Geoff - The U.S. was the defender of democracy during World War II. Since then, it has been busy - bipartisan wise - building its own empire, not of territories but of economic and political dominance that empowers U.S. government to 'persuade'/lean on so-called free countries and impinge on their sovereignty. The excuses have varied. Re…
Geoff - The U.S. was the defender of democracy during World War II. Since then, it has been busy - bipartisan wise - building its own empire, not of territories but of economic and political dominance that empowers U.S. government to 'persuade'/lean on so-called free countries and impinge on their sovereignty. The excuses have varied. Re: Vietnam, it was to save it from the 'yellow hordes from the north' and arresting an inevitable 'domino effect'. More recently, the excuse has been 'regime change'. In fact, U.S. intervention (via the use of the IMF) in Russia under Yeltsin in the 1990s demonstrated that what the U.S. was really about was to destroy economic competitors. This policy was confirmed less than two years ago when the U.S. decided to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea; that was industrial sabotage against 'friends' and 'allies'; it violated their sovereignty.
However, I agree that Trump is a loser. But he's the logal extension of U.S. post-war policy. He's just more honest about it. He hasn't got the brains to formulate a self-serving national ideology. His is simply self-serving in a crass form.
There have been cracks and some (quite a few) failures, but if I had to pin my hopes on any democracy it would have been the USA until around 10 years ago. The trickle down theory has failed the vast majority of citizens, but I had thought the democratic institutions strong enough to fix it. I was wrong.
Geoff - The point I'm making is that a country or city-state can be both democratic and imperial. Gandhi noted that British democracy was a wonderful thing - in Britain - but its empire building had as its aim to maintain enlightened despotism in India. Going back in time, Athens had a democracy of free men, and was one of the world's centres of philosophy and high culture, but engaged in empire building and massacre, also.
Gunnar, you are Sisyphus, rolling the stone of human nature up a hill.
Empire-Democracy. Empire-autocracy.
The American "Empire" (as you call it) is benevolent, and not oppressive, it is flawed (beyond question or doubt) but it swims in the sea of justice and the rule of law.Laws cobbled together by those who are ruled. At least until the Federalist Society had it's judges appointed to the bench by Trump, and until Trump wins (god forbid) election and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025, and Trumps Project 47, are implemented on Jan 20th 2025, then Katy bar the gates, because all hell is going to be unleashed on the U.S.A, then the world
William - There is no such thing as 'human nature' - unless you think that Sigmund Freud outlined it in his psychoanalytic theory. Even then, the ways human express 'human nature' are numerous and highly divergent. In itself, 'human nature' has no predictive value.
You claim that the American empire is benevolent. Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Beating Hirohito and Hitler were benevolent goals; helping depose the elected Prime Minister of Fiji in 1987 wasn't - it was a coup d'Etat and a breach of the rule of law. Likewise, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea two years ago was an act of industrial terrorism - it was a breach of international law.
America's dilemma is not just about Donald Trump. One problem is that U.S. judges are political appointees. I appreciate that there are reasons for this, but we can now see why it might be a disadvantage.
I am not going to get bogged down in a side bar about Human Nature, needless to say I disagree.
I do not disagree with your other complaints, but again it is wrong to lump them under empire..
Nations act in their own perceived benefit. I myself bitch about Exxon using it's money muscle to isolate Venezuela because it had the temerity to believe that it's oil belonged to Venezuela. Then there are the Banana Wars, the Ovethrow of Mossadegh MI 6 and the CIA), Coca cola funding right wing death squads in Honduras, Dubya invasion of Iraq, his fathers invasion of Panama to arrest a CIA bagman.
I have a longer list than you, but the list is not about empire, that is a wornout Marxist trope. It is all about shareholder value, return on investment, executive salaries and bonuses.
Chase swamp gas if you like I will keep my eye on the target, not illusions like "empire".
I live in the real world of America in 2024, and there are only two choices, a right wing theocratic dictatorship under Trump or a flawed and faulty democratic Republic.
William - The British empire was also about making money. The East India Company, for example, made a lot of money in India - see for example: Shashi Tharoor interview: How British Colonialism 'destroyed' India - YouTube. - You are right that nations pursue their own interest, and the definition of 'empire' has fuzzy boundaries. But empire has to do with national reach and degree of influnce. During Cold War I we often spoke of the 'Soviet empire', referring not just to its claim to Siberia and Central Asia, but to its influence in Indonesia and Africa and Cuba. Since c. 2008 and the start of Cold War II, NATO has started referring to Russia as an empire. And yet, in terms of territory, while Russia shrunk, it was NATO that expanded during the 1990s.
Empire also has to do with attitude. How often do we hear U.S. Presidents refer to "our power" and "our friends across the globe" in the same breath during their inaugural address? Empire has to do with prestige and arrogance, with the knowledge that wherever you go, you will be listened to with respect, resentment, and obedience. I put it to you that the Vietnam War had less to do with establishing new markets for Coka Cola and more to do with 'extending' the reach, prestige and military power of the U.S. Vietnam was a demonstration case. Maybe this was the psychological reason why LBJ and Nixon kept fighting it for so long.
I suppose foreigners are more likely to perceive 'empire' than the nation state that is accused of it. We foreigners take note of 'American exceptionalism' and see in it signs of empire. You Americans probably see it too but read the signs differently. - As I said, the boundaries are fuzzy.
Who did the East India Company make money for? It made it for it's stockholders.
I repeat while Marxists and Liberals kvetchabout Empire, they should be looking behind the curtain. It isn't Governments that are the problem, it is the stockholders who use government as a tool and a weapon.
It is these same forces that fund the political parties, that control the government.
A nation is it's governing body,, the governing body is simply a tool. But you and so many others are stuck looking at the Wizard on the screen and not the man behind the curtain.
In 1600 a group of investors got together and asked,( bribed) Elizabeth 1 for a royal charter (a monopoly) to form the East India Company, to compete with Spain in it's exploitation of the America's. It eventually had enough power to use the English Army, the red coats, in it's drive for profits and power, and you and others call that Empire, when in reality it is a profit making corporation using the collective power of the state.
Same here in America, what Coca Cola wants, what Exxon Mobil wants, what any large financial institution or corporation wants they get, because they have the money and thus the power over politicians.
It isn't empire, it is return on investment, shareholder value, and those that increase it, like CEO's, Lobbyists, Boards of directors are richly rewarded, those impede it pay a price, either politically or personal, but the political is personal, especially when it means loss of life and/or income and social status.
So talk about Empire and Imperialism all you want, but you are yammering at the projected Wizard on the Screen, not the man behind the curtain.
Here is a concept. the USA is a joint venture company, it's shareholders are corporations, who themselves are in competition, at war with each other, let's call it a vessel, USA Inc.
We are passenger and deckhands on the jolly ship America, it's captain is elected by the passengers and deck hands, much like pirates elected their captains, the crew that mans the ship, is also elected.
Every four years a new captain takes charge and orders the ship to veer port or starboard, and after it has veered far enough of course to satisfy the passengers ,that are paying for the voyage, there is an election and a new captain takes over and orders a course correction,putting the ship back on track for it's final destination.
In the meanwhile this joint venture company, needs to protect it's assets and itself, and also secure resources so it sends out arned crew to fend off threats or secure vital resources.
An Empire serves a person, the Emperor, one person not a nation. The Roman Empire had an Emperor. Charlemagne was an Emperor, Napoleon was an Emperor, Victoria was an Emperor.
Wiiliam - Thank you for your thought-provoking post!
I will focus on the British Empire because it is the one that I know best. You seem to reduce the Empire to the shareholders of the East India Company (EIC). Yes, EIC raised its own army in India; it saved the British government money and effort. Then came 1857 and the Mutiny or War of Independence, and after it had been put down, Queen Victoria (the British government) took over the military occupation of British India.
