Author Archives: Martin van Creveld

Guest Article: God’s Fifth Column

Posted on by

By

William S. Lind*

In the 1930s, a minor British novelist started writing a new book, which was not a novel. Instead, William Gerhardie proposed a theory of history he called “God’s Fifth Column,” which was also his book’s title. His theory was that, just at the point where everyone who was anyone agreed events would go in a certain direction, they instead headed off on a wild, wholly unpredicted tangent.

Gerhardie was inspired by the events of 1914 and their catastrophic consequences, in which we are still enmeshed. Prior to Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s ill-timed trip to Sarajevo—the head of Serbian military intelligence had multiple assassins positioned there—the elite consensus was that another great European war simply was not possible. All the powers’ economies were too intertwined. International trade was essential. Everyone’s stock market would collapse, banks would fail, there would be riots in the streets. Within Europe, the labor market was international; one German soldier taken early in the war said to his British captors, “I hope this is over soon so I can get back to my job driving a cab in Liverpool.” But war came anyway, though no one wanted it, or, afterward, could explain why it had been fought. And the Christian West died in the mud of Flanders and Galicia.

If we look at our present situation through the lens of Gerhardie’s God’s Fifth Column, what do we see? Across the board, we find elite consensus on the stability and linear progression of a wide variety of things that are, in reality, unstable and uncertain. One of the most blatant is agreement that the U.S. government can print and spend as much money as it wants to with no need for concern about mounting debt, inflation, or a loss of faith in the dollar. The Biden administration has spent or plans to spend at least $6 trillion, with more to come. Trillions are now ho-hum; are quadrillions next? They call it “modern monetary theory,” but there is nothing modern about it. It has been tried before, more than once, with uniform unfortunate consequences. What does a wild tangent in the dollar’s progression look like?

Similarly, the United States stands athwart the world as the ultimate Superpower, its fingers in every eye as it dictates not just foreign but also domestic policy to everyone else. But it resembles less the colossus of Rhodes than the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It loses all its wars, its armed services are warped by feminism and led by bureaucrats, and it is being ripped apart internally by its elites’ efforts to force an alien ideology, cultural Marxism, on its resentful people. Again, what does a radical re-direction look like?

Nor is it just in matters of government that we see unjustified consensus on future directions. Every car company in the world is betting its future on electrics. But where is all that electricity to come from, especially as the same people who crusade against internal combustion engines oppose every means of generating power? Wall Street rewards companies that focus on short-term cost-cutting, but how robust are the world-wide supply chains that requires? (We just saw a mini-God’s Fifth Column there.) The prices of almost every class of asset, except the one that has stood the test of time, gold, are reaching for the heavens, but do bubbles expand forever? And what happens when this one bursts, in a country now held together only by a false prosperity?

As an historian, I think Gerhardie’s theory is spot-on. Just at the point where everyone knows where events are going, they don’t. We’ve seen it over and over. But why does it happen?

There are several explanations, less for the effect itself than for the unjustified consensus that precedes it, and makes change seem radical and shocking. First and foremost is that people love prediction. Prediction, in turn, is almost always linear because otherwise it has no basis. It becomes just a hunch or a guess. To dress it up in respectable clothes and have it play Eliza Doolittle, it has to speak with an accustomed voice, which is to say it must predict more of the same.
order viagra india You are advised intake of one capsule each daily two times with milk or plain water for 60 to 90 days. Palpation, inspection, percussion, and auscultation are used to do a thorough exam in a discussion with you throughout raindogscine.com cialis without prescription your first consultation. Learn from the best and don’t make the exact same mistakes others have. viagra samples click to find out more Men have to take the 1 pill of viagra samples uk impact or keep going for 5 to 7 hours.
Second is the fact that ideas, like everything else, are swayed by fashion. Fashion, in turn, reflects a consensus, and those who break: from the consensus are taking a risk. That risk can bring damage to careers, incomes, and social life: look at the fates of those who have been “canceled” for opposing the fashionable ideology.

A third factor is the immense costs sunk in business as usual. Radical change makes massive investments useless or counterproductive. There is no better example than the vast sums spent before World War I and again between the wars on battleships. Except for one indecisive battle between the British and German fleets, Jutland in 1916, everybody’s dreadnoughts spent that war swinging ’round the anchor chain, and the Second World War at sea was decided by aircraft and submarines. The money spent on battleships would have brought better results had it all been used to buy diplomats more champagne.

Unlike in 1914, the advent of God’s Fifth Column in our time may not be bad news for conservatives. The “inevitable” future anticipated by the elites is a hellish combination of an absurd ideology, cultural Marxism (currently disguised as “wokeness”) with Brave New World. As Lance Morrow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal,

The struggle to which Americans, of whatever race, should be paying attention is the one that has to do with freedom. It has to do with privacy, mind control, individual liberties—with totalitarian systems of surveillance and manipulation perfecting themselves in an alliance of big tech, big government, global corporations and artificial intelligence. Wokeness … fronts for the real problem of the 21st century: a sinister autocracy just around the corner.

What’s really around the corner is God’s Fifth Column, and it will knock both “wokeness” and Brave New World out of the park.

 

* William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook. Lind’s most recent book is Retroculture: Taking America Back, This article was first published in the July/August 2021 issue of The American Conservative.

 

How those Things Were Handled

Posted on by

Today, for a woman who has been sexually harassed to be deeply, deeply traumatized has become almost obligatory. If, if addition, she takes the case to the police and from there to court, she is considered both deeply traumatized and exceptionally brave. But that is not how things have always been. What follows are a few paragraphs from a famous book (How the Steel Was Tempered) by a young Soviet writer, Pavel Ostrovsky. Published in 1932-36, it sold two million copies, was translated into many languages, and was twice filmed in the Soviet Union. In Communist China it was made into a television series.

