The paranoia of the WMD shareholder/stakeholders and their political puppets has never been more clearly outlined than the past few days. I have just read Gregory Clark's analysis of what's been going on with US/NATO propped up Ukraine and its continual bombing of the major Russian enclave provinces - 150,000 Ukraine troops massed against them - now finally being protected by Russian forces! But without proper analysis the picture emerges as the Biden-Blinken and NATO wishes. Any red-flag has only been from the US/NATO/Ukraine side.
"I detect in Europe’s efforts—pursued cautiously, as the Europeans typically proceed with the Americans—the impulse to act autonomously and in their own interests toward a Ukraine settlement."
Yes, and this is what I wonder about in the wake of Russia's decision to interrupt the process it set in train in December. Siding with Russia will now be more difficult for the likes of France and Italy. Equally, Russia's carefully built brand of always acting in accordance with international law must I think take a bit of a hit, at least in the short term.
Given their demonstrated track record of strategic acuity and almost relentless consistency it seems foolish to assume Putin, Lavrov and co have suddenly lost their marbles. So, presumably they were persuaded to abort the negotiating track they were on by some combination of looming escalation against the Donbass and/or despair at the possibility of a genuine diplomatic breakthrough with the Europeans. I had thought the tide was slowly turning their way but perhaps that was simply wishful thinking on my part.
If nothing else, this decision should sharpen the various players' calculations. The stakes have been raised.
And - an "innocent" US corruption in Ukraine... -- that is why Biden is so shrill
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine -- it looks well-researched and an outstanding in-depth analysis of US corruption in Ukraine
There are two separate things in this post. One is Mr. Hoffman's thoughts from the cusp of the US defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese and the other is the events of recent days in the Ukraine.
I disagree with Mr. Hoffman. On the one hand, I agree that you have a choice between a world hegemon and ... what? It sure as hell isn't "a world order policy". Making world order policies is what a hegemon does but Mr. Hoffman doesn't want a hegemon. I have not read this book but what Patrick quotes from it makes it sound like he is looking for a latter day Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was legendary in Rome but even assuming that he was a real person, the world can't afford to rely on finding such a soul. Worse still, Mr. Hoffman says that the world can't stand the mechanical application of disembodied principles. Frankly you get a choice between being a nation (world) of laws or a nation (world) of men. When I think about a world of laws, I'm not imagining international law but rather Zhou En Lai's principles. That would cut right through all the crap about the Ukraine.
Then we get to the Ukraine, playground of the Western imperialists. I think Marshall Auerback was absolutely correct when he said that the Ukraine would prove to be NATOs Waterloo. I wrote a friend of mine about the Ukraine yesterday and he wrote back - So you think that the Ukraine got what they deserved. I responded, indeed, in fact I think they got off easy. However, before we get to what Patrick is taking about, we have to establish a level playing field that doesn't exist. The United States launches aggressive war against Iraq who had done nothing. The United States attempts to cause "regime change" all over the world, allying themselves with whatever scum they can find - Al Qaeda or its lookalikes in the Middle East, Nazis in the Ukraine, right wing white supremacists in South America. Where are the calls to disconnect the US from SWIFT? Where are the calls to kick the US off the Security Council? Until all nations are treated equally, no nation will be treated fairly.
"World order" as opposed to "primacy" is an ideal and a fluid and imperfect process as opposed to top down policy. But it takes a kind of courageous goodwill which is anathema to empire.
Maybe because those "disembodied principles" are not as broadly applicable as necessary. If the map doesn't describe what people encounter, no matter how principled it might be, it's useless.
For example, the basis of society is responsibilities. Rights are a privilege that is granted. They can't be guaranteed when no one is responsible for the problems. The Tragedy of the Commons is a consequence of everyone having rights and no one being responsible.
No. If I may quote: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Clearly, the founding fathers didn't see rights as a privilege granted. They also didn't see the famous three rights as the only inalienable rights as they are only among the inalienable rights. That said, I would completely agree that rights and responsibilities form a binary star system. You can't have one without the other. But it's not quite the same as what you just said. If you have a right, you have to be responsible for the consequences of your exercising that right. That's not the same as problems. I have the right of free speech. If, in exercising that right, I cause problems for somebody trying to commit some chicanery, for example, well, that's just too damn bad. You also make the same error I see all the time. You rightly point out that rights come with responsibilities for the consequences but you don't mention the opposite. You cannot levy responsibilities on someone unless they also have rights to control the circumstances associated with said responsibilities.
