Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

[Malaparte]

You seem to be attracted to the political area were les extrêmes se touchent.....(old) marxist Van der Pijl suggested earlier that Israel was behind 9/11, the shot down of MH17 plan (by Russian separatist in the Ukraine, with 300 victims) in his eyes was due to neoliberal EU and hyper capitalistic Kyiv etc etc.

I believe the right/left divide is of no real significance. Other divisions are more important, in particular globalist vs anti-globalist

I'm basically a nationalist, but a qualified nationalist insofar as I recognize that wwii demonstrated that the European nation-state is no longer viable as a way of organizing military force. So some kind of European confederation or "empire" must replace NATO and the EU, but with principles of subsidiarity --->>> a kind of Holy Roman Empire

Don't forget that I also quoted Vigano approvingly, so my extremes touch at least three ways

 

[Vallicanus]

I believe the right/left divide is of no real significance. Other divisions are more important, in particular globalist vs anti-globalist

I'm basically a nationalist, but a qualified nationalist insofar as I recognize that wwii demonstrated that the European nation-state is no longer viable as a way of organizing military force. So some kind of European confederation or "empire" must replace NATO and the EU, but with principles of subsidiarity --->>> a kind of Holy Roman Empire

Don't forget that I also quoted Vigano approvingly, so my extremes touch at least three ways

You make many good points.

If we could guarantee a good defence setup for Europe we would not need the USA so much (if Trump or a Trump-spin-off takes over the Presidency at the next US election, NATO is toast) and we could face down any Russian threat.
Britain and France have nuclear capability without reaching US or Russian levels,of course.

 

[Riverman]

I'm not talking about moral higher ground, I'm talking about democratic institutions, free voting, free press , checks and balances, trias politica etc etc. In that respect are Russia and the US incomparable.

You have to distinguish between two aspects:
- Domestic and foreign policy
- Theory and practise

The USA are losing a lot of its advantages, step by step, just in the recent years, with the fallout of the Trump presidency in particular, when the left and the establishment kind of woke up to the potential threat of "unwanted political movements and people" making it to the top and actually threatening their agenda. Trump was no real threat, just like with Russia, most of it is a hoax, but it was kind of "proof of concept", that its possible, that they might lose control over the public. Ever since then, the indoctrination and pressure on the institutions and people to streamline, to be phased, to be brainwashed increased manifold and this is a serious threat to what remained of American freedoms and democracy.
That's the inner side, the domestic problem, and how the States move away from the practise of freedom to the theory of freedom and the practise of social-political suppression of dissenting voices and alternative concepts, lifestyles - unwanted by the establishment.

The other is that whatever rights and freedoms the US citizens got, whatever they claimed to pursue abroad, in practise, they were oftentimes as brutal or actually more brutal with other people and regimes, democratic or not, which didn't follow their orders. And that's global dominance and suppression, which too, became worse in recent years. Was never good, but got worse.

I'm also no "Russian fanboy", because this would suggest I would deam Russia is a role model, in its domestic and foreign policy, which its not. I think some aspects of Russia are better than the USA, but many, many are not.

As for my talk about Americans: I have a lot of relatives in the USA, and both in real life and online most Americans I met were ok to great people. Especially my relatives from the Midwest or the coastal areas alike. However, that are the American citizens, the American system, especially the state administration and establishment, what they are doing, that's the problem. So whenever I refer to "what Americans do", I refer to the state and system, just like I do with Russia or Ukraine, not the people on the ground. I guess most people get that, but I just wanted to point it out to make it absolutely clear.