*

The cart clattered down the hill and pulled out outside the school building. The janitor had put up the new arrivals and one off to sleep in the hay. Lida and Razvalikhin had just returned from a [Ukrainian Bolshevik Party] meeting which had ended rather late. It was dark inside the cottage. Lida undressed quickly, climbed into bed and fell asleep almost at once. She was rudely awakened by Razvalikhin’s hands travelling over her in a manner that left no doubt as to his intentions.

“What do you want?” “Shush, Lida, don’t make so much noise. I am sick of lying there all by myself. Can’t you find anything more exciting to do than snooze?” “Stop pawing me and get off my bed at once!’ Lida said, pushing him away. Razvalikhin’s oily smile had always sickened her and she wanted to say something insulting and humiliating, but sleep overpowered her and she closed her eyes.

“Aw, come on! What’s all this fancy behavior about? You weren’t brought up in a nunnery by any chance? Stop playing the little innocent, you can’t fool this lad. If you were really an advanced woman, you’d satisfy my desire and then go to sleep as much as you want.” Considering the matter settled, he went over and set on the edge of the bed again, laying a possessive hand on Lida’s shoulder.

As there is very little motion and a great singer kept until in his 1982 album, Thriller became the world’s best selling record of all time, on spreading. cialis tadalafil 5mg In today’s times of stressful lifestyles, fatty fast foods and extensive presence of pesticides and chemicals in food and water, this herb is useful for people cialis prices who do not want to swallow oral tablets. Previously you had to know in advance the skills, experience and authority, he should levitra pill price have to treat your condition. An Effective Solution Available at the Cheapest Prices buy levitra from india was an expensive drug, which was not affordable for all men. “Go to hell!” Lida was now wide awake. “I’m going to tell Korchagin [the local Komsomol official] about this tomorrow.” Razvalikhin seized her hand and whispered testily: “I don’t care a damn about your Korchagin, and you’d better not try to resist or I’ll take you by force.” There was a brief scuffle and then two resounding slaps rang out in the silence of the night. Razvalikhin leapt aside. Lida roped her way to the door, pushed it open and rushed into the yard. She stood there in the moonlight, seething with wrath and indignation.

“Get inside, you fool!” Razvalikhin called to her viciously. He carried his own bed out over the eaves and spent the rest of the night there. Lida fasted the door of the latch, curled up on the bed and went to sleep again.

In the morning they set out for home. Razvalikhin sat beside the old [cart] driver smoking one cigarette after another. “That touch-me-not may really go and spill the beans to Korchagin, blast her! Who’d have thought that she’d turn out to be such a prig? You’d think she was a ravishing beauty by the way she acts, but she’ nothing to look at. But I’d better make it up with her or there may be trouble. Korchagin has his eye on me as it is.” He moved over to Lida. He pretended to be ashamed of himself, put on a downcast air and mumbled a few rods of apology.

That did the trick. Before they had reached the edge of the village, Lida had given him her promise not to tell anyone what had happened that night.

*

Now you tell me. Which of the two methods, the new or the old, is better both for the victim and for society at large?

More from Houellebecq

Posted on by

Here is another short passage from Houellebecq, this time from Atomized Kindle ed., 2001, pp. 173-74:

“’Never could abide feminists . . . ’ continued Christiane when they were halfway up the hill. ‘Stupid bitches always going on about the washing up and the division of labor; they could never shut up about the washing up. Oh, sometimes they’d talk about cooking or vacuuming, but their favorite topic was the washing up. In a few short years, they managed to turn every man they knew into an impotent, whining neurotic. Once they’d done that, it was always the same story – they started going on about how there were no real men any more. They usually ended up ditching their boyfriends for a quick fuck with some macho idiot. I’ve always been struck by the way intelligent women go for bastards, brutes and assholes. Anyway, they fuck their way through a couple of bastards, maybe more if they’re really pretty, and wind up with a kid. Then they’re off making jam and collecting recipe cards from Marie Claire. It’s always the same story, I’ve seen it happen a dozen times.”

So it can be availed only cheapest levitra generic by making an order to the online medical pharmacies. Therefore trust over this concerned solution levitra cost low to bring back your pleasant days. buy sildenafil online Within a short period of time, one tends to easily steer to an improvement as part of your dysfunction. Probable side effects take account of flushing, nasal congestion, headache, visual purchase of levitra changes, backache and stomach upset. So far, Houellebecq. Incidentally, in our—meaning, Dvora’s and my—house–it was usually I who did the dishes. There are two reasons why doing so is good for the soul. First, whereas writing a book and getting it published may easily take three years, when it comes to washing up the results are immediate. Second, it is an activity that can be engaged in without thought, thus setting the mind free for all kinds of strange reflections and sometimes hitting on something more than usually interesting and fertile. However, all good things come to an end. At one point Dvora, claiming I did not do the job as thoroughly as it should bone and overriding my objections, bought a dishwasher.

Another pleasure lost.

Michel Houellebecq, Platform, Kindle Edition, 2004

Posted on by

Famed French author Michel Houellebecq does not need an introduction. That is why, instead of reviewing the book in the normal way, I decided to simply present some passages I found particularly striking. Not necessarily nice or pleasant—Houellebecq is not the kind of writer who makes you feel good about yourself, let alone the society in which you spend your life. But striking. Especially when I read them for the second time. Readers are welcome to agree, disagree, or add any others of their own; after all, though I expect to be censored every day, so far my blog remains free.

The words in italics after some paragraphs are mine.

p. 104.

“Further along there was a table of Hong Kong Chinese – recognizable by their filthy manners, which are difficult for Westerners to stomach, and which threw the Thai waiters into a state of panic, barely eased by the fact that they were used to it. Unlike the Thais, who behave in all circumstances with a finicky, even pernickety propriety, the Chinese eat rapaciously, laughing loudly, their mouths open, spraying bits of food everywhere, spitting on the ground and blowing their noses between their fingers – they behave quite literally like pigs. To make matters worse, that’s an awful lot of pigs.