My only comment to your first paragraph is simple. Get a better map. I don't know what disembodied principles Hoffman was thinking of when he said that but you really only have two choices. Either some ONE (I know pornography when I see it) makes the decision of world order (aka hegemon) or you use principles/rules/guidelines to have the decision of world order made. I said that in the passive form deliberately. No one anybody makes the decision so, in reality, that's not world order, that's world amorphous structure. That doesn't have quite the same ring to it as world order but as Cara above you points out, it is anathema to empire.
Think of it in bottom up terms, rather than top down principles; Consider that we effectively quantify most of our responsibilities as "work," while much of our rights are effectively quantified in terms of money and status. The Constitution is "disembodied principles" to most people's lives.
Top down, we have to organize society that it functions according to generally agreed rules, as well as a whole suite of cultural relationships, from a common language to measurements. Government, as the executive and regulatory function, is analogous to a central nervous system, while money and banking are analogous to blood and the circulation system. Every society that has grown beyond small groups has evolved forms of these mechanisms and even those smaller have organic, relational hierarchies and systems of exchange. These all do both define and limit our degrees of freedom to act. If we ever want to get beyond the stage where what we are told and what actually happens are seriously disconnected, we have to explore and better understand the processes driving our societies. Not just assume some document written a couple hundred years ago will save us from ourselves.
As for "creator," logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. Ideals are not absolutes and assuming them to be tends to empower the close minded and confuse the open minded. Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic societies, which was part of how the Ancients conceived multiculturalism. Monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god. Effectively monarchy. When the West went back to more broad based political systems, it required the separation of church and state, culture and civics.
Oh, puleeze, don’t be ridiculous. The subject was primacy vs world ordering. It was not world government creation. My objection was that world ordering is what hegemonies do. Its what I considered was Hoffman’s fatal flaw – positing something that didn’t exist (i.e. an entity doing world ordering that wasn’t a hegemon). Bringing the US constitution into it is just plain silly. The US constitution that defines a country’s government’s structure, limitations, authorities, and the like. It does not define any kind of order which is why I suggested Zhou En Lai’s 5 principles. What you’re really looking for is a code of conduct and, in general, the simpler, the better. And, finally, the last thing you can talk about is some sky pilot. We’re not talking about ordering a society; we’re talking about ordering the world. The number of different conceptions of “god” from none at all to one that talks to you at night is breathtaking and they all only share one thing – not being physically present and thus should not be a consideration in ordering the world.
One thing that you said that I liked was: “Not just assume some document written a couple hundred years ago will save us from ourselves” . Nothing can save you from yourself and it is what Ben Franklin was talking about when he said, Yes, madam, you have your Republic, if you can keep it.
We seem to be getting touchy, so I'll leave it at that, but do remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures, which was a big part of how the Ancients conceived multiculturalism. Monotheism is all about the Big Guy on top and its political manifestation was monarchy. The whole primacy thing.
When the West went back to more populist forms of government it required separation of church and state, culture and civics.
I might have pointed this out previously, but in culture, good and bad are some cosmic conflict between the forces of righteousness and evil, while in nature they are the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental, the 1/0 of sentience.
This is because the community has to function as an organism in the larger ecosystem, the hive mind. Which goes much, much deeper than homo sapiens, so it's difficult to avoid. Consequently objectivity becomes impermissible.
The two basic dynamics are synchronization, which is inherently centripetal and harmonization, which is centrifugal. So there are nodes and networks, organisms and ecosystems, particles and fields.
When the community over-synchronizes, it tends to spiral into the abyss and it is like a forest fire, hard to contain, let alone put out, until it burns out.
It is a very good binary: hegemonic domination or multi polar order. I’ve read tons of stuff this morning and it’s all being filtered through that binary.
I would suggest 90% of the American people would prefer world order and view conflicts abroad as effectively none of their business., expensive and a betrayal of their interests. The primacy position is held only by our elites: so the question is why do they still care about primacy - cui bono?
RJ. Thanks all your comments. I don't think we can understand events any longer w/o use of the term "empire." Ours is in it late phase--the misfortune of all of us who must live through it--and its conduct ever more desperate.
Thank and rgds to all who comment here. -- Patrick.
The paranoia of the WMD shareholder/stakeholders and their political puppets has never been more clearly outlined than the past few days. I have just read Gregory Clark's analysis of what's been going on with US/NATO propped up Ukraine and its continual bombing of the major Russian enclave provinces - 150,000 Ukraine troops massed against them - now finally being protected by Russian forces! But without proper analysis the picture emerges as the Biden-Blinken and NATO wishes. Any red-flag has only been from the US/NATO/Ukraine side.