 

[EV13SON]

Well I don't like the direction our Politics are headed in the West, the extremes are gaining strength and when that happens no matter who wins left or right, it's no longer safe to speak freely...things can get dark very quickly...I understand what brought us here, Greed! Migrants are often maligned but before you throw a brick at their head try to comprehend why they are there in the first place...I'll give you a clue, Greed! Not theirs but someone who decided to exploit their home country for some valuable resource...sometimes they are the valuable resource invited in...at a discount

 

[EV13SON]

But with that seriousness out of the way and if I wanted to play a game of splitting Europe into Nationalistic Blocs, I'd say you'd have to have a Protestant Bloc ie UK, Scandiland, Germany ect. a Catholic Bloc ie Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Austria your not with the Germans eh? Stay true to your roots? you're a Catholic whatever other EEuropean countries fall in I forget... Then you have your Orthodox Balkan countries, and boy Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia you just had to convert to Islam...now you've made it all difficult for us are you with Turkey and Asia Minor Bloc or European make up your minds quick! See it's messy...

 

[Riverman]

I have no problem with the European Union per se, but rather with specific policies and trends, of which a large portion comes ultimately from the USA to begin with.

And coming back to the topic of the thread, it wasn't the EU which caused this trouble, but again the conflict between the USA and Russia, because of the US interference in Ukraine.

 

[EV13SON]

I have no problem with the European Union per se, but rather with specific policies and trends, of which a large portion comes ultimately from the USA to begin with.
And coming back to the topic of the thread, it wasn't the EU which caused this trouble, but again the conflict between the USA and Russia, because of the US interference in Ukraine.

Well unfortunately the US was forced into a situation were it felt it needed to be a Military and Economic super power to rival the two big Red States. There was friction during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations on this subject and both presidents showed dissent Eisenhower spoke out against the growing Military Complex and Kennedy on the expanding role of intelligence. If you recall we had a very similar situation in the Korean Peninsula where a decision was made by Truman to remove Gen MacArthur over fear of nuclear war, because he was ready to expand the theater to China and the Soviet Union in an effort to wipe out "Communism" once and for all. You can't blame the US for taking on this role, I really do think there was no other option...I don't like that they have made very arrogant geopolitical decisions and used unscrupulous methods but its no different than any other previous super power/empire :/

And on Russia I do think America did them dirty after the fall of the wall we cut their economic legs off...and as for China we got too Greedy, we were practically ready to give them the keys to our car and ride the stock market to the moon, again it all comes back to Greed! I blame the 80's and Gordon Gekko...

 

[Malaparte]

But with that seriousness out of the way and if I wanted to play a game of splitting Europe into Nationalistic Blocs, I'd say you'd have to have a Protestant Bloc ie UK, Scandiland, Germany ect. a Catholic Bloc ie Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Austria your not with the Germans eh? Stay true to your roots? you're a Catholic whatever other EEuropean countries fall in I forget... Then you have your Orthodox Balkan countries, and boy Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia you just had to convert to Islam...now you've made it all difficult for us are you with Turkey and Asia Minor Bloc or European make up your minds quick! See it's messy...

Kojeve wrote a long missive in August of 1945 proposing the division of Europe into three "empires," the Slavo-Soviet empire, the Germano-Anglo-American empire, and the Latin Empire, which was to consist of France, Italy and Spain. Kojeve wrote this note before the post-war collapse of colonial empires and many decades before the rise of China, so much of what he proposes no longer seems workable. -- And as an anti-globalist, I of course disagree with Kojeve's view that History should culminate in a world government. This goes without saying!! -- But many of his insights are astounding. I shall quote some pertinent passages.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/kojeve2.htm

On the political inadequacy of Hitler's Germany

Hitler expressed the essence and the motive of his political thought very well by putting himself at the head of a movement which calls itself “ national-socialism,” and which consciously contrasts itself with Soviet “imperial-socialism” as much as with Anglo-Saxon “ imperial-capitalism.” Generally, the Third Reich was undoubtedly a national State, in the particular and precise sense of the term. This is a State which, on the one hand, strove to realize all national political possibilities, and which, on the other hand, wanted to use only the power of the German nation, by consciously establishing, qua State, the (ethnic) limits of the latter. Well, this “ideal” nation-State lost its crucial political war.