Based on personal observation, I agree.

p. 112-13.

“At the time when the white man thought himself superior, racism wasn’t dangerous. For colonials, missionaries and lay teachers in the nineteenth century, the Negro was a big animal, none too clever, a sort of slightly more evolved monkey. At worst, they considered him a useful beast of burden, capable of performing complex tasks; at best a frustrated soul, coarse, but, through education, capable of elevating himself to God – or at least western reason. In both cases, they saw in him a ‘lesser brother’, and one does not feel ‘At the time when the white man thought himself superior, racism wasn’t dangerous. For colonials, missionaries and lay teachers in the nineteenth century, the Negro was a big animal, none too clever, a sort of slightly more evolved monkey. At worst, they considered him a useful beast of burden, capable of performing complex tasks; at best a frustrated soul, coarse, but, through education, capable of elevating himself to God – or at least western reason. In both cases, they saw in him a ‘lesser brother’, and one does not feel hatred for an inferior – at most a sort of cordial contempt. This benevolent, almost humanist racism has completely vanished. The moment the white man began to consider blacks as equals, it was obvious that sooner or later they would come to consider them to be superior. The notion of equality has no basis in human society… Once white men believed themselves to be inferior,.. the stage was set for a different type of racism, based on masochism: historically, it is in circumstances like these that violence, inter-racial wars and massacres break out. For example, all anti-Semites agree that the Jews have a certain superiority: if you read anti-Semitic literature, you’re stuck by the fact that the Jew is considered to be more intelligent, more cunning, that he is credited with having singular financial talents – and, moreover, greater communal solidarity. Result: six million dead.”

Western society seems to be determined to making men qua men feel inferior. That, my dear feminists, is when things become really dangerous for you.

p. 113-14.

“Racism… ‘seems to be characterized firstly by an accumulation of hostility, a more aggressive sense of competition between males of different races; but the corollary is an increased desire for the females of the other race. What is really at stake in racial struggles…is neither economic nor cultural, it is brutal and biological: it is competition for the cunts of young women.”

p. 115.

“[In Europe] it’s not the whites that make the law any more … I predict an increase in racial violence in Europe in years to come; it will all end in civil war… It will all be settled with Kalashnikovs.”

p. 188-89.
Consuming acai berry http://robertrobb.com/2017/06/ generic levitra cialis could also be a result of certain medication like diuretics, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. This will help you to fight prostatitis. cialis viagra for women These drugs will be effective for that particular activity, but generic tadalafil prices they are not a permanent solution. These implants consist of either inflatable or semi-rigid on line levitra rods.
“As we get closer to suffering and cruelty, to domination and servility, we hit on the essential, the intimate nature of sexuality… “Cruelty is a primordial part of the human, it is found in the most primitive peoples: in the earliest tribal wars, the victors were careful to spare the lives of some of their prisoners to let them die later, suffering hideous tortures. This tendency persisted, it is constant throughout history, it remains true today: as soon as a foreign or civil war begins to erase ordinary moral constraints, you find human beings – regardless so. Cruelty is a primordial part of the human, it is found in the most primitive peoples: in the earliest tribal wars, the victors were careful to spare the lives of some of their prisoners to let them die later, suffering hideous tortures. This tendency persisted, it is constant throughout history, it remains true today: as soon as a foreign or civil war begins to erase ordinary moral constraints, you find human beings – regardless of race, people, culture – eager to launch themselves into the joys of barbarism and massacre. This is attested, unchanging, indisputable, but it has nothing whatever to do with the quest for sexual pleasure – equally primordial, equally strong.

p. 211.

A source of permanent, accessible pleasure, our genitals exist. The god who created our misfortune, who made us short-lived, vain and cruel, has also provided this form of meagre compensation. If we couldn’t have sex from time to time, what would life be? A futile struggle against joints that stiffen, caries that form. All of which, moreover, is as uninteresting as humanly possible – the collagen which makes muscles stiffen, the appearance of microbic cavities in the gums.

p. 240-42.

“Something must be happening to make Westerners stop sleeping with each other; maybe it’s something to do with narcissism, or individualism, the cult of success, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that from about the age of twenty-five or thirty, people find it very difficult to meet new sexual partners; although they still feel the need to do so, it’s a need which fades very slowly. So they end up spending thirty years of their lives, almost the entirety of their adult lives, suffering permanent withdrawal.

Halfway along the path to inebriation, just before mindlessness ensues, one sometimes experiences moments of heightened lucidity. The decline of western sexuality was undoubtedly a major sociological phenomenon which it would be futile to attempt to explain by such and such a specific psychological factor… You have several hundred million Westerners who have everything they could want but no longer manage to obtain sexual satisfaction: they spend their lives looking, but they don’t find it and they are completely miserable. On the other hand, you have several billion people who have nothing, who are starving, who die young, who live in conditions unfit for human habitation and who have nothing left to sell except their bodies and their unspoiled sexuality. It’s simple, really simple to understand: it’s an ideal trading opportunity.

p. 244-54.

“Giving pleasure unselfishly: that’s what Westerners don’t know how to do any more. They’ve completely lost the sense of giving. Try as they might, they no longer feel sex as something natural. Not only are they ashamed of their own bodies, which aren’t up to porn standards, but for the same reasons they no longer feel truly attracted to the body of the other. It’s impossible to make love without a certain abandon, without accepting, at least temporarily, the state of being in a state of dependency, of weakness. Sentimental adulation and sexual obsession have the same roots, both proceed from some degree of selflessness; it’s not a domain in which you can find fulfilment without losing yourself. We have become cold, rational, acutely conscious of our individual existence and our rights; more than anything, we want to avoid alienation and dependence; on top of that we’re obsessed with health and hygiene: these are hardly ideal conditions in which to make love. The way things stand, the commercialization of sexuality in the East has become inevitable.”

p. 361.