Because India was not just a colony to be squeezed of its raw materials - although of course that was one aspect of Empire. India was also a prestige thing - big in area, populous, requiring travelling judges to uphold law and order, and a network of spies to detect groups of restive natives. In fact, Britain had a civil service In India, quite a bureaucracy. And missionaries, out to abolish suttee, for example. Britain had set herself the task of civilizing the country. To believe that this apparatus and purpose was simply to make money is a form of commercialist reductionism, William, and maybe your attempt at letting the U.S.'s empire off the hook. After all, who can object to be bit of international commerce in far-flung corners of the world? Sounds innocent and well-meaning enough!
Empires do not simply serve one person. Where do you get that from? Mind you, following the debacle of 1857, Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. But actually, India dwelt in the hearts of many others.
So, prestige is an important element in Empire maintenance. An example: in 1976, the artist Val C. Prinsep is given a commission: to paint as many of the Rajahs as possible. The plan is to then combine all the portraits into one large painting - a prestige piece. The way he talks about his father is telling; his father spent 33 years in the Indian Civil Service - "an example of unselfish devotion to duty and unassuming ability found in many of those who have by their unrecognized labours made India what it is" ("Imperial India. An Artist's Journeys", p. 2).
Sure, Princep was an "accredited painter to the Government" (p. 74), so he was paid. But this is not simply about money. The way he speaks about his father's "service" to India is the way a member of a colonial family conceals from himself the true nature of Empire.
But I can see that I will not convince you. You don't like the idea that your country might be engaged in empire building. Maybe you find the thought vulgar. Your country is more refined than that - more honestly commercial. Be that as it may be!
I think you are stuck in a paradigm, left over from when Kings ruled all,or people thought that they did.
The EIC, it didn't become the BEIC until The Acts of Union, in 1707 passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of a united kingdom to be called “Great Britain” on 1 May of that year.
None of what England then Britain did until Elizabeth I was for the King or Queen,and it is royalty that is Emperor. Sir Benjamin D'Israeli declared Victoria to be Empress, and thus Britain and Empire.
Kings, Queens, Emperors need a medium of exchange, money, they obtain this via taxes and loans.
Edward I borrowed money from the Jews of London and when he couldn't pay back the loan, he banned Jews from England
The Fugger Brothers of Italy, were a wealthy Florence banking institution, and made out loaning money to crowned heads.
They loaned money to Ferdinand and Isabella, who refuse to pay it back, they didn't have the money That bankrupted the Fugger brothers. Still in the need for money, they evicted all Muslims and Jews from Spain, and confiscated their property, in their need that backed Columbus voyage and he set sail for America on the very day the eviction edict took place.
Frances I of France, needed money so he borrowed it from the international financial institution known as the Knights Templar, unable to repay the loan he had the Pope declare them heretics,manufactured evidence and thus not have to repay the loan, and while at it he tried to confiscate their wealth,but the Knights spirited it away.
If you insist on seeing Empires as Nations I can't dissuade you, however the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly inot in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters.
The driving force is what would be called today, Capitalists, Plutocrats, billinaires and were called in their day adventurers. That was the term used for people who put up money and invested in the East India and London Company of Virginia.
Talking of the latter, it was not Imperialism that motivated the formation of the London Company of Virginia, it was profit. A group of investors, one of whom was my ancestor, bought stock in this venture, called a joint venture.
The purpose of which was to exploit the gold and silver, which they believed lay in abundance in that land across the Atlantic which the Spanish were explotiting and making them wealthy and the base of the Holy Roman Empire.
They prevailed upon James I for a charter to go forth and exploit the country.
That was in 1607, the quest came to naught, and were it not for Turkish Tobacco seeds carried by John Rolfe, the enterprise would have ended, just as the Virginia Company of Plymouth ended. There charter was formed by a group of Plymouth, England merchants who wanted to exploit, the Northern part of Virginia, which at the time was the entire east coast from the latitude of Roanoke to the Latitude of Maine.
James 1 hated tobacco, a foul smelling weed, and the Virginia Company would have come to an end, but for the efforts of a distant cousin named Nicholas Ferrar,who was a shareholder, a member of the governing board as well as influential in the religious life of England.
Two years after the disastrous attack by the Powhatan Indians,known as the Jamestown massacre, and because it had not found gold or silver nor returned a profit,on ay 24, 1624, the Virginia Company's charter was revoked by King James I due to overwhelming financial problems and politics, and Virginia became a royal colony,
Still England was not an Empire
There followed the English Civil war and with the victory of Cromwell, royalists fled to Virginia like geese, They became the planters the upper class, supplanting the old upper class of adventurers.
Still England was not an Empire. Whether or not an idea lies in the breast of many people, it is not an Empire
Nothing dwells in the hearts of others, because people are too involved with the affairs of surviving
I really don't know what you are arguing for,other than you have this idea (is it sincere or propaganda) that there is an American empire and thus all Americans are complicit, and that I am trying to get America off the hook. I am not,but you are trying like hell to put America on the hook. perhaps because it is the cornerstone of your political ideological foundation or agenda.
William - I think you are stuck in the minutae of history and can't see the wood for the trees. You even reach back to the English Civil War, prior to Empire.
You write, "the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly not in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters". - Well, in the U.S., its empire has been consolidating gradually - one could argue since the formulation of the Monroe doctrine, and certainly during and following World War II. And it's been a bipartisan movement, becoming part of the Washington Consensus, and took place long before Reagonomic/neoliberalism took hold in the 1980s. Neoliberalism and its bedfellow Globalisation have accellerated the formation of empire building.
What is characteristic of the U.S. power elite is its coyness: they don't talk about empire building and they never mention neoliberalism. Nor do the press barons. The British were much more forthcoming about their Empire. But the prestige - and the self-regard - by U.S. presidents and in the U.S. Congress about its "global reach" is palpable. There is no mistaking it. And they are proud of 'American exceptionalism', a sure indicator of political and financial international clout. To us mere mortals elsewhere in the world, it feels very much like a U.S. empire descending upon us. Sorry William!
So, when Biden decided to destroy the Nord Stream gas lines, we all knew who was behind it. It wasn't a puny nation state; it was an empire in the making, with a global reach and with the temerity to act against its NATO allies. And, as I said, we resent but we obey.
OK Gunnar, you have painted a picture of the pimples on the ass of the U.S.A., Now what is your solution, and what are the unintended results of your solution. Or do people think that far ahead, content with pointing fingers, calling names and venting their spleen, but nary a solution.
Fair question, William! - Well, one solution is to take back the power of the masters of the universe and their corporations. One step toward this would be to stop private election campaign contributions and introduce state-subsidised contributions instead. Another would be limit private access to Congress men/women. On a grander scale, maybe there should be a public conversation about the role of the U.S. in the international domain. This would involve a reassessment of the use of international influence. It would include a debate about so-called 'rule-based' versus international international order - see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0
All this ought to lead to a conversation about the role of taxation and the role of government. Most of us would say that, as a matter of principle, most of our tax money should benefit us in various way. (Some libertarians would disagree, but then most libertarians are young, able-bodied and inexperienced, or they stand to inherit). These days government regard tax money as 'theirs', not ours. The solution is somewhere in-between, but the conversation must establish the cut-off point. I am mindful of Social Contract theory, and the need to re-visit it - see https://www.worldhistory.org/Social_Contract/
Deep-seated racism has been and remains a very big stumbling block. You say that there is no such thing as "human nature; do you imply that the human mind is a tabula rasa?
Victor - Absolutely not! We are born with different levels of intelligence, for a start. We are also born with different emotional reactions - phlegmatism; reactivity of the nervous system (Hans Eysenck), etc. We are even born with different micro-behaviours, inherited from one of our parents.
