Re: EJ & China

[tfriese@eumeswil.org (Thomas Friese)]

>Giles Peaker wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>No, I was writing in general terms. So I think you have misunderstood
>what I wrote. But how can one speak about paranoia when there were "vast
>piles (have problems understanding the use of the term piles in this
>connection, actually) of unbelievably destructive weaponry aimed and
>ready". 
>
> > 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.)
>
>Well, you have probably not followed the detailed sifting through of the
>archives of the Nationale Volksarmee. Much material has been published
>on it and I would be happy to point you towards some of these reports.
>Basically the Warsaw Pact was preparing nuclear strikes in advance of
>the ligthning attacks on the northern German plain. Occupation banknotes
>for occupied western Europe, street signs, stamps, medals for the
>officers with units first reaching the Channel etc. etc. All was
>prepared and stored for use in Honecker's state. The East
>German archives speak for themselves including good evidence that
>Warsaw Pact troops in fact were ready to use tactical nuclear weapons
>against targets in northern Europe.  
>
> 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. 
>
>I would dearly love to take a look at your "evidence".
>
>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.
>
>"Documentary evidence". Please. Are you serious ?
> 
>> 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.
>
>Think we are in the area of philosophy of history here. There are
>however
>some problems because the German use of "Kultur" and "Zivilisation"
>is not comparable to the French and English usage. "Civilization" in
>English is "Kultur", "Kulturkreis" or "Hochkultur" in German and
>"culture"
>should in my opinion be translated with "Zivilisation". For more on
>these
>problems see Norbert Elias, _Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation_
>(Frankfurt.
>1976). introduction to the first volume.
>
>What is at the center of western civilzation (I am again using the
>German translation of Huntington's latest):
>
>- Das klassisch Erbe - griechische Philosophie und Rantionalismus,
>römisches
>  Recht, lateinische Sprache, Christentum.
>
>- Christentum, Katholizismus, Protestantismus
>
>- Europaeische Sprachen - vielfalt von Sprachen
>
>- Trennung von geistlicher und weltlicher Macht
>
>- Rechtstaatlichkeit (rule of law)
>
>- Gesellschaftlicher Pluralismus
>
>- Representativorgane
>
>- Individualismus (and I think it is here the greatest differences
>  exist between Chinese and Western civilization).
>
>For definitions we can use Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Oswald Spengler,
>Pitrim Sorokin, Arnold Toynbee, Alfred Weber, A.L. Kroeber, Philip
>Bagby,
>Carroll Quigley, Rushton Coulbourn etc.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>No. I am not implying imperial nostalgia but things might perhaps have
>looked different if the British had not treated the Chinese in such a
>humiliating fashion after the Opium War. An interesting comparison would
>be
>that between the history of Portuguese Macao and British Hongkong and
>the
>fashion in which they passed to the colonial power.
>
> > 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.
>
>Well, instead of calling it daft why not try a little analysis. Or as
>Huntington writes in the German version: "Alle Kulturen machen einen
>aehnlichen Prozess der Entstehung, des Aufstiegs und des Niedergangs
>durch
>---Um die Kultur des Westens bei schrumpfender Macht des Westens zu
>bewahren, ist es im Interesse der USA und der europaeishen Laender (and
>here Huntington is enumerating a number activities that would be 
>strengthening to the west).
>
> 
>> >So what about EJs World State after the collapse of the communist
>> >Chinese
>> >regime ? Would that be something to discuss ?
>
>It was just an attempt by me to try to move in the subject of this list,
>EJ,
>suspecting that we could only agree upon disagreeing and continue moving
>away
>from the subject of EJs writings. May I suggest that we continue this
>debate outside the list if you want to continue. My apologies anyway to
>the
>list for moving away from EJ in this dispute.
>
>Greetings
>
>Bertil
>bertil.haggman@helsingborg.se
>
>
>
I just sent off a quote to an open question on the list about Junger's ideas
on evolution. I believe the same words may also have relevance to this now
quite lengthy debate on the reality of the Cold War and associated perils. 

"The general spiritualization now emerging is also expressed in tactics. It
is astounding to see how inventiveness grows in nature and in technology
when existence is at stake. This applies to both defense and pursuit. For
every missile, an anti-missile is devised. At times, it all looks like sheer
bragadaccio. This could lead to a stalemate or else to the moment when the
opponent says, 'I give up,' if he does not knock over the chessboard and
ruin the game."  Aladdin's Problem, pg 29, from the English translation of 1993.

It would seem to indicate that although the outcome of such 'games' is open
to various resolutions, the fact that the game occurs at all is quite
'natural' - one of the natural manifestations of a global 'upping of the
spiritual stakes'. With respect to the reality of the game, even if it is
only a game to the 'chess players' (read 'gods' or 'upper spheres' in
Junger's lingo) , it certainly must appear as very real to the pieces on the
board.  (Junger's is an argument from a higher plane and makes it all look
much simple - isn't that the beauty of his insight?)

Thomas Friese
Association Eumeswil