just as likely that correlation does not mean causation.
As far as scientific advancements, China is credited with inventing gunpowder. However, it did not use it as a primary means to colonize other nations. Indeed, it was the Liberal West who used it against China. So, which culture was superior, the liberal West or the dynastic East. Is violent domination the single determinant?
"Do you have any ethical views of your own, or do you think all cultures, political systems, social systems, laws, etc are equally good?"
Yes, I have ethical views on cultures, political systems, social systems, and laws. I do not think it is ethical for one nation or culture to interfere with another nation or culture, especially based on some rationalized, mythical belief in their own superiority. In fact, I believe it is unethical to attempt it. I do not like laws that are not enforced equally across the board regardless of economic, political or class distinctions except for one qualification. I believe that politicians, bureaucrats and others who work at taxpayers expense (including military personnel) regardless of the political system, should be held to higher account for their actions than that of the average person. I believe there would be far fewer laws if this were so. Socially, I do not believe that society should be manipulated but should be allowed to evolve naturally and that laws against cultural manipulation should be the most rigid. I do not believe that one culture (society) has the right to force cultural change on another.
Those nations or cultures who feel superior should lead by example, not force others to be like them.
However, those are rather idealistic views. As for the current world, I see very little of any of my views reflected. Some cultures are stronger than others. For them, I hope they can retain them long enough to survive the current world situation.
Do you have any ethical rationalization for the actions of the West during their colonial periods?
I agree with just about everything you said. Cheap energy is really the driver to enable projecting power across the globe and enable sustained standing armies.
"I do not think it is ethical for one nation or culture to interfere with another nation or culture, especially based on some rationalized, mythical belief in their own superiority."
I also agree very much with this statement, with the exception that it is solely a characteristic of the west. Asian history is very bloody. The Western moment just happened to occur at the same time as cheap energy for projecting power emerged. Pretending that if cheap energy supplies were available before the West incursion into Asia that the power structures of the time wouldn't project their military power wherever they could displays a profound misunderstanding of social power structures. The fact that their forays were limited to the geographic region has more to do with the ability to maintain long supply lines over difficult terrain or by sea (both an intensively energy dependent process) rather than overall peaceful demeanor and superior culture.
"The Western moment just happened to occur at the same time as cheap energy for projecting power emerged."
Oil was not being used in any meaningful way until the early 20th century - by which time Europe was already far ahead of the rest of the world economically, and the colonial empires were already long established. Oil cannot explain European supremacy.
Cheap energy includes more then just oil, although oil has accelerated it substantially. Advances in agriculture produced enough spare calories to support the development of complex societies and specialization. Specialization leads to technological advancements. Private property ownership and risk rewarding economic systems help as well.
"Advances in agriculture produced enough spare calories to support the development of complex societies and specialization. Specialization leads to technological advancements."
In other words, economic development occurs.
"Private property ownership and risk rewarding economic systems help as well."
In other words, economic development occurs more rapidly in economically liberal societies.
QED
Um, what exactly are you QEDing to? This has nothing to do with your previous post or my answer.
"While I recognize the critical part the capitalism plays in the advancement of any culture, one can not overlook the fact that two of the most profound events in human history (cheap energy and technology) have occurred in the past century."
I already addressed your point about technology (a discovery alone means nothing without the economic wherewithal to implement it). As for cheap energy, I presume you mean oil, yet oil only became a significant source of energy in the early 20th century - about four centuries too late to explain Europe's economic rise.
"Is violent domination the single determinant?"
Nowhere did I argue that the West is superior because it conquered other civilizations. I'm arguing that the West is superior because of its liberal political system which made it incomparably prosperous.
"I do not think it is ethical for one nation or culture to interfere with another nation or culture... I do not believe that one culture (society) has the right to force cultural change on another."
Moral relativism, as I suspected. As in: the British are no better than the Indians, so the British have no right to interfere with the Indian culture, so (for instance) if they were stop the Indian practice of forcing widows onto their husbands' funeral pyres, the British would be in the wrong - not the Indians murdering their women. That's your view?