As for racism: it's learned behaviour - learned from family and wider culture or sub-culture. The most vivid personal example of this was during my brief stay in Darlington in northeast England in 1980. I was attending an informal party of young white and Black English people and was struck by how well they got on. Complete integration. Absolutely no sign of racial tension!
I agree with you Gunnar, I really do, but I live in reality, not the world of what if's, wanna be's, my druthers, and the reality is that we have the best government money can be, literally. You don't get elected,much less re elected without serious financial backing, unless you live in a racial cultural enclave . and even then they have to fight it out in the primary, which means money for propaganda, and people are a sucker for propaganda, even in Scandinavia, brand power, they believe in brands, you can sell them anything if it is shown on TV,. It is a people problem, there is little in the way of critical thinking and perception among the general public, few have time, and those that do lack the facility.
To proceed to achieve your goals, you require a majority in the House of Representatives and a 60 votes out of 100 in the Senate. Lot of luck Gunnar.
What do they say about wishes. If they were horses beggars would ride.
Realistically changes like you propose are monumental and drastic, they can only be achieved via deceit, manipulation or surreptitiously. grdually one increment at a time, because the real powers that be, the corporations and billionaires like Musk, Peter Thiel, Jaime Dimon, keep a watchful, very watchful eye on political developments
The only way to achieve your and my goal is by a radical sweep of all elective offices by genuine progressives, and that is a tall,tall order.
Meanwhile I live in the real world, and the real world presents to choices, one between an outright pervert, a rapist, a thief, a grifter, a traitor named Trump and a bumbling, imperfect but well meaning man named Joe Biden.
There are no other choices Gunnar., so who will it be?
William - I was asked about my solutions, so I listed a few. Of course they are idealistic, and you are free to call them unrealistic if you want. Democracy was idealistic and 'unrealistic', too, once upon a time. Still, it's good to have goals to work towards. Signposts. Reminders.
What are those solutions? If you listed them I don't see them.
Here is the situation. Only problems have solutions. For some things there are no solutions, human nature, like the need to breed, are only solved through drastic and lasting measures like sterilization and old age. and even then old age is not a solution, and the need to breed is a biological imperative, motivated by a thing called orgasm, which in turn is motivated by hormones.
There are difficulties, difficulties have no solution, attempts to solve a difficulty only exacerbates the situation, makes it worse.
Inequality is not a problem, it is a difficulty, any attempt to solve the problem fails, and only leads to greater problems. The Bolsheviks tried to solve the problem, supposedly, by using drastic measures to eliminate the middle class and dissenters, but they didn't get rid of inequality, they only removed the rungs out of the ladder, the middle class, leaving only the top rung and the bottom rung.
In the USA they tried to solve the problem of inequality via affirmative action, but that only exacerbated the situation as there was a violent and vehement reaction and in their zeal the attempt elevated some personalities who had no business being elevated as they lacked the qualifications and ability to do the job, Clarence Thomas comes to mind.
All you can do with a difficulty is to ameliorate it's affects.
You can't solve a difficulty.
Racism is a difficulty, not a problem, because it has no solution, even if the whole world was brown, there would still be racism, brown eyes vs blue eyes.
The genocide of Tutsi's in Rwanda by Hutu's was a race war,yet both were black, they differed in stature, shape of head and nose.s, Tutsis being described as tall with thin noses and a lofty bearing, as opposed to Hutus, who were short, stocky, and flat-nosed. The Tutsis were sometimes even described as 'false negroes', as Europeans with black skin.
Shall we discuss the middle east, we can't do so without discussing religion.
To start with not all Arabs are Muslim, but 99.99% are, Arab is not a race,it is an ethnic identity based on one's native tongue. Jew is not a race either, it is an identity based on tradition,not a religion.
There are white, yellow, black Arabs, There are Muslim and Jew (Druze) Arabs.
Kurds are not Arab.
There are orthodox Jews, secular Jews, atheist Jews and even Christian Jews (Jews for Jesus), but no Muslim Jews,unless they are converts or descendants of same like Metin Kaplan.
So Jew is an ethnicity not defined by Race or Religion
Arab is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Christianity is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Hindu is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Same with Buddhism, or any other identity.
So we are left with the worlds greatest destabilizers, Religion.
Religion knows no ethnicity, it is trans national, trans ethnic.
An example, there are three Slavic nations in the Balkans, all cousins, all Slavs, but they differ by religion, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox, actually four
Bosnia Muslim, Kosovo Muslim, Croatia Roman Catholic, Serbia Orthodox all enemies of each other yet all are Slavs. Rome called them Illyrians, Constantine was one.
We now get down to the problem of religion. It is not a problem because their is no solution, unless there is a great awakening and mankind realizes that religion doesn't solve it's problems and provides security, but causes them.
Back to the mid east, the conflict between Muslim and Jew is 1400 years old, it started with Muhammad beheading the entire Jewish tribe of Quaryza in Medina because he wanted their wealth, it is in the Quran.
And became a holy war, in the hadith of al Bukhari, verse (sahih) 129/1296, book 56, hadith 139, where it says "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem) (copy and pasted from the HAMAS covenant)
The day of Judgement is the end times, when the Mehdi/Mahdi will appear and all of the world becomes Muslim. it is , when Allah will decide how people will spend their afterlife. Yawm ad-Din , day of judgement will not come until all the Jews are obliterated.
Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved. On top of which Jews are occupying what Muslims believe to be sacred Islamic soil, especially the Dome of the Rock.
Russian aggression is a problem, however and there is a solution, Putin dies, and the oligarchs which are his power base and henchmen, along with him.
Still it will require a massive overhaul of the Russian mentality, for them subservience to authority, serfdom and slavery is part of their cultural inheritance from Jenghis Khan, through the Tsars, through the Bolsheviks to Putin.
The Russian ethos and legacy is Imperialism, conquest, obliteration of ethnic identities. Well not with Stalin, he incorporated the various ethnicities into the Soviet Union, so long as they served him and his purpose.
Putin is trying to do the same, with the exception of Ukraine, perhaps the Baltic states as well, there is in genocidal mode.
Muslim Chechnya rebelled because they felt that their ethic identity as Muslims was under attack by Orthodox Russia, Putin found a solution to that problem, by recognizing the leadership of the most ruthless Muslim thug as president, now he has a Muslim satrap.
William - Thank you again for an interesting post!
You write, "Racism is a difficulty, not a problem, because it has no solution, even if the whole world was brown, there would still be racism, brown eyes vs blue eyes". - My example for Darlington in northeast England in 1980 suggests that - whether a problem or a difficulty - there is a solution, but maybe we haven't studied the issue from the potentially most productive angle.
You also write, "Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved. On top of which Jews are occupying what Muslims believe to be sacred Islamic soil, especially the Dome of the Rock". - Well, Norwegians have a 'sacred place', too, namely Eidsvold, where our Consitution was drafted and signed by a group of respectable middle-class men. Even so, we have forged friendship ties with both Denmark and Sweden. The reason is that the circumstances and context for the earlier conflict have fallen away. That's what is needed in the Middle East. One stumbling block - among many - is the (by now) much-debated Empire.
You furthermore write, "So we are left with the worlds greatest destabilizers, Religion". - I'm not so sure about that. The great destabilisers are demagogues who happen to feel in a religious mood and who are inclined to use religion to climb the sleazy pole of fame and infamy.
In fact, there is an ecumenical movement, where representative cognoscenti from various world religions meet to explore common ground - and discuss how to defend each other against common evils like secularism, materialism, Marxism, atheism, and unholy doubt. So, in Britain we were blessed with an archbishop who defended sharia law and a parallel sharia court system in Britain. This came as a suprise to many Brits - see https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/archbishop-of-canterbury-clarifies-defends-remarks-on-shariah-law-1.698017
This means that you conclusion, "Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved" - although expressed with logical certainty - could be incorrect.