To explain the total military – and thus political – defeat of this nation-State, one cannot raise the limited size of its national base, as it is tempting to do when one tries to explain the crushing defeat of the Polish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, Yugoslavian, and Greek national States. Nor can one speak of military incompetence, as is sometimes done to “explain” the fate of fascist Italy (which was also eminently “national”). Finally, there can also be no question of “causes” often raised in discussions of the collapse of France: disorder, lack of foresight, domestic political unrest, etc. The German national State pressed 80 million nationals into service, whose military and civic (if not moral) qualities revealed themselves to be above all praise. Nonetheless, the superhuman political and military effort of the Nation served only to delay an outcome which can truly be called “fatal.”

And it is certainly the eminently and consciously national character of the German State which is the cause of this “fate.” For to be able to sustain a modern war, the Third Reich had to occupy and exploit non-German countries and import more than 10 million foreign workers. But a nation-State cannot assimilate non-nationals, and it must treat them politically as slaves . Thus Hitler’s “nationalist” ideology would have been enough by itself to ruin the imperial project of the “New Europe,” without which Germany could not, however, win the war. It can therefore be said that Germany lost this war because she wanted to win it as a nation-State. For even a nation of 80 million politically “perfect” citizens is unable to sustain the effort of a modern war and thus of ensuring the political existence of its State. And the German example proves clearly that nowadays, a nation, no matter which one, which persists in maintaining its national political exclusivity must sooner or later cease to exist politically: either through a peaceful process or as a result of a military defeat . By dispelling the illusions of the 1914-18 war, the current war, conducted by Empires, signaled the last act of the great tragedy which national States have performed for five centuries.

How liberalism is non-political and therefore suicidal -->>

"Bourgeois” Liberalism proclaimed more or less publicly the end of the State as such, which is to say [the end] of the strictly political existence of Nations. By not conceiving of the State outside of the national setting, and by observing at the same time – more or less consciously – that the nation-State was no longer politically viable, Liberalism proposed to abolish it voluntarily. The essentially political – i.e., in the final analysis martial – entity, which is the State in the strict sense, had to be replaced by a simple economic and social, not to say a police Administration, put at the disposal and at the service of “Society” which had moreover been conceived of as an aggregate of individuals; the individual was supposed to embody and reveal, in his own isolation, the supreme human value. Thus conceived, the “statist” liberal administration had to be fundamentally peaceful and pacifist. Put differently, it did not have, strictly speaking, any “will to power,” and consequently had no effective need, nor adequate desire, for this “independence” or political autonomy which characterizes the very essence of the true State.

On the prospect of decline absent a suitable political form -->>

Historical experience has shown that, once separated from its political trappings, civilization itself undergoes profound transformations, sterilizes itself and disintegrates little by little, and also soon loses the specific gravity it had in the world as the civilization of a State. Anybody who would like to safeguard the existence and the influence of the traditional Latino-Catholic civilization, which is also that of France (and to which France has, moreover, contributed much more than all other Latin Nations combined), must thus want to provide it with a political base adequate to the given historical conditions. And anybody who were to do this would serve not only the cultural interests of his country, but also those of all of humanity. For the Anglo-Saxons, the Germans, and the Slavs do not possess, and will never possess, what the Latins, with the French at their head, have given and will continue to give to the civilized world.

On the fate of France if she is not reborn as the head of an empire -->>

Objective analysis of the historical situation shows clearly that if France remains politically isolated, if she insists on wanting to live as an exclusive Nation, she will necessarily sooner or later have to stop existing as a State in the strict sense and as an autonomous political reality. She will end, fatally, by being politically absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon Empire, which stands to become a Germano-Anglo-Saxon Empire. But given the differences of “race,” of culture, of language, and of religion, of traditions, and “lifestyle,” there can be no question of a true fusion between this Empire and France. The latter will always remain a more or less foreign body in it, and, consequently, will always play but a peripheral and thus retiring role in it: the role of a satellite, of a “second” which – in politics – is neither always nor necessarily “brilliant.” In a word, in this hypothesis France ceases to be an end in itself and lowers herself to the level of a simple political means.