Well, suffice it to say, I strongly disagree. A culture has no right to self-determination. A culture, or nation, or other collective has no rights at all - only individuals have rights. And if one culture is violating the individual rights of its members, then it is entirely justifiable and laudable for another culture to intervene to stop those violations.
That said, in reality, this kind of policy often doesn't work - it's difficult to change a culture from the outside. Moreover, if you're interested in liberalism, as I am, decentralization of power is important. While a liberal world-empire is an appealing thought, that kind of concentration of power is dangerous - i.e. who's to say it remains liberal over time? So, while I approve of liberal imperialism in principle, there are a number of reasons to oppose it in practice. In short, sometimes it's a good idea, other times not.
It's the reason we're having a conversation on an internet forum, rather than shivering in our huts after a long day of turnip farming.
++++++++
John Wilmont,
You should recognize that many of those you are addressing have spent a long day turnip farming before they post on this web site.
Um... how 'liberal' were Spain and Portugal in 1492? Not very. Nor did these countries conquer Latin America because they were rich; rather, they became rich as a result of conquering them and taking control of their gold and silver mines. Liberalism had nothing to do with it. They just happened to be the first countries on earth to have deep-sea navies.
"Um... how 'liberal' were Spain and Portugal in 1492?"
I suppose you're thinking of the inquisition et al, but I'm talking about economic liberalism - i.e. the extent to which property rights were protected, the extent to which the state refrained from interfering in the market economy. And Europe in general, including Spain and Portugal, was much more economically liberal than the non-European cultures it was interacting with.
"Nor did these countries conquer Latin America because they were rich; rather, they became rich as a result of conquering them and taking control of their gold and silver mines."
First, they were already richer than the peoples they were conquering: see the historical economic data that I posted earlier. Second, adding money (gold and silver) to an economy does not create wealth, it only redistributes it. The import and gold and silver into the European economy had the same effect as the Fed's money creation is having now - wealth is not created, it is only transferred to the recipient of the new money away from other money holders. In other words, gold and silver from the new world made Spain and Portugal richer, but only by making other Europeans poorer - hence it does not explain Europe's wealth as a whole.
"They just happened to be the first countries on earth to have deep-sea navies."
They didn't "just happen" to build ocean going vessels. You can give blueprints for such a ship to hunter gathers in the jungle, but they'll never be able to build it because they don't have the economic infrastructure. It was not some spontaneous technical discovery but past capital accumulation which allowed European to travel across the oceans.
Regions without long-distance technology were restricted to fighting locally - which they did. The West did both because they developed long-distance technology.
"genocide the west"
Let's you and him fight variant #6,000,753,201
egad that was jewsy
The Cocaroaches & Rats will survive.
Dude, the preferred nomenclature is Arabs, or eventually Islamicate peoples, if you wanna get all academic about it.
How does "inbred first cousins" sound?
Hillbillies everywhere are jealous.
I'm not sure you've ever managed to be academic in your FOX news watching life.
I weep as realize you are watching Mr Madison.
The Experiment you devoted your life to has failed.
Surprised the Author didn't include the following quote from War Criminal at large Kissinger:
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
- Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991
Battlefield L.A. was such a great Marines vs Aliens flick.
Los Angeles' ultimate choice: Zionist UN or angry Chinese.
The banksters need to repay us.
Kissinger, just a small visible part of the Zionist treason iceberg.
The only thing that will make the Chinese in LA mad is if their property values go down in Arcadia, San Marino, and Puente Hills
I suspect that we lost many a battlefield to the Aliens already. E.g. NY, DC, LA.
also this from the son of the FED/CFR architect.
“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” James (son of Paul) Warburg ( Banker, Shareholder, Founder, US Federal Reserve, Founder Council on Foreign Relations 1896-1969 ) while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
Chupa - Kissinger may be correct in the analysis that people will trade rights for security but what he neglects to say is that the police state that grows from this arrangement make the people far less productive and hence such governments become unsustainable. This is basically the reason every government fails in the end.
The ones that last longer are Republics where all are under the same rule of law using a justice system to enforce a level field.