You assert, "The Russian ethos and legacy is Imperialism, conquest, obliteration of ethnic identities. Well not with Stalin, he incorporated the various ethnicities into the Soviet Union, so long as they served him and his purpose". - Yes, you are right: Stalin tolerated ethnic minorities and even promoted them on the 'everyday' cultural level, but within the national state-framework of the Soviet Union. In the United States, such a process used to be called "the melting pot". I'm not sure what it's called now, in our current age of diversity, polarisation, and assertive thinking.
As for Ukraine: Putin sees it as part and parcel of a wider nuclear-strategic issue of Russian self-protection: the problem of keeping one's adversaries at arm's length, always and everywhere. I agree that this is a phenomenon that marks out super-powers and/or narcent empires. The Monroe Doctrine has the same aim. It is sometimes referred to as 'areas of interest'.
I overllooked an important difference between Judiasm and Islam and Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
The Scandinavians share a cultural heritage, and a racial one at that.
Jews and Muslims do not, In fact their cultures are at odds with each other, and Islam demands subservience, not only of Jews but of your culture.
As regards Sharia in England and Norway, or Islam in the west. Bear in mind that when you are a guest in some one else;s home, you are on your best behavior
In New York city, where there are a lot of orthodox Jewish communities, Jewish family law (Halakah or The way to behave) is practiced, only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with secular law. The communities even even their own family courts.
If a Jew doesn't like the rabbinical ruling, then he leaves the community and is then subject to the laws of the state.
Sharia is more than family law, it is law that governs society. Female Genital Mutilation is permitted, because women are not suppose to enjoy sex, and indeed it is practiced in Muslim communities in America, especially among the Somali community in Minnesota. Homosexuality is punishable by death, leaving Islam (irtidad) is punishable by death, and has indeed been carried out in America, disrespecting the Quran and Muhammad is punishable by death. Honor killing is permissible, and indeed many cases of honor killing in America.
Polygamy is permitted in Islam, and despite secular laws against it, it is still practiced (also by Fundamentalist Mormons, who have more than the four wives permitted by the Quran)
Sharia is much more than family law
Here is the problem that Islam has in Europe and even in Norway, and it accounts for the rise of the right.
Islam has never undergone the reformation of Christianity, and it can't.
For instance there is no substantial difference from a westerners POV between Sunni and Shia Islam. Their's is an intramural fight over who is the successor to Muhammad., not one of doctrine, ritual or tradition.
Were it not for Charles Martel in 732 at Potiers' or John III Sobieski at the gates of Vienna in 1682, Europe or most of Europe would be Muslim and living under Sharia.
If you are a misogynistic, homophobic , female dominating patriarch who can stop what they are doing and pray five times a day, then Islam is for you.
But here is what accounts for the rise of the right in Europe.
When a minority culture reaches 17% of the population, there is a tipping point, in which the values, practices, traditions of that minority population bleeds over into the majority population,and women start wearing hijabs, not wearing short skirts, men became authoritarians over their wives and children., conversions become more frequent, and before you know it, there are Sharia law side by side with secular law, eventually, Secular law is replaced.
And it isn't about race, although there is some of that, it is about culture.
Islamic culture and western culture are incompatible. Water and oil, and there is no emulsifier.
I personally,and most people I know, could not survive in an Islamic society.
We would be dead.
To be fair, there are Christian cultures, in America, that are just as bad, and are even more threatening. They threaten to take over this country via Trump.
They are called Evangelicals, Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation, an extreme group of Christian nationalists, sees Trump as the anointed person to help create a Christian state.
They are transdenominational, includes Protestants and Catholics.
Dominionism was found by R J Rushdoony and Ted Cruz's father Rafael.
it seeks to restore order and like the NAR replace the constitution with Mosaic laws.
The Mosaic laws are the 613 laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, well not all of them, not the inconvenient ones like don't eat pork, shell fish or wear clothing of mixed fabric,only the ones of social control. Like death for less than faithful Christians, rebellious teenagers, atheists, adulterers and the method of execution is stoning, because stones are free.
In the case of these Christians vs Islam the fight is not cultural, because they are on the same side of the culture war. It is religious.
Islam is supremacist, exclusive. It accords Christians and Jews,the right to their worship and traditions, so long as they accept second class citizen status as dhimmis.
The History of Christianity, since Constantine, is all or nothing. The reformation ameliorated the harm of Christianity, after hundreds of years of war, torture, slaughter and burning at the stake, there has been a detente between Christian factions, and they have proliferated, but they stand united against a common threat.
Myself I don't give a fuck, so long as I can live in peace, in a society rule by secular laws. If women allow themselves to be brainwashed into objects, like Islamic women and the women of many Christian communities, that is their business, so long as it isn't the law and culture I live in.
If your government is regressive, backwards and unable to even feed it's people, like for instance, Afghanistan, then that is their problem, and we shouldn't bail them out, for their choices, and it is their choice, for like Mao said, the revolution(govenment) swims in the sea of the people.
When the people can't live with their choice, their government, their culture, they flee to a more prosperous and free culture, but drag with them the garbage that created their misery, as if it were precious gems, and try to remake the host culture that welcomed them, into the same pile of shit that they fled.
Thus the rise of the right in Europe.
America is different, here it is pure racism and the fear that maybe low wage unskilled migrants, who can't speak English will take away high paying jobs that require skills.
However the culture of North, Central and South America is Christian, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Catholic and ultra conservative at that, a perfect fit with the homophobic, misogynistic culture of Christian America, so the only reason for anti immigrant politics is racial and economic.
The economic complaint is a farce, because the immigrants do jobs,that Americans feel are beneath them and don't pay well enough.
So it is racial. And I don't care about race, I wish the whole world was brown.
There would be one less reason for conflict.
In America it is racial in Europe it is cultural, with a smattering of racism.
I have no idea of what you are talking about vis a vis Darlington. I repeat a difficulty has no solution, and a difficulty is not a problem. You have heard of solving a problem or problem solvers, ever heard of difficulty solvers
You can't compare a religious/ethnic war between Muslims and Jews, to
Norway, Sweden and Denmark,all of which are Scandinavian and share a common origin and history. The attempt to do is does not speak well.
What is with you and your fixation on Empire? And the only Empire in your lexicon is America and the west, but not Russia and Islam.
You sure are a Putin apologist and partisan, you have an excuse for everything Russian and Putin.
Again, what is it with you and your obsession with Empire.?
Biden ain't bumbling; he just walks like an 81-year-old man with pain in his body. He had only two years when he could get something done, and did he ever get something done!!!! Get with his record and stop complaining about him!
Sandra B - Well, Biden installed Janet Yellen; in an age of neoliberalism, this was no mean feat but not much commented on here in Britain. In this sense, Biden is well-meaning. However, when it comes to Israel's genocide in the Gaza Strip, he seems to have a blind spot.
I'm not complaining about him Sandra just being honest in my opinion with a Trump lover, cheese lighten up a bit don't be so defense. I'm 85, had a cancerous tumor removed in my brain, size of a tangerine, 7 years ago, and ten bouts of radiation afterwards, Result I stutter in speech and typing, and my sense of balance is shot.I would fall on my ass if there wasn't furniture and walls to grab.
Lighten up. I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Biden.