But it is not only France’s politically specific gravity which will become negligible if she lets herself be absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Her economy, too, will play only an entirely secondary role in it. France’s economic functioning, too, and, consequently, her very social structure will have to transform themselves bit by bit in order to comply with and adapt themselves to the models and the requirements which, coming from outside, will often be in flagrant conflict with the traditions and the aspirations which, while fundamentally Catholic and Latin, are not for all that less authentically French. Finally, no longer sustained either by independent economic activity or autonomous political reality, French civilization itself will not count for much at the heart of the Anglo-Saxon world, and, consequently, of the world in general. Far from shining outward, France will be internally subject to the influence of the Anglo-Saxon civilization – fundamentally Protestant in its modern form, and basically “Germanic” – which will be sustained by the crushing prestige of the political force and the economic power of the Anglo-American bloc. The first vestiges of this influence can perhaps be perceived in the physical and moral aspect of French youth raised on films and novels from across the English Channel and from overseas. It can thus be supposed that, in renouncing autonomous political existence, that is the State, France will lose not only “face” but also her own face.

The preliminary signs of this state of things are already making themselves felt. Thus the attitude of certain foreign countries and the reactions of some of France’s guests ^[4] – military and civilian – perhaps give a foretaste, if not of the contempt, at least of the indifference of tomorrow’s world toward this country and her civilization. But what is infinitely worse is that the disastrous consequences of depoliticization are already taking hold at the very heart of the French nation. For there is no doubt that the latter’s decline, which nobody disputes and on which it is pointless – and distressing – to dwell, goes hand in hand with the country’s political diminution, which, for its part, reveals or explains itself with the loss of a real, enlightened, and effective political will. For it is certainly difficult to deny, or even not to see, that the France of yesteryear, of yesterday – and even of today – does not have, or no longer has, a clear and conscious political idea. Not only in fact, but also in his own consciousness, the modern Frenchman lives as a “bourgeois” and not as a “citizen.” He acts and thinks as an “individualist” in that sense in which “private,” “particular” interests are for him the supreme or only values. And he is “liberal” or “libertarian” and “pacifist” above all because he no longer wants to be subjected to the weight and the demands of the “universal” reality of the State and the means it uses to assert and preserve itself.

But it is certainly evident that this depoliticization of France and the French manifests itself not only through external as well as internal political decline in the strict sense, but also through a general diminution, as much economic and social as cultural and moral. It can thus already be seen that by ceasing to be a big and strong State animated by an effective – concrete, positive, and definite – political will, France ceases to be the vanguard country she has always been until now and becomes a backward country in almost all fields.

On the death of France as a real nation-state -->>

In the depths of its soul, the country understands the inadequacy of this ideal, of the political anachronism of the strictly “national” idea. This feeling has admittedly not yet reached the level of a clear and distinct idea: The country cannot, and still does not want to, express it openly. Moreover, for the very reason of the unparalleled brilliance of its national past, it is particularly difficult for France to recognize clearly and to accept frankly the fact of the end of the “national” period of History and to understand all of its consequences. It is hard for a country which created, out of nothing, the ideological framework of nationalism and which exported it to the whole world to recognize that all that remains of it now is a document to be filed in the historical archives and to join to a new “imperial” ideology, which has, moreover, scarcely been outlined and which it would be necessary to clarify and formulate to raise to the level of logical coherence and clarity of “national” ideology. And yet, the new political truth is penetrating little by little into the collective French consciousness. It appears there negatively, first of all, in the fact that the general will no longer allows itself to be galvanized by the ideal of the Nation. The recollections of the indivisible Republic’s potency ring hollow and false, and the call to France’s no longer finds the echo it still triggered at the time of the 1914-18 war.

It could almost be said that for the “average Frenchman” the current war entailed, from the beginning, only two political possibilities: France’s politico-economic subordination, either to Germany or to England. And in fact, at least at times, this war provoked “passions” in France only insofar as it had to do with the conflict between these two “collaborationist” tendencies – a conflict in which the traditional, irreducible, and disastrous opposition between the Right and the Left was crystallized. But it is perhaps precisely because of this that the French soldier did not give his all in 1940 and that, after the Liberation, the Resistance movement evokes only distantly the mass uprisings of old. If the average Frenchman obviously refuses to die, and even to discipline himself and to “restrain” himself, for the sake of France, it is perhaps simply because he is more or less consciously aware that “the France” of national and nationalist tradition is an ideal which, politically, is no longer viable. For no reasonable man will want to sacrifice his particular values for a “universal” goal, which is only an abstract idea, i.e. a mirage from the past or a present without a future – in short, a nostalgic dream or an irresponsible adventure.