“More than any other people, [the Germans] are acquainted with worry and shame, they feel the need for tender flesh, for soft, endlessly refreshing skin. More than any other people, they are acquainted with the desire for their own annihilation. It is rare to come across the vulgar, smug pragmatism of Anglo-Saxon sex tourists among them, that manner of endlessly comparing goods and prices. It is equally rare for them to exercise, to look after their bodies. In general, they eat too much, drink too much beer, get fat; most of them will die pretty soon. They are often friendly, they like to joke, to buy a round, to tell stories; but their company is soothing and sad.

I have lived in Germany and am fluent in the language. I’d say that hardly any German over 13 is free from the burden: the more they deny it, the guiltier they feel.

I understand death now… I don’t think it will do me much harm.”

But life can.

To Do or Not to Do

Posted on by

I doubt whether many of you are familiar with the famous Russian/Soviet poet Anna Akhmatova (1889-1976). I myself came across her when researching a new book I am writing on Stalin. It was said that, in her early poetry in particular, “she was able to capture and convey the vast range of evolving emotions experienced in a love affair. From the first thrill of meeting to a deepening love contending with hatred, and eventually to violent destructive passion or total indifference.” A sad comment on the institution of marriage, isn’t it? And judging from what one keeps hearing about the way it kills love, often an all too realistic one.

Personally, though, I do not believe such an outcome to be inevitable. Rather than submit to it, and if only to remind myself, I have drawn up a short list of things that can be done, or left undone, in order to avoid it.

Here goes.

Things to Do

Make sure nothing and no one is able to come between you. Say a word against my alter ego, and you are out.

Share as many things as possible. Not just major joys and sorrows—that should come naturally as a matter of course. If she has to go to hospital, you want to be with her. And the other way around. But also, and above all, minor, everyday ones: as by taking off a couple of minutes to drink a cup of tea or eat an apple together.

Suspicion and love do not mix. So always put the best interpretation on whatever your spouse says and does. If the point comes where you cannot, better go your separate ways.

Even the best relationship/marriage does not absolutely preclude the possibility of misunderstandings. In case there is one, use humor to put things right. In general, humor is the greatest peacemaker there is. And the best prelude to bed.

Do whatever you can to make the life of your spouse easier, better, brighter. And rather than waiting until you’re asked, do it on your own initiative.

Appreciation, even of the smallest favors, will get you anywhere. So will small gestures, particularly such as are not needed. Holding open a door, for example when he/she comes in; or else a bunch of flowers at an unexpected moment. Just so.

Regardless of who bought it and who made the money, consider that everything you own belongs to both of you jointly. Even if, for tax or any other reasons, it is only registered on the name of one. At the same time, make sure neither of you is in a situation where your spouse has to ask for permission to buy anything.

In case you use nicknames on each other, make sure they are nice and, if at all possible, funny.

This guy had to be wondering why didn’t he learn viagra without prescription online Kung Fu. Male reproductive organ is very much sensitive in nature and cialis discount generic browse this link now thus that needs to be taken good care. Benefits of Taking Drivers Ed Online in Texas For most people, the recommended dosage of Vardenafil is one 10 mg tablet taken orally. brand viagra prices Read Full Report It has minerals, vitamins and over 85 micro-minerals. buy levitra vardenafil Lies are toxic. Even if they have remained undiscovered, and especially in the long run. Therefore, in case you have been cheating, owe up to it before your partner discovers what is going on. That way you may still be able to save whatever is left.  

My late grandfather once told me that the last thing he and my grandmother did each night before going to sleep was to have a hug and a kiss. I think that was excellent advice.

 

Things Not to Do

Never ever criticize your spouse in front of others.

Your spouse is not the cause of your misfortunes. If something went wrong, or simply if you are in a bad mood, don’t take it or on him or her.

If there is something you want to do but know you won’t be able to share with your spouse—don’t do it.

Don’t lie, unless in rare situations when it is a question of protecting the other.

Never ask your spouse whether, having sex with you, he or she was thinking about other partners he or she may have had or would like to have.  

Never ask your spouse to talk about his or her sexual experiences with others. Or else you may find yourself in the situation of the husband who asked his wife how many men she had had. Eleven, she answered. So I am number twelve? He asked. No, she said, you were number three.

*

These rules are the same for men and for women.

Good luck.

Barbarossa

Posted on by

Barbarossa (Redbeard) was the nickname of the medieval German Emperor Frederick I (reigned, 1155-90) whose image graces this post. More pertinent to our business today, it was the name Hitler gave his campaign against the Soviet Union which got under way on 22 June 1941, i.e eighty years ago. Today I want to discuss a few outstanding aspects of the campaign—such as used to shape history throughout the Cold War and in some ways continue to do so right down to the present day.

*

First, at the time Barbarossa opened on 22 June 1941 the idea of gaining Lebensraum (living space) for the German people had been obsessing Hitler for almost two decades. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but always on his mind. Barbarossa, in other words, was the culmination of everything Hitler had ever sought. The loadstar, so to speak, that, along with the destruction of the Jews, seemed to make sense of the gigantic enterprise on which he embarked, causing all the other pieces to fall into place.

Second, Barbarossa was the largest military operation of all time. 3,500,000 men, over 3,500 aircraft, 3,500 tanks, 20,000 artillery barrels, and 600,000 vehicles (most of them horse-drawn and used for supply as well as dragging the artillery) of every kind. The total number of trains that deployed these forces stood at 17,000; that of railway wagons, at about 850,000. Initially the front was 1,500 miles long. Later it extended over 2,500 or so. Nothing like it had been seen before. Thanks to the introduction and spread of nuclear weapons, capable of taking out entire armies and cities almost instantaneously, nothing like it is likely to be seen again.