Geoff - The U.S. was the defender of democracy during World War II. Since then, it has been busy - bipartisan wise - building its own empire, not of territories but of economic and political dominance that empowers U.S. government to 'persuade'/lean on so-called free countries and impinge on their sovereignty. The excuses have varied. Re: Vietnam, it was to save it from the 'yellow hordes from the north' and arresting an inevitable 'domino effect'. More recently, the excuse has been 'regime change'. In fact, U.S. intervention (via the use of the IMF) in Russia under Yeltsin in the 1990s demonstrated that what the U.S. was really about was to destroy economic competitors. This policy was confirmed less than two years ago when the U.S. decided to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea; that was industrial sabotage against 'friends' and 'allies'; it violated their sovereignty.
However, I agree that Trump is a loser. But he's the logal extension of U.S. post-war policy. He's just more honest about it. He hasn't got the brains to formulate a self-serving national ideology. His is simply self-serving in a crass form.
There have been cracks and some (quite a few) failures, but if I had to pin my hopes on any democracy it would have been the USA until around 10 years ago. The trickle down theory has failed the vast majority of citizens, but I had thought the democratic institutions strong enough to fix it. I was wrong.
Geoff - The point I'm making is that a country or city-state can be both democratic and imperial. Gandhi noted that British democracy was a wonderful thing - in Britain - but its empire building had as its aim to maintain enlightened despotism in India. Going back in time, Athens had a democracy of free men, and was one of the world's centres of philosophy and high culture, but engaged in empire building and massacre, also.
Gunnar, you are Sisyphus, rolling the stone of human nature up a hill.
Empire-Democracy. Empire-autocracy.
The American "Empire" (as you call it) is benevolent, and not oppressive, it is flawed (beyond question or doubt) but it swims in the sea of justice and the rule of law.Laws cobbled together by those who are ruled. At least until the Federalist Society had it's judges appointed to the bench by Trump, and until Trump wins (god forbid) election and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025, and Trumps Project 47, are implemented on Jan 20th 2025, then Katy bar the gates, because all hell is going to be unleashed on the U.S.A, then the world
William - There is no such thing as 'human nature' - unless you think that Sigmund Freud outlined it in his psychoanalytic theory. Even then, the ways human express 'human nature' are numerous and highly divergent. In itself, 'human nature' has no predictive value.
You claim that the American empire is benevolent. Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Beating Hirohito and Hitler were benevolent goals; helping depose the elected Prime Minister of Fiji in 1987 wasn't - it was a coup d'Etat and a breach of the rule of law. Likewise, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea two years ago was an act of industrial terrorism - it was a breach of international law.
America's dilemma is not just about Donald Trump. One problem is that U.S. judges are political appointees. I appreciate that there are reasons for this, but we can now see why it might be a disadvantage.
I am not going to get bogged down in a side bar about Human Nature, needless to say I disagree.
I do not disagree with your other complaints, but again it is wrong to lump them under empire..
Nations act in their own perceived benefit. I myself bitch about Exxon using it's money muscle to isolate Venezuela because it had the temerity to believe that it's oil belonged to Venezuela. Then there are the Banana Wars, the Ovethrow of Mossadegh MI 6 and the CIA), Coca cola funding right wing death squads in Honduras, Dubya invasion of Iraq, his fathers invasion of Panama to arrest a CIA bagman.
I have a longer list than you, but the list is not about empire, that is a wornout Marxist trope. It is all about shareholder value, return on investment, executive salaries and bonuses.
Chase swamp gas if you like I will keep my eye on the target, not illusions like "empire".
I live in the real world of America in 2024, and there are only two choices, a right wing theocratic dictatorship under Trump or a flawed and faulty democratic Republic.
There is no choice.
William - The British empire was also about making money. The East India Company, for example, made a lot of money in India - see for example: Shashi Tharoor interview: How British Colonialism 'destroyed' India - YouTube. - You are right that nations pursue their own interest, and the definition of 'empire' has fuzzy boundaries. But empire has to do with national reach and degree of influnce. During Cold War I we often spoke of the 'Soviet empire', referring not just to its claim to Siberia and Central Asia, but to its influence in Indonesia and Africa and Cuba. Since c. 2008 and the start of Cold War II, NATO has started referring to Russia as an empire. And yet, in terms of territory, while Russia shrunk, it was NATO that expanded during the 1990s.
Empire also has to do with attitude. How often do we hear U.S. Presidents refer to "our power" and "our friends across the globe" in the same breath during their inaugural address? Empire has to do with prestige and arrogance, with the knowledge that wherever you go, you will be listened to with respect, resentment, and obedience. I put it to you that the Vietnam War had less to do with establishing new markets for Coka Cola and more to do with 'extending' the reach, prestige and military power of the U.S. Vietnam was a demonstration case. Maybe this was the psychological reason why LBJ and Nixon kept fighting it for so long.
Mearsheimer says that the U.S. doesn't have an empire but has "imperial ambitions" - see https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/mearsheimer-american-imperial-ambitions
I suppose foreigners are more likely to perceive 'empire' than the nation state that is accused of it. We foreigners take note of 'American exceptionalism' and see in it signs of empire. You Americans probably see it too but read the signs differently. - As I said, the boundaries are fuzzy.
Who did the East India Company make money for? It made it for it's stockholders.
I repeat while Marxists and Liberals kvetchabout Empire, they should be looking behind the curtain. It isn't Governments that are the problem, it is the stockholders who use government as a tool and a weapon.
It is these same forces that fund the political parties, that control the government.
A nation is it's governing body,, the governing body is simply a tool. But you and so many others are stuck looking at the Wizard on the screen and not the man behind the curtain.
In 1600 a group of investors got together and asked,( bribed) Elizabeth 1 for a royal charter (a monopoly) to form the East India Company, to compete with Spain in it's exploitation of the America's. It eventually had enough power to use the English Army, the red coats, in it's drive for profits and power, and you and others call that Empire, when in reality it is a profit making corporation using the collective power of the state.
Same here in America, what Coca Cola wants, what Exxon Mobil wants, what any large financial institution or corporation wants they get, because they have the money and thus the power over politicians.
It isn't empire, it is return on investment, shareholder value, and those that increase it, like CEO's, Lobbyists, Boards of directors are richly rewarded, those impede it pay a price, either politically or personal, but the political is personal, especially when it means loss of life and/or income and social status.
So talk about Empire and Imperialism all you want, but you are yammering at the projected Wizard on the Screen, not the man behind the curtain.
Here is a concept. the USA is a joint venture company, it's shareholders are corporations, who themselves are in competition, at war with each other, let's call it a vessel, USA Inc.
We are passenger and deckhands on the jolly ship America, it's captain is elected by the passengers and deck hands, much like pirates elected their captains, the crew that mans the ship, is also elected.
Every four years a new captain takes charge and orders the ship to veer port or starboard, and after it has veered far enough of course to satisfy the passengers ,that are paying for the voyage, there is an election and a new captain takes over and orders a course correction,putting the ship back on track for it's final destination.
In the meanwhile this joint venture company, needs to protect it's assets and itself, and also secure resources so it sends out arned crew to fend off threats or secure vital resources.
An Empire serves a person, the Emperor, one person not a nation. The Roman Empire had an Emperor. Charlemagne was an Emperor, Napoleon was an Emperor, Victoria was an Emperor.
America has no Emperor, unless Trump is elected.
Wiiliam - Thank you for your thought-provoking post!
I will focus on the British Empire because it is the one that I know best. You seem to reduce the Empire to the shareholders of the East India Company (EIC). Yes, EIC raised its own army in India; it saved the British government money and effort. Then came 1857 and the Mutiny or War of Independence, and after it had been put down, Queen Victoria (the British government) took over the military occupation of British India.