On the close kinship of the Italians, Spanish & French -->>

The differences of the national characters cannot mask the fundamental unity of the Latin “mentality,” which is all the more striking to strangers for often going unrecognized by the Latin people themselves. It is, to be sure, difficult to define this mentality, but it can immediately be seen that it is unique, among its type, in its deep unity. It seems that this mentality is specifically characterized by that art of leisure which is the source of art in general, by the aptitude for creating this “sweetness of living” which has nothing to do with material comfort, by that “ dolce far niente” itself which degenerates into pure laziness only if it does not follow a productive and fertile labor (to which the Latin Empire will give birth through the sole fact of its existence).

This shared mentality – which entails a profound sense of beauty generally (and especially in France) associated with a very distinct sense of proportion and which thus permits the transformation of simple “bourgeois” well-being into aristocratic “sweetness” of living and the frequent elevation to delight of pleasures which, in another setting, would be (and are, in most cases) “vulgar” pleasures – this mentality not only assures the Latin people of their real – that is to say political and economic – union . It also, in a way, justifies this union in the eyes of the world and of History. Of the world, for if the two other imperial Unions will probably always be superior to the Latin Union in the domain of economic work and of political struggles, one is entitled to suppose that they will never know how to devote themselves to the perfection of their leisure as could, under favorable circumstances, the unified Latin West.

On the will to political autonomy and self-rule

Now, the fundamental political category is that of independence or of autonomy. It is generally said that political will is a will to power or to “greatness.” Without a doubt. But it would be more correct and more precise to say that all truly political will is above all an autonomous will and a will to autonomy. For “power” is only a medium for realizing autonomy, and “greatness” is a simple consequence of this realization. Considered as a political entity, the State does nothing more than to bring about a will to autonomy; through it [the State] creates and maintains itself, for through it [the State] integrates and governs otherwise disparate particular wills by creating a “general will” out of them, which is nothing other than its own will to autonomy thus made explicit and effective. Conversely, a State no longer driven by an absolute will to autonomy lowers itself to the level of a simple administration, having to serve, at best, the private interests it is moreover incapable of reconciling.

To create a Latin Empire able to exist qua political entity is thus to create and maintain a Latin “general will,” autonomous in its will and desiring the maximum autonomy compatible with the general political situation of the day. Put differently, the Empire’s actions must follow, in the final analysis, from the imperial peoples’ will to union and must be as independent as is possible and reasonable from foreign wills or actions. Practically, this signifies that the decisions taken by the Empire concerning its internal structure and conduct, as much as its foreign relations, must not be understood simply as a function of the desires and the actions of the two already existing rival Empires.

Why the Latin Empire must have a capable military if it is to be truly independent