If global debate was encouraged instead of stymied, I might support this push for world government but there works of stymying debate and using almost all fear to accomplish the goal tells me the world has not evolved socially to be ready for it yet.
Let's get real, I am just starting to dialogue with people overseas and get to know them. Also, the bank-led global solution to monetary balance to to shift it West to East. Half the globe doing poorly the other half gains with the other half doing well shows me the performance level of these individuals and model could not provide a sustainable government. Bankers make loans, they don't do fiscal policy.
b.1923.... WTF !!!!
.
"It's a prodigious achievement! You're gonna love it! It's putrid!"
Curly
There are only two centers of power: Zion and the rest.
The real three "civilizations" are China, Russia, and Zion.
Within Zion there are two spheres of power: The DC US, which is almost fully used up, and Europe, which is to be the new wardog, and base of power and theft.
The other alternative is to believe that the DC US, CONgress, the Puppet-In-Chief, and the Supreme Obeyers, make their own decisions irrespective of what the Zionist banksters desire. And 2% controlling 63% is a fluke.
The banksters need to repay us.
Zion is like a magnet using an invisible force to steal wealth. To see the force, Zion, you must look at who occupies the hidden junctions of power, and where the stolen wealth flows. Much like metal shavings on a piece of paper reveals a magnet's hidden lines of force.
I found it odd that the author could write so much on this subject, yet dismiss central banking as being a flash in the pan, not worthy of consideration.
Civilizations. How quaint. And now, an excerpt from Mark Twain's Concerning The Jews:
"To conclude. - If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"
And this was in 1898. Same as it ever was. Just more of it.
Oh, I think hyperethnocentrism, banking/usury, and the power of belief [Supremacism] has a little to do with it.
Belief is a tool - and wealth and urban living confers all sorts of advantages.
One might wonder, too, if Jerusalem contributed very much to the world that was good, especially relative to Rome and Athens. I'm not so sure.
And note that the Dark Ages ended very soon after the 'expulsions.' A coincidence, to be sure, but a curious one.
Think of the placebo effect - now think of a socioreligious variant of it. The Indians, Chinese, and others also have ancient cultures, also excel - they just weren't dispersed around the large centers of Europe as bankers and merchants for 1,000 years.
--
Got an hour?
Ted Pike's - The Other Israel (full documentary)"The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all"
Money lending is parasitic and if unrestricted it destroys the host.
Each country you mention are using the first to blink mentality. Game theory and Nash equilibrium model.
Here is a "Clash of Civilizations" article on how the Euro Civil War starts in 2017 due to the financialization of the economy, rampant migration and the Islamization of a variety of governments.
https://eurocivilwar2017.wordpress.com/
If only.....
Soon it'll be too late to save ourselves.
Obamacare Architect: Yeah, We Lied to The "Stupid" American People to Get It Passed.
- MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber
What do you think of Western civilization?
A: I think it would be a good idea.
– Mahatma Gandhi
At which point Mahatma Coat decided to go for a shit in the Ganges, picking his way between dead animal carcases, wading through ankle-deep sewage and having to step over deliberately crippled beggar children before he reached the Sacred River.
All this Western self-flaggelation pisses me off big time.
Then the British turned India into a Garden of Eden. Of course, some people had to be enslaved, killed, and addicted to opium in order to save the nation, but that was a small price to pay for profit, no?
There is absolutely no question that the British left India a better place than they found it.
The same with most of the colonies, British or otherwise.
Well, sure, if you ask the British. There are a lot of dead Indians who might disagree, though.
The Spaniards fucked it all up,
There were many disagreeable Indians.
Fewer after British administration.
Well if they're dead I don't think they're in a position to agree or disagree. This thread has turned into a discussion on the merits of the Raj. Personally I think it was a very good thing both for India and Britain but that's a subject for another day.
The issue is this constant Western self-flagelation, the almost masochistic delight with which this nonsense from gandhi is quoted ad nauseam. No other civilization has ever fallen into such an abyss of self-hatred.