Because India was not just a colony to be squeezed of its raw materials - although of course that was one aspect of Empire. India was also a prestige thing - big in area, populous, requiring travelling judges to uphold law and order, and a network of spies to detect groups of restive natives. In fact, Britain had a civil service In India, quite a bureaucracy. And missionaries, out to abolish suttee, for example. Britain had set herself the task of civilizing the country. To believe that this apparatus and purpose was simply to make money is a form of commercialist reductionism, William, and maybe your attempt at letting the U.S.'s empire off the hook. After all, who can object to be bit of international commerce in far-flung corners of the world? Sounds innocent and well-meaning enough!
Empires do not simply serve one person. Where do you get that from? Mind you, following the debacle of 1857, Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. But actually, India dwelt in the hearts of many others.
So, prestige is an important element in Empire maintenance. An example: in 1976, the artist Val C. Prinsep is given a commission: to paint as many of the Rajahs as possible. The plan is to then combine all the portraits into one large painting - a prestige piece. The way he talks about his father is telling; his father spent 33 years in the Indian Civil Service - "an example of unselfish devotion to duty and unassuming ability found in many of those who have by their unrecognized labours made India what it is" ("Imperial India. An Artist's Journeys", p. 2).
Sure, Princep was an "accredited painter to the Government" (p. 74), so he was paid. But this is not simply about money. The way he speaks about his father's "service" to India is the way a member of a colonial family conceals from himself the true nature of Empire.
But I can see that I will not convince you. You don't like the idea that your country might be engaged in empire building. Maybe you find the thought vulgar. Your country is more refined than that - more honestly commercial. Be that as it may be!
I think you are stuck in a paradigm, left over from when Kings ruled all,or people thought that they did.
The EIC, it didn't become the BEIC until The Acts of Union, in 1707 passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of a united kingdom to be called “Great Britain” on 1 May of that year.
None of what England then Britain did until Elizabeth I was for the King or Queen,and it is royalty that is Emperor. Sir Benjamin D'Israeli declared Victoria to be Empress, and thus Britain and Empire.
Kings, Queens, Emperors need a medium of exchange, money, they obtain this via taxes and loans.
Edward I borrowed money from the Jews of London and when he couldn't pay back the loan, he banned Jews from England
The Fugger Brothers of Italy, were a wealthy Florence banking institution, and made out loaning money to crowned heads.
They loaned money to Ferdinand and Isabella, who refuse to pay it back, they didn't have the money That bankrupted the Fugger brothers. Still in the need for money, they evicted all Muslims and Jews from Spain, and confiscated their property, in their need that backed Columbus voyage and he set sail for America on the very day the eviction edict took place.
Frances I of France, needed money so he borrowed it from the international financial institution known as the Knights Templar, unable to repay the loan he had the Pope declare them heretics,manufactured evidence and thus not have to repay the loan, and while at it he tried to confiscate their wealth,but the Knights spirited it away.
If you insist on seeing Empires as Nations I can't dissuade you, however the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly inot in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters.
The driving force is what would be called today, Capitalists, Plutocrats, billinaires and were called in their day adventurers. That was the term used for people who put up money and invested in the East India and London Company of Virginia.
Talking of the latter, it was not Imperialism that motivated the formation of the London Company of Virginia, it was profit. A group of investors, one of whom was my ancestor, bought stock in this venture, called a joint venture.
The purpose of which was to exploit the gold and silver, which they believed lay in abundance in that land across the Atlantic which the Spanish were explotiting and making them wealthy and the base of the Holy Roman Empire.
They prevailed upon James I for a charter to go forth and exploit the country.
That was in 1607, the quest came to naught, and were it not for Turkish Tobacco seeds carried by John Rolfe, the enterprise would have ended, just as the Virginia Company of Plymouth ended. There charter was formed by a group of Plymouth, England merchants who wanted to exploit, the Northern part of Virginia, which at the time was the entire east coast from the latitude of Roanoke to the Latitude of Maine.
James 1 hated tobacco, a foul smelling weed, and the Virginia Company would have come to an end, but for the efforts of a distant cousin named Nicholas Ferrar,who was a shareholder, a member of the governing board as well as influential in the religious life of England.
Two years after the disastrous attack by the Powhatan Indians,known as the Jamestown massacre, and because it had not found gold or silver nor returned a profit,on ay 24, 1624, the Virginia Company's charter was revoked by King James I due to overwhelming financial problems and politics, and Virginia became a royal colony,
Still England was not an Empire
There followed the English Civil war and with the victory of Cromwell, royalists fled to Virginia like geese, They became the planters the upper class, supplanting the old upper class of adventurers.
Still England was not an Empire. Whether or not an idea lies in the breast of many people, it is not an Empire
Nothing dwells in the hearts of others, because people are too involved with the affairs of surviving
I really don't know what you are arguing for,other than you have this idea (is it sincere or propaganda) that there is an American empire and thus all Americans are complicit, and that I am trying to get America off the hook. I am not,but you are trying like hell to put America on the hook. perhaps because it is the cornerstone of your political ideological foundation or agenda.
William - I think you are stuck in the minutae of history and can't see the wood for the trees. You even reach back to the English Civil War, prior to Empire.
You write, "the driving force behind Empire are not royals or president or Prime Ministers, except in the case of Putin, Hitler and Mussolini.. Certainly not in America, not with it's turnover of Presidents and Congress critters". - Well, in the U.S., its empire has been consolidating gradually - one could argue since the formulation of the Monroe doctrine, and certainly during and following World War II. And it's been a bipartisan movement, becoming part of the Washington Consensus, and took place long before Reagonomic/neoliberalism took hold in the 1980s. Neoliberalism and its bedfellow Globalisation have accellerated the formation of empire building.
What is characteristic of the U.S. power elite is its coyness: they don't talk about empire building and they never mention neoliberalism. Nor do the press barons. The British were much more forthcoming about their Empire. But the prestige - and the self-regard - by U.S. presidents and in the U.S. Congress about its "global reach" is palpable. There is no mistaking it. And they are proud of 'American exceptionalism', a sure indicator of political and financial international clout. To us mere mortals elsewhere in the world, it feels very much like a U.S. empire descending upon us. Sorry William!
So, when Biden decided to destroy the Nord Stream gas lines, we all knew who was behind it. It wasn't a puny nation state; it was an empire in the making, with a global reach and with the temerity to act against its NATO allies. And, as I said, we resent but we obey.
And don't forget Chile
Indeed!
Very well put and understood.
OK Gunnar, you have painted a picture of the pimples on the ass of the U.S.A., Now what is your solution, and what are the unintended results of your solution. Or do people think that far ahead, content with pointing fingers, calling names and venting their spleen, but nary a solution.
Fair question, William! - Well, one solution is to take back the power of the masters of the universe and their corporations. One step toward this would be to stop private election campaign contributions and introduce state-subsidised contributions instead. Another would be limit private access to Congress men/women. On a grander scale, maybe there should be a public conversation about the role of the U.S. in the international domain. This would involve a reassessment of the use of international influence. It would include a debate about so-called 'rule-based' versus international international order - see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0
All this ought to lead to a conversation about the role of taxation and the role of government. Most of us would say that, as a matter of principle, most of our tax money should benefit us in various way. (Some libertarians would disagree, but then most libertarians are young, able-bodied and inexperienced, or they stand to inherit). These days government regard tax money as 'theirs', not ours. The solution is somewhere in-between, but the conversation must establish the cut-off point. I am mindful of Social Contract theory, and the need to re-visit it - see https://www.worldhistory.org/Social_Contract/
All this would be a good start.
Deep-seated racism has been and remains a very big stumbling block. You say that there is no such thing as "human nature; do you imply that the human mind is a tabula rasa?
Victor - Absolutely not! We are born with different levels of intelligence, for a start. We are also born with different emotional reactions - phlegmatism; reactivity of the nervous system (Hans Eysenck), etc. We are even born with different micro-behaviours, inherited from one of our parents.