Like all will in general, the political will to autonomy can be fulfilled only by meeting and overcoming resistance. It must thus be armed against the latter, and this is why it must manifest itself, among other things, in the form of an army – of earth, of the sea, and of the air. Not that a will to autonomy need necessarily be “militarist” or “war-mongering,” nor that an imperial will need always be “imperialist.” On the contrary, “militarism” and “imperialism” are outgrowths of a fundamentally undeveloped will to autonomy and do not use truly powerful means of execution (and this is why “militarism” is born of danger, and above all of defeat, which is to say of a weakness, whether only possible or already realized). It is those phenomena which characterize, above all, national political existence, a Nation always being a fragile foundation for the will to autonomy driving it. By providing it with more effectiveness and security, an imperial foundation would thus render this will fundamentally peaceful, if not “pacifist.” For if war is waged to safeguard a threatened, and thus wavering, autonomy, it is in and through peace alone that autonomy becomes strong and substantial, and flourishes. But insofar as there will be a plurality of Empires in the world, each of them will conserve a remnant of “national” – not to say “nationalist” – weakness and thus an “imperialist” and bellicose touchiness. And this is why the Latin Empire will need an Army. It will need an army powerful enough to be able to assure its autonomy in peacetime, and peace in autonomy, and not in dependence on one of the two rival Empires. Of course, this imperial Army must be one and unique, and must be supplied in all ways by the Empire as a whole. Only an Empire can, moreover, support the burden of an effective army in modern conditions, a burden that would crush the economy of any isolated Nation. And the imperial military potential would allow the strict limitation of operational armaments – always too expensive and prematurely obsolete – at least during certain periods. But it is also very clear that France is called upon to play the foremost role in the Empire’s military effort. Here, perhaps, more than elsewhere, its time-honored military virtues and its long experience enable it, moreover, to confront the cooperative competition of the Spanish and Italian members fearlessly. And by giving the Latin Army a particularly French character, France will correspondingly ensure itself a fair and justifiable general predominance within the Empire this Army maintains.

 

[Malaparte]

I understand what brought us here, Greed! Migrants are often maligned but before you throw a brick at their head try to comprehend why they are there in the first place...I'll give you a clue, Greed! Not theirs but someone who decided to exploit their home country for some valuable resource...sometimes they are the valuable resource invited in...at a discount

Let us turn to another man's reflections on Simone Weil

"Rootedness is the most important and the most misunderstood need of the human soul." In order to flourish, man needs to be at one with his environment. He must "receive almost all of his moral, intellectual, and spiritual life through the intermediary of the environments to which he naturally belongs." However, "being de-rooted is precisely the destruction of these intermediary, social, and cultural environments"; hence a "breakdown in meaning" manufactures unbalanced masses, these supermarket zombies always in search of more.

The homeland--the patria--is our ecosystem. The homeland is not a warrior deity, an idol in the name of which one must sacrifice justice and the dignity of the weakest, whether they come from here or elsewhere. The homeland is a bridge between God and men, a gateway between heaven and the earth. The state is therefore obliged "to preserve every place, inside the territory or out, where a small or large part of the population draws life for the soul."

This political responsibility derives from the principle of the universal destination of goods, recognized by the Church in its social doctrine. It is a natural right, that is, inherent to man, and not a legal right or a law that can be suspended depending on how we feel. Every man has a right to a homeland. But the right of some is not a duty for others to be dispossessed or invaded."

 

[Northener]

I believe the right/left divide is of no real significance. Other divisions are more important, in particular globalist vs anti-globalist

I go with Claude Lefort in stead of Kojeve (wiki):

Claude Lefort formulates his conception of democracy by mirroring his conception of totalitarism, developing it in the same way by analyzing regimes of Eastern Europe and USSR. For Lefort democracy is the system characterized by the institutionalization of conflict within society, the division of social body; it recognizes and even considers legitimate the existence of divergent interests, conflicting opinions, visions of the world that are opposed and even incompatible. Lefort's vision makes the disappearance of the leader as a political body – the putting to death of the king, as Kantorowicz calls it – the founding moment of democracy because it makes the seat of power, hitherto occupied by an eternal substance transcending the mere physical existence of monarchs, into an "empty space" where groups with shared interests and opinions can succeed each other, but only for a time and at the will of elections. Power is no longer tied to any specific programme, goal, or proposal; it is nothing but a collection of instruments put temporarily at the disposal of those who win a majority. "In Lefort's invented and inventive democracy," writes Dominique Colas, "power comes from the people and belongs to no one."[22]


Democracy is thus a regime marked by its vagueness, its incompleteness, against which totalitarianism establishes itself. This leads Lefort to regard as "democratic" every form of opposition and protest against totalitarianism. The opposition and protest creates, in a way, a democratic space within the totalitarian system. Democracy is innovation, the start of new movements, the designation of new issues in the struggle against oppression, it is a "creative power capable of weakening, even slaying the totalitarian Leviathan".[23] A Leviathan whose paradoxical frailty Lefort emphasises.