Third, it was deliberately planned not simply as a war between states but as one of extermination. First, of any Red Army commissars—political officers—who had the misfortune to fall into German hands. Second, of millions of Red Army prisoners who surrendered and were held under such atrocious conditions as to cause about two thirds of them to die. Third, of the Jews. Fourth, of as many as thirty million civilians in the occupied Soviet territories. The territories themselves were to be occupied and opened to settlers—not just Germans but Dutch and Scandinavians as well.

Fourth, it almost succeeded. By the beginning of December 1941 the forward most German troops were so close to Moscow as to enable them to watch the Kremlin’s spires through their binoculars. The city contained the most important railway knots in the entire USSR; including its immediate suburbs, it also accounted for about forty percent of Soviet industrial production. To say nothing of its symbolic value. As Pushkin wrote, it was welded into the soul of every Russian. Whether the fall of Moscow would have caused Barbarossa to end in some kind of German victory is hard to say. Most certainly, though, it would have prolonged the war and claimed even more victims than it actually did.
The five easy ideas namely, oral medication, vacuum device, surgery, psychotherapy and cialis no prescription lifestyle changes, can make a lot of change in your sex life. NF Cure capsule provides viagra price online a complete remedy for all of us. Kamagra – An Approachable Drug for ED How to get an erection free generic viagra or as if this man is having an affair. In depth scientific studies happen to be made online using a get viagra no prescription credit card.
Fifth, the most important factors that led to the German defeat were as follows. A. The sheer size of the theater of war in which entire armies could easily get lost; to this must be added its underdevelopment in terms of transportation, communications, and the like. B. the climate which, in October-April each year, hampered operations by making much of the terrain impassable; first by covering it by mud, then by bringing freezing cold, and then by melting the snow. C. The growing numerical superiority of the Red Army—both in manpower and in resources—which increasingly made itself felt from at least the end of 1941 on. D. The fact that Germany, engaged in a war in the west as well as the east, was never able to concentrate all its resources against the latter; that was particularly true from late 1942 on. E. A command system which, especially at the top and starting from the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, was as good as any and probably superior to the increasingly erratic German one.

Sixth, the German attack almost certainly saved Stalin and the Communist system. Ever since it was founded, the Soviet Union had always been held together in large part by terror. Barbarossa, by bringing the system to verge of destruction and threatening much of the Soviet people with extermination, provided a much-needed boost for that terror. Had it not been for the legacy of the war, the Soviet Union might have collapsed much earlier than it did—and, I suspect, amidst much greater bloodshed too.

*

Now for a larger perspective. Starting in the eighteenth century, first Russia and then the Soviet Union was one of several great powers contending for mastery in Europe as the subcontinent that increasingly dominated all the rest. Now with less success, as in 1854-56 and 1914-1918. Now with more, as in 1813-1815 and 1941-45. The German invasion and its aftermath, by leaving the Soviet Union stronger not only than any other European country but than all of them combined, put an end to this situation. It turned the Soviet Union into a world power, rivalled only by the USA with which it engaged on a “Cold War” that lasted forty-five years.

In 1991, largely owing to internal problems rather than external pressure, the Soviet Union collapsed. And Russia, minus much of the territory and the population that had once belonged to it, reverted to its traditional role—that of one power among several. One that, like all the rest, has its own agenda and its own peculiarities. And with which, willy-nilly, the world will have to live.

Writing Like Thucydides (But Without His Genius)

Posted on by

For all of you readers who did not know, my first love as a budding historian—I may have been eleven years old—was ancient Greece. All those gods and goddesses, cavorting on Mount Olympus where they stayed forever young and had their food (ambrosia) and drink (nectar) brought to them by self-driving robots on wheels. The temples with their various capitals, one kind of which (the Corinthian) was said to resemble “a basketful of toys, topped by a marble plate, covering a child’s grave.” The marketplace where people met to vote on laws and ostracize those of their fellow-citizens considered a danger to the public. The heroic defense against the wicked Persian invaders. And the terrible civil war in which, sadly, the great and noble Pericles died.

What I did not know at the time, but learnt to appreciate a decade or so later when I was a student at the Hebrew University during the late 1960s, was how difficult, how impenetrable, Thucydides, the great historian to whom we owe 90 percent of what we know about that war, really is. Nor was I the only one to find him so. Here is what Dame Mary Beard, a retired Cambridge University professor and as good a classicist as they come, has to say about the matter:

The fact remains that [Thucydides’] History is sometimes made almost incomprehensible by neologisms, awkward abstractions, and linguistic idiosyncrasies of all kinds. These are not only a problem for the modern reader. They infuriated some ancient readers too. In the first century BC, in a long essay devoted to Thucydides’ work, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a literary critic and historian himself, contemplated- with ample supporting quotations, of the “forced expressions,” “non sequiturs,” “artificialities,” and “riddling obscurity.” “If people actually spoke like this,” he wrote, “not even their mothers would be able to tolerate the unpleasantness of it.” In fact they would need translators, as if they were listening to a foreign language.

Modern historians, Dame Beard adds, have not been much kinder to the Master. On one hand they never stop praising his utter realism and insight into strategy. On the other, they find him almost impossible to translate. As a result, misunderstandings abound. Often the simpler and more comprehensible the translation, the less faithful it is to the original; and the other way around.

Why Thucydides wrote the way he did we can only guess. One possibility, Dame Beard says, is that he was trying to do something no one before him had done. Namely, to provide his readers with “an aggressively rational, apparently impersonal, analysis of the history of his own times, utterly free from religious modes of explanation.” The other, which Thucydides himself hints at, that war was causing “words to change their ordinary meaning and take on new ones that were forced on them.” Whatever the reason, it was the changing circumstances that sent him in search of new style of writing to describe them.  