As for racism: it's learned behaviour - learned from family and wider culture or sub-culture. The most vivid personal example of this was during my brief stay in Darlington in northeast England in 1980. I was attending an informal party of young white and Black English people and was struck by how well they got on. Complete integration. Absolutely no sign of racial tension!
Yes, racism is learned behavior, a tendency towards tribalism, on the other hand, appears to be innate. So, it seems, is status-seeking.
I agree with you Gunnar, I really do, but I live in reality, not the world of what if's, wanna be's, my druthers, and the reality is that we have the best government money can be, literally. You don't get elected,much less re elected without serious financial backing, unless you live in a racial cultural enclave . and even then they have to fight it out in the primary, which means money for propaganda, and people are a sucker for propaganda, even in Scandinavia, brand power, they believe in brands, you can sell them anything if it is shown on TV,. It is a people problem, there is little in the way of critical thinking and perception among the general public, few have time, and those that do lack the facility.
To proceed to achieve your goals, you require a majority in the House of Representatives and a 60 votes out of 100 in the Senate. Lot of luck Gunnar.
What do they say about wishes. If they were horses beggars would ride.
Realistically changes like you propose are monumental and drastic, they can only be achieved via deceit, manipulation or surreptitiously. grdually one increment at a time, because the real powers that be, the corporations and billionaires like Musk, Peter Thiel, Jaime Dimon, keep a watchful, very watchful eye on political developments
The only way to achieve your and my goal is by a radical sweep of all elective offices by genuine progressives, and that is a tall,tall order.
Meanwhile I live in the real world, and the real world presents to choices, one between an outright pervert, a rapist, a thief, a grifter, a traitor named Trump and a bumbling, imperfect but well meaning man named Joe Biden.
There are no other choices Gunnar., so who will it be?
William - I was asked about my solutions, so I listed a few. Of course they are idealistic, and you are free to call them unrealistic if you want. Democracy was idealistic and 'unrealistic', too, once upon a time. Still, it's good to have goals to work towards. Signposts. Reminders.
What are those solutions? If you listed them I don't see them.
Here is the situation. Only problems have solutions. For some things there are no solutions, human nature, like the need to breed, are only solved through drastic and lasting measures like sterilization and old age. and even then old age is not a solution, and the need to breed is a biological imperative, motivated by a thing called orgasm, which in turn is motivated by hormones.
There are difficulties, difficulties have no solution, attempts to solve a difficulty only exacerbates the situation, makes it worse.
Inequality is not a problem, it is a difficulty, any attempt to solve the problem fails, and only leads to greater problems. The Bolsheviks tried to solve the problem, supposedly, by using drastic measures to eliminate the middle class and dissenters, but they didn't get rid of inequality, they only removed the rungs out of the ladder, the middle class, leaving only the top rung and the bottom rung.
In the USA they tried to solve the problem of inequality via affirmative action, but that only exacerbated the situation as there was a violent and vehement reaction and in their zeal the attempt elevated some personalities who had no business being elevated as they lacked the qualifications and ability to do the job, Clarence Thomas comes to mind.
All you can do with a difficulty is to ameliorate it's affects.
You can't solve a difficulty.
Racism is a difficulty, not a problem, because it has no solution, even if the whole world was brown, there would still be racism, brown eyes vs blue eyes.
The genocide of Tutsi's in Rwanda by Hutu's was a race war,yet both were black, they differed in stature, shape of head and nose.s, Tutsis being described as tall with thin noses and a lofty bearing, as opposed to Hutus, who were short, stocky, and flat-nosed. The Tutsis were sometimes even described as 'false negroes', as Europeans with black skin.
Shall we discuss the middle east, we can't do so without discussing religion.
To start with not all Arabs are Muslim, but 99.99% are, Arab is not a race,it is an ethnic identity based on one's native tongue. Jew is not a race either, it is an identity based on tradition,not a religion.
There are white, yellow, black Arabs, There are Muslim and Jew (Druze) Arabs.
Kurds are not Arab.
There are orthodox Jews, secular Jews, atheist Jews and even Christian Jews (Jews for Jesus), but no Muslim Jews,unless they are converts or descendants of same like Metin Kaplan.
So Jew is an ethnicity not defined by Race or Religion
Arab is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Christianity is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Hindu is not an ethnicity defined by race or religion
Same with Buddhism, or any other identity.
So we are left with the worlds greatest destabilizers, Religion.
Religion knows no ethnicity, it is trans national, trans ethnic.
An example, there are three Slavic nations in the Balkans, all cousins, all Slavs, but they differ by religion, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox, actually four
Bosnia Muslim, Kosovo Muslim, Croatia Roman Catholic, Serbia Orthodox all enemies of each other yet all are Slavs. Rome called them Illyrians, Constantine was one.
We now get down to the problem of religion. It is not a problem because their is no solution, unless there is a great awakening and mankind realizes that religion doesn't solve it's problems and provides security, but causes them.
Back to the mid east, the conflict between Muslim and Jew is 1400 years old, it started with Muhammad beheading the entire Jewish tribe of Quaryza in Medina because he wanted their wealth, it is in the Quran.
And became a holy war, in the hadith of al Bukhari, verse (sahih) 129/1296, book 56, hadith 139, where it says "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem) (copy and pasted from the HAMAS covenant)
The day of Judgement is the end times, when the Mehdi/Mahdi will appear and all of the world becomes Muslim. it is , when Allah will decide how people will spend their afterlife. Yawm ad-Din , day of judgement will not come until all the Jews are obliterated.
Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved. On top of which Jews are occupying what Muslims believe to be sacred Islamic soil, especially the Dome of the Rock.
Russian aggression is a problem, however and there is a solution, Putin dies, and the oligarchs which are his power base and henchmen, along with him.
Still it will require a massive overhaul of the Russian mentality, for them subservience to authority, serfdom and slavery is part of their cultural inheritance from Jenghis Khan, through the Tsars, through the Bolsheviks to Putin.
The Russian ethos and legacy is Imperialism, conquest, obliteration of ethnic identities. Well not with Stalin, he incorporated the various ethnicities into the Soviet Union, so long as they served him and his purpose.
Putin is trying to do the same, with the exception of Ukraine, perhaps the Baltic states as well, there is in genocidal mode.
Muslim Chechnya rebelled because they felt that their ethic identity as Muslims was under attack by Orthodox Russia, Putin found a solution to that problem, by recognizing the leadership of the most ruthless Muslim thug as president, now he has a Muslim satrap.
There along discourse.
William - Thank you again for an interesting post!
You write, "Racism is a difficulty, not a problem, because it has no solution, even if the whole world was brown, there would still be racism, brown eyes vs blue eyes". - My example for Darlington in northeast England in 1980 suggests that - whether a problem or a difficulty - there is a solution, but maybe we haven't studied the issue from the potentially most productive angle.
You also write, "Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved. On top of which Jews are occupying what Muslims believe to be sacred Islamic soil, especially the Dome of the Rock". - Well, Norwegians have a 'sacred place', too, namely Eidsvold, where our Consitution was drafted and signed by a group of respectable middle-class men. Even so, we have forged friendship ties with both Denmark and Sweden. The reason is that the circumstances and context for the earlier conflict have fallen away. That's what is needed in the Middle East. One stumbling block - among many - is the (by now) much-debated Empire.
You furthermore write, "So we are left with the worlds greatest destabilizers, Religion". - I'm not so sure about that. The great destabilisers are demagogues who happen to feel in a religious mood and who are inclined to use religion to climb the sleazy pole of fame and infamy.