"I detect in Europe’s efforts—pursued cautiously, as the Europeans typically proceed with the Americans—the impulse to act autonomously and in their own interests toward a Ukraine settlement."
Yes, and this is what I wonder about in the wake of Russia's decision to interrupt the process it set in train in December. Siding with Russia will now be more difficult for the likes of France and Italy. Equally, Russia's carefully built brand of always acting in accordance with international law must I think take a bit of a hit, at least in the short term.
Given their demonstrated track record of strategic acuity and almost relentless consistency it seems foolish to assume Putin, Lavrov and co have suddenly lost their marbles. So, presumably they were persuaded to abort the negotiating track they were on by some combination of looming escalation against the Donbass and/or despair at the possibility of a genuine diplomatic breakthrough with the Europeans. I had thought the tide was slowly turning their way but perhaps that was simply wishful thinking on my part.
If nothing else, this decision should sharpen the various players' calculations. The stakes have been raised.
And - an "innocent" US corruption in Ukraine... -- that is why Biden is so shrill
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine -- it looks well-researched and an outstanding in-depth analysis of US corruption in Ukraine
https://ukrainegate.info/short-part-1-a-not-so-solid-prosecutor/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-3-a-not-so-noble-president/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-4-shokin-strikes-back/
Oh, well. When it's all foam and bubbles, the wave has crested.
I always read and appreciate your comments. This is your shortest and pithiest yet! :)
Maybe not. But I really like that saying, clever.
There are two separate things in this post. One is Mr. Hoffman's thoughts from the cusp of the US defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese and the other is the events of recent days in the Ukraine.
I disagree with Mr. Hoffman. On the one hand, I agree that you have a choice between a world hegemon and ... what? It sure as hell isn't "a world order policy". Making world order policies is what a hegemon does but Mr. Hoffman doesn't want a hegemon. I have not read this book but what Patrick quotes from it makes it sound like he is looking for a latter day Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was legendary in Rome but even assuming that he was a real person, the world can't afford to rely on finding such a soul. Worse still, Mr. Hoffman says that the world can't stand the mechanical application of disembodied principles. Frankly you get a choice between being a nation (world) of laws or a nation (world) of men. When I think about a world of laws, I'm not imagining international law but rather Zhou En Lai's principles. That would cut right through all the crap about the Ukraine.
Then we get to the Ukraine, playground of the Western imperialists. I think Marshall Auerback was absolutely correct when he said that the Ukraine would prove to be NATOs Waterloo. I wrote a friend of mine about the Ukraine yesterday and he wrote back - So you think that the Ukraine got what they deserved. I responded, indeed, in fact I think they got off easy. However, before we get to what Patrick is taking about, we have to establish a level playing field that doesn't exist. The United States launches aggressive war against Iraq who had done nothing. The United States attempts to cause "regime change" all over the world, allying themselves with whatever scum they can find - Al Qaeda or its lookalikes in the Middle East, Nazis in the Ukraine, right wing white supremacists in South America. Where are the calls to disconnect the US from SWIFT? Where are the calls to kick the US off the Security Council? Until all nations are treated equally, no nation will be treated fairly.
"World order" as opposed to "primacy" is an ideal and a fluid and imperfect process as opposed to top down policy. But it takes a kind of courageous goodwill which is anathema to empire.
Cara, I would say the same thing to you as I said to Mr. Merryman's second paragraph.
Maybe because those "disembodied principles" are not as broadly applicable as necessary. If the map doesn't describe what people encounter, no matter how principled it might be, it's useless.
For example, the basis of society is responsibilities. Rights are a privilege that is granted. They can't be guaranteed when no one is responsible for the problems. The Tragedy of the Commons is a consequence of everyone having rights and no one being responsible.
No. If I may quote: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Clearly, the founding fathers didn't see rights as a privilege granted. They also didn't see the famous three rights as the only inalienable rights as they are only among the inalienable rights. That said, I would completely agree that rights and responsibilities form a binary star system. You can't have one without the other. But it's not quite the same as what you just said. If you have a right, you have to be responsible for the consequences of your exercising that right. That's not the same as problems. I have the right of free speech. If, in exercising that right, I cause problems for somebody trying to commit some chicanery, for example, well, that's just too damn bad. You also make the same error I see all the time. You rightly point out that rights come with responsibilities for the consequences but you don't mention the opposite. You cannot levy responsibilities on someone unless they also have rights to control the circumstances associated with said responsibilities.