These fats can also be deposited during proper muscle toning of buy cialis pills your knee muscles. For instance, generic viagra from usa Vitamin E may help to observe mobility of arthralgia. The medical analyzers explain that PDE5 enzymes create obstructions in the penile region browse around this link levitra prices & therefore, they do not usually contain any interpretive data as it is a psychometric test usually has person-to-person follow-up verification by a qualified practitioner, such as a Chartered Occupational Psychologist. If one feels allergic after taking the buy cialis overnight tabletIt improves the stamina of the impotent to hold on for some more time. At a guess, few if any of my readers are philologists. Though I did dabble in ancient Greek, neither am I. So why devote a post to the matter? Here is why. The other day I was trying to do a piece on identity politics. Specifically, transgender affairs. For me it all started decades ago when I read about one Ms.—as she then was—Germaine Greer. An Australian by birth, she made her name during the 1970ds when hundreds of thousands, myself included, read her book, The Female Eunuch. Later she moved to England where, like Dame Beard, she received an appointment as a professor at Cambridge University. She next came to my attention when she became involved in a controversy surrounding a fellow academic, the astronomer Rachael Padman. And that is where the difficulties started.

Padman’s original given name, meaning the one her parents, presumably in the belief (which she later claimed was wrong) that she was male gave her, was Russel. Later, having undergone the necessary procedures, he/she (or was it she/he?) was turned into a woman. Thus it was how, claiming she had always “really” been a woman, she was able compete for the right to occupy a slot at a female college of the university in question. The upshot was a battle royal. In it Greer, herself what we today would call a second-generation feminist, argued that, since Russel/Rachel had “originally” been male, he/she (or was it she/he?) should be barred from joining the faculty as a woman. At the time, the University “resolved” the question by rejecting Ms. Greer’s arguments and going ahead with the appointment. Though whether a woman can be made a “fellow” or a “master” or a “don” (the term, incidentally, Prof. Beard likes to use in describing herself) remains a questionable right to the present day.

If this had been an isolated case, few people would have to get excited about it. The difficulty is that it is not. Wherever we look, we see transgender women/men (meaning, to put it in the most neutral way I can think of, such as have undergone a sex-change operation) winning competitions against “real” women (i.e. such as have not done so). So in sports such as tennis, swimming, cycling and running where “real” woman are proving no match for their transgender brothers/sisters. So, recently, in beauty contests where they have started winning one title after another. And this is just the beginning. “Transgender athletes are destroying [emphasis in the original] women’s sports,” runs one headline. “American crowned queen in Thai transgender pageant,” runs another. “Transgender wins female beauty pageant in Nevada,” runs a third. Surely Plato’s claim that, on the average, men are better than women in any field was bad enough; now it is beginning to look as if men are better than women even at looking like women, acting like them, and being like them.

Scant wonder feminists have been screaming their heads off. Nor are the implications limited to competitions of every kind. Suppose you meet a person you do not know. You are uncertain about his/her gender and consequently on what to think on him/her her/him and how to address him/her. Her/him. Trying not to offend him/her, her/him, you say, “could you please tell me your name?” That’s being polite, but it may not solve your problem; a growing number of names, are equally applicable to men and to women. E.g Jamie and Jamie, Robin and Robin, Pat and Pat, and so on. Saying “excuse me, what gender do you belong to?” is even worse.

Using terms such as father/mother, son/daughter, brother/sister, exposes one to similar problems. The worst offense is to try and make sure by using words such as “really,” “originally,” “previously” and “former.” People have been fired/hauled to court for less; and those who do not know it yet are the most likely to find out.

So what to do? I can only think of one answer: Unlike Thucydides, we are not geniuses. So let’s stop trying to write as he did.

Revolt of the Retired Generals

Posted on by

By

Nathan Penkoski*

On April 21, twenty retired French generals published an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron and the French government. The letter, which appeared in Valeurs actuelles, calls for France’s leaders to return to honor and defend patriotism: 

The hour is late, France is in peril, and many mortal dangers threaten her. Even though we are retired, we remain soldiers of France. In the present circumstances, we cannot remain indifferent to the fate of our beautiful country . . . today our honor lies in denouncing the disintegration of our country.

The letter identifies several forms of disintegration afflicting France: the ideology of antiracism, Islamism, the scapegoating of the police, and the normalization of attacks on the police and military.

The letter’s preamble makes clear that France unites a variety of religions and races. But it excoriates “antiracism.” Antiracism is “exhibited for one purpose only: to create unrest and even hatred between the communities on our soil.” Activists advancing antiracism are “hateful and fanatical partisans” who “want racial warfare.”

The letter goes on to exhort France’s leadership to find the courage to eradicate the dangers that impel disintegration. The signatories promise that they will support policies that “take into account the preservation of the nation.” If the letter offers any means to address these dangers, they are hardly revolutionary: “often it is enough to apply, without weakness, the laws as they already exist.” Nevertheless the letter states the consequences of continued carelessness and cowardice, and holds France’s leaders to account. “Civil war will break upon this growing chaos, and the deaths, for which you will be responsible, will number among the thousands.”

From an American perspective, the whole text is astonishing. It would be impossible to find twenty retired American generals, let alone two, who would dare suggest that the logic of “antiracism” entails racial warfare.  

But in France, the letter speaks to conventional political debates. Macron and his ministers now launch regular attacks on antiracism and identity politics, arguing that this American-made ideology threatens national unity and the integrity of the Republic. A recent poll indicates that 74 percent of the French think “antiracism” has the opposite effect. It is also not unusual to speak about the threat of war, even civil war, breaking out on French soil. In 2015, after Islamists killed 130 people on the streets of Paris, President François Hollande declared that France was at war. In 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of DGSI (France’s internal security agency) said that France was “on the edge of a civil war.” And another group of generals has just released a short report on how a “hybrid war” has been declared against France.