In fact, there is an ecumenical movement, where representative cognoscenti from various world religions meet to explore common ground - and discuss how to defend each other against common evils like secularism, materialism, Marxism, atheism, and unholy doubt. So, in Britain we were blessed with an archbishop who defended sharia law and a parallel sharia court system in Britain. This came as a suprise to many Brits - see https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/archbishop-of-canterbury-clarifies-defends-remarks-on-shariah-law-1.698017
This means that you conclusion, "Therefore there is no chance of peace between Muslim and Jew, thus not a problem that can be solved" - although expressed with logical certainty - could be incorrect.
You assert, "The Russian ethos and legacy is Imperialism, conquest, obliteration of ethnic identities. Well not with Stalin, he incorporated the various ethnicities into the Soviet Union, so long as they served him and his purpose". - Yes, you are right: Stalin tolerated ethnic minorities and even promoted them on the 'everyday' cultural level, but within the national state-framework of the Soviet Union. In the United States, such a process used to be called "the melting pot". I'm not sure what it's called now, in our current age of diversity, polarisation, and assertive thinking.
As for Ukraine: Putin sees it as part and parcel of a wider nuclear-strategic issue of Russian self-protection: the problem of keeping one's adversaries at arm's length, always and everywhere. I agree that this is a phenomenon that marks out super-powers and/or narcent empires. The Monroe Doctrine has the same aim. It is sometimes referred to as 'areas of interest'.
I overllooked an important difference between Judiasm and Islam and Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
The Scandinavians share a cultural heritage, and a racial one at that.
Jews and Muslims do not, In fact their cultures are at odds with each other, and Islam demands subservience, not only of Jews but of your culture.
As regards Sharia in England and Norway, or Islam in the west. Bear in mind that when you are a guest in some one else;s home, you are on your best behavior
In New York city, where there are a lot of orthodox Jewish communities, Jewish family law (Halakah or The way to behave) is practiced, only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with secular law. The communities even even their own family courts.
If a Jew doesn't like the rabbinical ruling, then he leaves the community and is then subject to the laws of the state.
Sharia is more than family law, it is law that governs society. Female Genital Mutilation is permitted, because women are not suppose to enjoy sex, and indeed it is practiced in Muslim communities in America, especially among the Somali community in Minnesota. Homosexuality is punishable by death, leaving Islam (irtidad) is punishable by death, and has indeed been carried out in America, disrespecting the Quran and Muhammad is punishable by death. Honor killing is permissible, and indeed many cases of honor killing in America.
Polygamy is permitted in Islam, and despite secular laws against it, it is still practiced (also by Fundamentalist Mormons, who have more than the four wives permitted by the Quran)
Sharia is much more than family law
Here is the problem that Islam has in Europe and even in Norway, and it accounts for the rise of the right.
Islam has never undergone the reformation of Christianity, and it can't.
For instance there is no substantial difference from a westerners POV between Sunni and Shia Islam. Their's is an intramural fight over who is the successor to Muhammad., not one of doctrine, ritual or tradition.
Were it not for Charles Martel in 732 at Potiers' or John III Sobieski at the gates of Vienna in 1682, Europe or most of Europe would be Muslim and living under Sharia.
If you are a misogynistic, homophobic , female dominating patriarch who can stop what they are doing and pray five times a day, then Islam is for you.
But here is what accounts for the rise of the right in Europe.
When a minority culture reaches 17% of the population, there is a tipping point, in which the values, practices, traditions of that minority population bleeds over into the majority population,and women start wearing hijabs, not wearing short skirts, men became authoritarians over their wives and children., conversions become more frequent, and before you know it, there are Sharia law side by side with secular law, eventually, Secular law is replaced.
And it isn't about race, although there is some of that, it is about culture.
Islamic culture and western culture are incompatible. Water and oil, and there is no emulsifier.
I personally,and most people I know, could not survive in an Islamic society.
We would be dead.
To be fair, there are Christian cultures, in America, that are just as bad, and are even more threatening. They threaten to take over this country via Trump.
They are called Evangelicals, Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation, an extreme group of Christian nationalists, sees Trump as the anointed person to help create a Christian state.
They are transdenominational, includes Protestants and Catholics.
Dominionism was found by R J Rushdoony and Ted Cruz's father Rafael.
it seeks to restore order and like the NAR replace the constitution with Mosaic laws.
The Mosaic laws are the 613 laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, well not all of them, not the inconvenient ones like don't eat pork, shell fish or wear clothing of mixed fabric,only the ones of social control. Like death for less than faithful Christians, rebellious teenagers, atheists, adulterers and the method of execution is stoning, because stones are free.
In the case of these Christians vs Islam the fight is not cultural, because they are on the same side of the culture war. It is religious.
Islam is supremacist, exclusive. It accords Christians and Jews,the right to their worship and traditions, so long as they accept second class citizen status as dhimmis.
The History of Christianity, since Constantine, is all or nothing. The reformation ameliorated the harm of Christianity, after hundreds of years of war, torture, slaughter and burning at the stake, there has been a detente between Christian factions, and they have proliferated, but they stand united against a common threat.
Myself I don't give a fuck, so long as I can live in peace, in a society rule by secular laws. If women allow themselves to be brainwashed into objects, like Islamic women and the women of many Christian communities, that is their business, so long as it isn't the law and culture I live in.
If your government is regressive, backwards and unable to even feed it's people, like for instance, Afghanistan, then that is their problem, and we shouldn't bail them out, for their choices, and it is their choice, for like Mao said, the revolution(govenment) swims in the sea of the people.
When the people can't live with their choice, their government, their culture, they flee to a more prosperous and free culture, but drag with them the garbage that created their misery, as if it were precious gems, and try to remake the host culture that welcomed them, into the same pile of shit that they fled.
Thus the rise of the right in Europe.
America is different, here it is pure racism and the fear that maybe low wage unskilled migrants, who can't speak English will take away high paying jobs that require skills.
However the culture of North, Central and South America is Christian, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Catholic and ultra conservative at that, a perfect fit with the homophobic, misogynistic culture of Christian America, so the only reason for anti immigrant politics is racial and economic.
The economic complaint is a farce, because the immigrants do jobs,that Americans feel are beneath them and don't pay well enough.
So it is racial. And I don't care about race, I wish the whole world was brown.
There would be one less reason for conflict.
In America it is racial in Europe it is cultural, with a smattering of racism.
I have no idea of what you are talking about vis a vis Darlington. I repeat a difficulty has no solution, and a difficulty is not a problem. You have heard of solving a problem or problem solvers, ever heard of difficulty solvers
You can't compare a religious/ethnic war between Muslims and Jews, to
Norway, Sweden and Denmark,all of which are Scandinavian and share a common origin and history. The attempt to do is does not speak well.
What is with you and your fixation on Empire? And the only Empire in your lexicon is America and the west, but not Russia and Islam.
You sure are a Putin apologist and partisan, you have an excuse for everything Russian and Putin.
Again, what is it with you and your obsession with Empire.?
What gives?
Biden ain't bumbling; he just walks like an 81-year-old man with pain in his body. He had only two years when he could get something done, and did he ever get something done!!!! Get with his record and stop complaining about him!
Sandra B - Well, Biden installed Janet Yellen; in an age of neoliberalism, this was no mean feat but not much commented on here in Britain. In this sense, Biden is well-meaning. However, when it comes to Israel's genocide in the Gaza Strip, he seems to have a blind spot.
I'm not complaining about him Sandra just being honest in my opinion with a Trump lover, cheese lighten up a bit don't be so defense. I'm 85, had a cancerous tumor removed in my brain, size of a tangerine, 7 years ago, and ten bouts of radiation afterwards, Result I stutter in speech and typing, and my sense of balance is shot.I would fall on my ass if there wasn't furniture and walls to grab.
Lighten up. I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Biden.
Cheese wiz.
William F., I'm sorry I was so abrupt. I overreacted. Glad to hear you survived such a medical attack as you had.