The separation of civil society from the state, which characterizes modern democracy, is made possible by the disembodiment of society. A democratic country can also experience this inventive character when any group of citizens with a legitimate struggle may seek to establish new rights or defend its interests.


Lefort does not reject representative democracy, but does not limit democracy to it. For instance, he includes the social movements in the sphere of legitimate political debate.

 

[Northener]

But with that seriousness out of the way and if I wanted to play a game of splitting Europe into Nationalistic Blocs, I'd say you'd have to have a Protestant Bloc ie UK, Scandiland, Germany ect. a Catholic Bloc ie Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Austria your not with the Germans eh? Stay true to your roots? you're a Catholic whatever other EEuropean countries fall in I forget... Then you have your Orthodox Balkan countries, and boy Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia you just had to convert to Islam...now you've made it all difficult for us are you with Turkey and Asia Minor Bloc or European make up your minds quick! See it's messy...

My goodness I agree with the most of you what you state here, but "Catholic" and a "Protestant" bloc would be like Putins who tries turn back the clock.....

 

[Northener]

I'm basically a nationalist, but a qualified nationalist insofar as I recognize that wwii demonstrated that the European nation-state is no longer viable as a way of organizing military force. So some kind of European confederation or "empire" must replace NATO and the EU, but with principles of subsidiarity --->>> a kind of Holy Roman Empire

I guess NATO can forfill this, we wil already experience if it will act this way (today in Brussels). The European experiences with the last attempt to create a Holy Roman Empire were not the most happy one imo....:gritting:

 

[EV13SON]

Well I grew up in two worlds the Anglo and the Latin so I can attest to what Malaparte shared...and have I turned into a libertarian pacifist disillusioned with the state right now. We all want an ideal state that allows a man the right to own property and freedom to create his own industry or at least labor for another without oppression. We need states to punish the cruel wicked and a way to institutionalize the mentally ill...I bring up greed because eventually you have your Bourgeoisie class that becomes oligarchic or monopolistic and begins to crumble the whole system... I know most Europeans today are not very religious but there is a clear cultural divide there that's been that way amongst those three groups in Europe for a very long time until these three groups marry more between one another that small divide will persist I personally know nothing of the Slavic Orthodox mentality...I think that definition of Democracy is spot on though a push back on Totalitarianism...that is the sign of a healthy nation state in my opinion Malaparte may disagree but at this point you cannot call yourself European
or Western without it...all three of those cultural groups have experienced it...

 

[Yetos]

Ukraine

russia

 

[Malaparte]

Lefort does not reject representative democracy, but does not limit democracy to it. For instance, he includes the social movements in the sphere of legitimate political debate.

In the current climate, social movements have more to do with legitimate political debate than the workings of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy, since it inception, has been hijacked by oligarchic interests and backroom dealings. Certainly it is not about open & reasoned debate leading to sound policy.

And how have social movements been dealt with in recent times? You need only look at the Yellow Vests and the Truckers. The oligarchic regime will use all powers at its disposal to destroy any social movement that has popular legitimacy or threatens their interests, from infiltrating with FBI agents (or the equivalent elsewhere), all manner of surveillance techniques, freezing & seizing bank accounts, cutting off access to credit card processors, to beatings in the streets and imprisonment.

The body of Kantorowicz's king represented the identity of the king with the people he governed. We now have in the West a ruling class that does not identify with the interests of the people, which oppresses the people, strips them of their homelands and native industry, and otherwise acts against them.

 

[Malaparte]

I guess NATO can forfill this, we wil already experience if it will act this way (today in Brussels). The European experiences with the last attempt to create a Holy Roman Empire were not the most happy one imo....:gritting:

The EU could possibly be rehabilitated with a new leadership that cared for the people and the sanctity of Europe. Keep the structure, replace the elites. And you would need at least three currencies, one for Germany and NW Europe, one for Mediterranean Europe, one for Visegrad Group. However, I do not see how NATO can be salvaged, as it is so thoroughly dominated by US. Germany must replace US has principal military force, though all nations must develop their military capability a la Finland, and then band together to resist common adversaries.