As a result, it is unlikely that the letter will change much of the national conversation. Still, it is significant because it raises the question of what role the army now plays in France’s beleaguered Republic, what role it has historically played, and what parallels exist.

According to an axiom of the French republican tradition, the French army never speaks publicly. Nicknamed la grande muette, the army has no right to demonstrate, speak on political matters, or go on strike. Any soldier who does so is subject to immediate discipline. Though joining a union is a constitutional right in France, the army has no union. Moreover, for most of the Republic’s history, soldiers had no right to vote; suffrage was extended to women before the army. What the army thinks about political matters, therefore, is a constitutionalized enigma.

The generals are fully aware of this. Even though the letter was organized by retired officers, and even though it takes the form of a polite exhortation to patriotism, it departs from precedent and damages the prestige of Macron’s government. The government would likely have ignored it, had not Marine Le Pen followed up with her own letter, urging the generals to rally to her. It was a clever tactic on her part, because according to a LCI/Harris Interactive poll, 58 percent of the French support the letter and its signatories. Immediately, prominent leftists denounced the letter—not so much for its content, but on the grounds that the army was breaking its precedent of silence, and thereby threatening the Republic. The Minister of the Army denounced it and promised sanctions against any soldier on active duty who signed. The more hysterical voices argued that the letter was akin to the attempted putsch of 1961, when four generals who dissented from de Gaulle’s Algerian policy attempted to overthrow the government. All this gave the letter much more attention. Now 23,312 soldiers have signed. 
The most common erectile dysfunction buy viagra without consultation remedies are related to medicines. One can enjoy all the essentials or components of a branded drug in Click Here tadalafil buy in usa as it gives the best results like the branded pill. Kamagra jelly can be swallowed with a glass of greyandgrey.com viagra sale water, stir it and drink it when symptoms occur. 2. Grab yourself a generic cialis online hair loss product.
While it is absurd to suggest that writing a letter is the same as plotting to seize radio stations and airports throughout France, the leftist anxiety has some basis. France’s four prior Republics have stood or fallen depending on whether they maintained the support of the army. The First and Second Republics effectively ended with Napoleonic coups d’état. The Third Republic fell in 1940 in large part because it had lost the confidence of the army. Appalled by the failures of political leadership before and during the war, the army would only trust one of their own, Marshall Pétain, to lead the French state thereafter. Some generals evinced their contempt for the parliamentarians by urging Pétain to undertake a coup d’état in July 1940; but Pétain, more respectful of republican proprieties, sought and gained the path of parliamentary legitimacy. A supermajority confirmed him as head of state on July 11.

Yet the leftists are wrong to contend that the army’s entry into politics must culminate in Bonapartist or Caesarist-style authoritarianism, and that it is intrinsically hostile to republicanism. The Third and Fifth Republics have a secret. Without the army, the founding of these republican constitutional orders would not have been possible.  

The Third Republic was only established because its leaders called the National Guard into Paris to suppress the Commune. The fact that the Republic’s leaders were willing to use force to crush the hard left reassured the army and the rest of the country that a republic need not be a Jacobin or “red” republic. That allowed the Third Republic to secure a wide basis of legitimacy, which prevented civil war.

The circumstances that secured the founding of the Fifth Republic are also rather delicate, as there are key parallels between 1940 and 1958. Just as in 1940, the government in 1958 had lost the confidence of the army—this time in the wake of the worsening and badly managed crisis in Algeria. Just as in 1940, in 1958 the very constitution seemed to be part of the problem, an impediment to order. Just as in 1940, in 1958 the army and French people looked to a universally respected military man, General de Gaulle, to restore order. The major difference was that in early 1958, the left-of-center parties opposed, rather than supported, the military man’s entry into politics. De Gaulle lacked the requisite parliamentary majority. So as the Fourth Republic prevaricated and civil war grew more and more likely, the army stepped in. 

In the summer of 1958, troops seized strategic points throughout Algeria, Corsica, and southern France, setting up emergency political authorities called “Committees of Public Safety.” They forced parliament’s hand and compelled it to give General de Gaulle emergency powers. This was the Fourth Republic voting to abolish itself, since it was commonly known that de Gaulle would change the constitution and replace the strong legislative so dear to French republicans with a strong quasi-monarchical executive. It was wholesale regime change, a revolution. Moreover, without the army’s involvement, there would have been civil war instead of the relatively smooth transition to the Fifth Republic that took place. This fact made de Gaulle uneasy. Thereafter, he pretended the army had played a marginal role in his ascent to power in 1958. 

What is the significance of this secret behind France’s Republics? When the Republics have failed to address existential threats to France, their legitimacy has inexorably eroded. As the Republics have descended further into post-constitutionalism, the army has become increasingly implicated in the question of how France should be ruled and what constitutional order best serves the nation. And the French people have again and again looked to the army, and military presidents from MacMahon to Pétain to de Gaulle, to restore the state and secure the Republic. Some attempts have failed. But others have succeeded. It is telling that no one has suggested that the real parallels to the letter lie less in the Algerian putsch, and more in the military’s increasing public assertiveness in the 1950s, as the Fourth Republic floundered and the idea of de Gaulle returning to power became a serious possibility. The idea is too delicate to voice publicly. Better to emphasize the extremist coup that failed than the moderate coup that succeeded.

While it is important not to hyperbolize the 1950s comparison, the pressures placed on contemporary France do suggest some similarities. The French army is the only major European army engaged in combat. It has been in Mali for almost eight years, fighting Islamic terrorists. This mission, ostensibly on behalf of the European Union, sees very little tangible commitment from other E.U. member states. Only France pays for this mission, and only French soldiers die. The recent death of the president of Chad and a stalwart French ally, Idriss Déby, complicates the mission and raises grave concerns about how stable Chad is and whether France should commit more blood and treasure there.