My only comment to your first paragraph is simple. Get a better map. I don't know what disembodied principles Hoffman was thinking of when he said that but you really only have two choices. Either some ONE (I know pornography when I see it) makes the decision of world order (aka hegemon) or you use principles/rules/guidelines to have the decision of world order made. I said that in the passive form deliberately. No one anybody makes the decision so, in reality, that's not world order, that's world amorphous structure. That doesn't have quite the same ring to it as world order but as Cara above you points out, it is anathema to empire.
Think of it in bottom up terms, rather than top down principles; Consider that we effectively quantify most of our responsibilities as "work," while much of our rights are effectively quantified in terms of money and status. The Constitution is "disembodied principles" to most people's lives.
Top down, we have to organize society that it functions according to generally agreed rules, as well as a whole suite of cultural relationships, from a common language to measurements. Government, as the executive and regulatory function, is analogous to a central nervous system, while money and banking are analogous to blood and the circulation system. Every society that has grown beyond small groups has evolved forms of these mechanisms and even those smaller have organic, relational hierarchies and systems of exchange. These all do both define and limit our degrees of freedom to act. If we ever want to get beyond the stage where what we are told and what actually happens are seriously disconnected, we have to explore and better understand the processes driving our societies. Not just assume some document written a couple hundred years ago will save us from ourselves.
As for "creator," logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. Ideals are not absolutes and assuming them to be tends to empower the close minded and confuse the open minded. Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic societies, which was part of how the Ancients conceived multiculturalism. Monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god. Effectively monarchy. When the West went back to more broad based political systems, it required the separation of church and state, culture and civics.
Oh, puleeze, don’t be ridiculous. The subject was primacy vs world ordering. It was not world government creation. My objection was that world ordering is what hegemonies do. Its what I considered was Hoffman’s fatal flaw – positing something that didn’t exist (i.e. an entity doing world ordering that wasn’t a hegemon). Bringing the US constitution into it is just plain silly. The US constitution that defines a country’s government’s structure, limitations, authorities, and the like. It does not define any kind of order which is why I suggested Zhou En Lai’s 5 principles. What you’re really looking for is a code of conduct and, in general, the simpler, the better. And, finally, the last thing you can talk about is some sky pilot. We’re not talking about ordering a society; we’re talking about ordering the world. The number of different conceptions of “god” from none at all to one that talks to you at night is breathtaking and they all only share one thing – not being physically present and thus should not be a consideration in ordering the world.
One thing that you said that I liked was: “Not just assume some document written a couple hundred years ago will save us from ourselves” . Nothing can save you from yourself and it is what Ben Franklin was talking about when he said, Yes, madam, you have your Republic, if you can keep it.
We seem to be getting touchy, so I'll leave it at that, but do remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures, which was a big part of how the Ancients conceived multiculturalism. Monotheism is all about the Big Guy on top and its political manifestation was monarchy. The whole primacy thing.
When the West went back to more populist forms of government it required separation of church and state, culture and civics.
I might have pointed this out previously, but in culture, good and bad are some cosmic conflict between the forces of righteousness and evil, while in nature they are the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental, the 1/0 of sentience.
This is because the community has to function as an organism in the larger ecosystem, the hive mind. Which goes much, much deeper than homo sapiens, so it's difficult to avoid. Consequently objectivity becomes impermissible.
The two basic dynamics are synchronization, which is inherently centripetal and harmonization, which is centrifugal. So there are nodes and networks, organisms and ecosystems, particles and fields.
When the community over-synchronizes, it tends to spiral into the abyss and it is like a forest fire, hard to contain, let alone put out, until it burns out.
It is a very good binary: hegemonic domination or multi polar order. I’ve read tons of stuff this morning and it’s all being filtered through that binary.
I would suggest 90% of the American people would prefer world order and view conflicts abroad as effectively none of their business., expensive and a betrayal of their interests. The primacy position is held only by our elites: so the question is why do they still care about primacy - cui bono?
Timely! This hegemonic striving, is it a sincere belief that America knows better, Protestantism run amuck or venality greed and arrogance?
RJ. Thanks all your comments. I don't think we can understand events any longer w/o use of the term "empire." Ours is in it late phase--the misfortune of all of us who must live through it--and its conduct ever more desperate.
Thank and rgds to all who comment here. -- Patrick.
Old do goody America has given way to imperial ambition, thank you.