I raised the example of Holy Roman Empire because it provided (1) spiritual unity and purpose without depriving (2) smaller regions of their local character and scope for self-rule. Plus, there needs to be a return to guilds and the protection of markets.

Europe should either (1) split into three blocks, as outlined by Kojeve, or (2) a loose confederation or "empire" with Germany at the helm a la the Holy Roman Empire.

In either event, Europe must replace its current elites, become militarily independent of both US and Russia, and protect its borders and markets.

 

[Malaparte]

Also, if Europe were militarily independent of the US, it would necessarily pull Russia "westward" away from its embrace of China. Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that Europe in any way ally with Russia. It must defend itself against Russia, which means having enough capability to deter future Russian aggression.

However, in the bipolar order that the US appears to be pushing for--on a generous interpretation, my other interpretation is far more paranoid!--there is nothing to stand between Western and Eastern blocks. But if Europe breaks away from US, then Russia will be able to break away from China. And this will mean that Russia will stand between China and Europe, much as the Byzantine Empire stood between Europe and the Islamic world.

A mighty civilization that sits between Europe and China will necessarily serve as its de facto protector, which is not to say that Europe should not be armed against it.

 

[EV13SON]

Europe and Russia need to find a way to patch up, I would be inclined to believe most Russians would share more cultural affinity with the West, of course you have a mixed Turkic Asiatic Steppe admixture and we all have admixtures, in a perfect world there should be a spiritual home base for each major religion but they should be open to allowing all denominations within their borders to freely practice...The other major ones being Islam, your Hinduism, and Buddhism you cannot stamp out religion but it can become more symbolic over time and less dogmatic...

 

[Ailchu]

But its more than that, because many Western states and governments don't represent the will of the people as much, as that people would be ready to sacrifice anything for it.

i could see that people with unpopular opinions would not see themselves represented enough inside a democracy and then would not try to defend it. maybe instead they would even ask for an autocracy. as i said i think people are too spoiled.

 

[Northener]

The EU could possibly be rehabilitated with a new leadership that cared for the people and the sanctity of Europe. Keep the structure, replace the elites. And you would need at least three currencies, one for Germany and NW Europe, one for Mediterranean Europe, one for Visegrad Group. However, I do not see how NATO can be salvaged, as it is so thoroughly dominated by US. Germany must replace US has principal military force, though all nations must develop their military capability a la Finland, and then band together to resist common adversaries.

I raised the example of Holy Roman Empire because it provided (1) spiritual unity and purpose without depriving (2) smaller regions of their local character and scope for self-rule. Plus, there needs to be a return to guilds and the protection of markets.

Europe should either (1) split into three blocks, as outlined by Kojeve, or (2) a loose confederation or "empire" with Germany at the helm a la the Holy Roman Empire.

In either event, Europe must replace its current elites, become militarily independent of both US and Russia, and protect its borders and markets.

I don't know sounds too much recipes of way back times....The French for example will never accept a German dominance, and they are partly NW, partly club med. The UK is still somewhere scrolling around.

And it looks like if Europe- the NATO- was on the back seat of the US. But don't forget that the military complex of the US is an 'industry' of it's own there are some intrest to keep that. And in the end the US is rooted in specific NW Europe, already this has drastically changed of course. Nevertheless the ties are close, especially when I talk about the UK but also the Netherlands.

The integration of some East-European countries into the EU is still a big problem. It's too easy to blame the "technocratic neoliberal" elite in Brussels. Because matters of state and civil society, the trias politica, the independence of law etc is in countries like Poland or Hungary let alone the Ukraine differentiated from many West-Europeans countries. We are not waiting for more Viktor Orban kind of figures.

Russia has ever been on some kind of edgy position in Europe. Periods of opening to the West are been changed for periods full of resistance and resentments towards the West. Just like with the Russian icons they have something scorching. They also collectivist. And, for example, the nucleus family, especially known from the west, is not commonplace in Russia.