Re: EJ & China

[Giles Peaker <G.Peaker@derby.ac.uk>]

Dear Bertil,

Whilst we are on 'gut reactions', I note that I have become an apologist 
for and supporter of the Soviet Union in your post (solely to bolster my 
own sense of self importance, naturally). This is, of course, clap trap. 
If you read my post, you will see that at no point do I argue for the 
Soviet Union, nor do I deny the presence of vast piles of unbelievably 
destructive weaponry aimed and ready. I too lived in a military target 
zone - (in many ways it was probably safest to be close to a nuclear 
armed sub, its target was not usually nearby).

The threat of destruction was indeed real and sometimes perilously close 
(through brinksmanship or just stupidity. Cuba, anyone?) However, this is 
not the same thing as 'the soviet threat', the hallucinatory image of a 
Soviet Union determined to bring down the west by any means and expand 
its empire (Red Army tanks rolling through the FDR etc.) As I said, the 
evidence is now that this was never planned by the Soviet Union (from the 
period of  Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' onwards). The evidence 
also is that both the military strength and the intentions of the S.U. 
were wilfully misrepresented by the US military, CIA etc, with the eager 
support of the arms industry. No doubt something similar was happening in 
the S.U with regard to the US. Hence my point that the cold war was a 
charade and the 'threats' to be defended against were invented. The very 
real threat of destruction was the result. I'm not sure how these being 
1960s 'left-wing phrases' disqualifies them from being in accord with the 
documentary evidence. Perhaps 1960s phrases are the only suitable 
response to 1950s rhetorics? Cyclical history strikes again.

Thanks for the gloss on 'the west', although I'm still not sure if it is 
a religious, political or cultural entity (or a mix of all three?) that 
you are concerned with. The *idea* of freedom, yes - agreed, if not its 
practice. You do not, I note, pursue your nervous vision of a 
Sino-Islamic alliance.

>Your reaction could have anything to do we the fact that it was the
>British
>who handed over HK to the regime in Beijing ?
No, it couldn't - at least not if you are implying I am fuelled by 
imperial nostalgia. Personally, I found the 'ceremony' very funny, and 
the rain was a nice touch. As to the rest, the UK government's refusal to 
give passports to Hong Kong citizens (or was it subjects?) was a disgrace.

>Many people don't like cyclical thinking: Ibn Khaldoun, Giambattista
>Vico,
>Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee. It is sort of gut reaction of some.
>The cyclists have a right of hearing, though.
Cyclical thinking is daft, if frequent. Cyclical histories, on the other 
hand, as you say are at least worth hearing and considering. But when 
they come attached to neat and recurring time periods, I place about as 
much trust in them as I do the Age of Aquarius.

>So what about EJs World State after the collapse of the communist
>Chinese
>regime ? Would that be something to discuss ?
It would indeed, although this is quite a change of territory from the 
'new cold war'. 

Yours, bemoaning his loss of influence in the media,

Giles