The British ruled India with a remarkably light hand. I don't have figures for you off the top of my head, but I'd bet the farm that the number of violent deaths per capita was much higher before the British arrived. People look at the violence wrought by European overseas and forget that those places were already violent before the European arrived - often much more so.
Palestine's definitely better off, isn't it!
Let's you and him fight.
"All this Western self-flaggelation pisses me off big time."
Me too, Monty, me too
And it's everywhere.
The texbooks devote more time to the religious practices of illiterate cannibals in Africa than to the Protestant Reformation.
The British were imperialist demons, while the Indian practice of burning their widows alive (to which the British put an end) was just a charming local custom.
Etc, etc
The people who promote this garbage are not prejudiced against the Western races, as some conservatives mistakenly believe, they are prejudiced against what the West represents - namely, individual liberty. And they know that to extirpate liberal values in the West, they have to destroy the people's reverence for their own culture and history - which is nothing but the story of the triumph of human liberty.
"the story of the triumph of human liberty."
So, sending in the marines to overthrow the Hawaiian kingdom at the request of and for the benefit of American businessmen is a triumph of human liberty?
You should take the time to notice that the people sending those Marines are the same ones saying you should be ashamed of those Marines going there.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going on there.
Look, I don't have blinders on. But you see, there is little difference between the "triumph of liberty" argument for the colonial period and the "spreading democracy" argument of today. I am of the General Smedley Butler, Ron Paul, Charles Lindbergh, George Washington school of foreign policy. Traders with all and allies with none. And defending the nation means defending the borders, not defending corporations who stake claims to the resources of other nations and then ask the military to intervene when the locals object.
Instead, since the days of Manifest Destiny, the US has been rather indiscriminately bullying, subverting and flat out killing whomever it pleases for relatively short term goals which seem to change on whims. If you value the Constitutional, you should object to having standing armies in 200 nations around the globe while American borders are unguarded. That hardly fits the definition of defense.
"So, sending in the marines to overthrow the Hawaiian kingdom at the request of and for the benefit of American businessmen is a triumph of human liberty?"
I never said the West was perfect: just better than the rest.
We could go back and forth all day trading atrocities or injustices committed by various civilizations, but those anecdotes prove very little. You need to look at the big picture. Look at long-term economic growth, GDP per capita. On that front, the West is vastly superior to all other civilizations, and it cannot be explained (contrary to the Marxist propaganda) either by luck or by the exploitation of other peoples. It can only be explained by the economic system of the West, namely, liberalism.
"they have to destroy the people's reverence for their own culture and history"
Indeed John as they know this is an indispensable requirement for controlling a people. Mass immigration from the Third World is another powerful weapon........ the combination creating a population that's deracinated, dumbed down and lacking social cohesion and self-belief.
Plus one except for the protestant deformation.
This is deeply flawed.
All the Russian and Chinese women on offer on the banner ads speak to the deeper dynamic of blending of people through intermarriage specifically and contractual relationships in general. Roman Law mingled with Germanic codes tp create something entirely new called the Middle Ages. This kind of flux starts at the bottom via familia and nachbar yet slowly but INEXORABLY alters civilizations to their deepest core. The more integrated the relationships, the less likely war and predation occurs.
Without this renewal, the world would be hopelessly dull and deadened. Enjoy it. Do your part and screw an asian woman.
I think your deeply flawed. My wife is Chinese Asian, she treats me so well. After two failed American women divorces (who just steal 50% wealth), you never look back. My gem cooks, cleans, and makes sure everything is in order. In the beginning, we butted heads. After 10+ years, trust prevailed. Her family left Red China Communism and moved to the Philippines. She’ll look you in the eye and tell you most Chinese people are rotten shit. Mrs. Atomizer is the most pro-capitalist woman I’ve ever met in my life. That’s why I love her. Winks.
Good for you. Doing your part to diminish the clash of civilizations and the rest.
For the records, I don't think most chinese people are "rotten shit". I don't think any particular "people" are more rotten shit than any other as a rule.
Becomming "rotten shit" takes training. Societies create the excrement and goat screwing head choppers.