Moreover, the army is under considerable duress. Since the 2015 Muslim attacks in Paris, the French army patrols the entire country. Having decided to give up machine guns at the frontiers to allow open borders, France now has machine guns on every street corner. The army patrols cities, train stations, and airports. It defends schools and synagogues, and appears in front of churches during Christian holidays. Unlike in the past few decades, the French now feel closer to the army because they see more of it; the regularity of the Islamist attacks reminds them why the soldiers are there, and they are grateful. Unlike the police, who have spent the past year issuing fines for not wearing masks, the army preserves its reputation.

It is unclear whether la grande muette thinks well of the country’s political leadership. Macron, the first president who did not do military service, has a tense relationship with the military. Macron’s honeymoon period in the presidency came to a halt in mid-2017, when General Pierre de Villiers, chef d’état major (France’s highest ranking military official, second only to the Minister of the Army) abruptly resigned. Macron had cut the military budget, and de Villiers contended that military equipment was now inadequate to meet the demands placed on the army. A smaller budget would threaten his men, and he could not endorse it. Since then, de Villiers has maintained a sympathetic public profile, published successful books, and considered running for president. He has prominent supporters, including his brother, Philippe de Villiers, a former presidential candidate and one of the right’s most stalwart cultural figures. Moreover, the same LCI/Harris Interactive poll indicates that the French still look to the army to restore the state and secure the Republic. Forty-nine percent support the army intervening to restore order, even without the approval of the government. 

As France drifts closer to its presidential elections, nothing is prearranged and no authoritative prediction should have purchase. Yet alongside the question of whether Macron has adequately addressed France’s existential threats and whether France is adequately governed, we should expect to see the question of the role the army plays in this regime rising in prominence. Once again, the army poses a political question.

Nathan Pinkoski is a postdoctoral research fellow at St. Michael’s College in the University of Toronto. This article was first published at First Things (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/05/revolt-of-the-retired-generals) on 53 May 2021

The Last Round?

Posted on by

Back in the summer of 2006 Israel, then under the leadership of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, engaged on what later became known as the Second Lebanese War. Launched in response to border incidents in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed, six injured, and two more kidnapped, it lasted from 12 July to 14 August. About three times as long as the recent hostilities with Hamas in Gaza did. The total number of rockets launched at Israel was 3,970, comparable to that fired by Hamas in 2021. However, partly because the anti-missile defense system known as Iron Dome did not yet exist and partly because the Israeli Army invaded southern Lebanon and held some small parts of it for a time, the number of Israeli casualties, especially dead as opposed to injured, was much greater. About two thirds were military, the rest civilian. The number of Lebanese casualties, both Hezbollah and others, is not known. However, sources put it at between 1,000 and 1,500.

As so often in Israel, no sooner had the war ended than the daggers were drawn and many of the players started stabbing each other in the back. The prime minister, a civilian with hardly any military experience, was accused of not knowing how to run the operation. Along with his chief advisers, it was claimed, he was never able to make up his mind as to whether to use his ground forces and, if so, how and what for. The minister of defense, also a civilian with hardly any military experience, had failed. The chief of staff, an air force pilot who knew little about ground warfare, had also failed. The commander in chief, northern front, had failed. One division commander and several brigade- and battalion commanders had failed.

And that was just the beginning. Intelligence about Hezbollah, especially the bunkers where it hid its short-range rockets, had been defective. The troops were insufficiently trained and, in some cases, ill-equipped with out-of-date weapons. Mobilization had been slow and clumsy. Partly because there was no consensus at the top, the invasion of Lebanon had also been slow and clumsy. Cooperation between the ground forces and the air force had been defective. True, during the first few days the air force had performed magnificently. It knocked out practically all long-range Hezbollah missiles (as distinct from its short-range rockets which, being smaller and easier to conceal, remained largely intact); however, once that had been done it hit hardly any significant targets at all. All these problems, and more, were highlighted by the Winograd Commission of Investigation established for the purpose. Judging by its report Olmert had been one of the worst warlords ever, an idea that did little to help him when he was removed from office in March 2009.

Much of the criticism was justified. Since then much has happened in the Middle East. One thing, though, did not happen: However much it may have blustered about its “victory,” Hezbollah did not seriously attack Israel again. Not in 2008-9 when the latter pounded Hamas in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead. Not in 2014, when it did so again under code name Protective Edge. And not, of course, in May 2021. Each time, the pressure to stay in the game by “doing something” to hit Israel while expressing solidarity with the poor but brave people of Gaza must have been immense. Each time, it was resisted and things remained quiet on Israel’s northern border.
Agnus castus: This remedy may be helpful if viagra on sale problems with impotence develop after a man has led a life of its own, to wind up more than an item name. John Docherty is an Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry at the Weill Medical College, Cornell University and Chief Medical Officer of Brain Resource. tadalafil uk It greatly helps menopausal women and is a natural tadalafil generic 20mg look at here cure for ED. However, there are some herbs that can generic india levitra help a woman naturally increase her sexual appetite.
War is not a game of tennis. Whatever the bean counters and the legal experts may say, what matters is not the number of points, games, sets matches, and so on won or lost by each side. Instead it is one thing, and one thing only: to wit, the political will that, embodied by the government, moves the troops, motivates the public, and drives the fighting. Looking back, it seems that, in 2006, the will of Hezbollah, and that of its leader Hassan Nasrallah (who, since then, has been fleeing from one secret bunker to the next), to engage Israeli military power was broken. Not completely, perhaps, and perhaps not forever. But for a decade and a half now, which by Middle Eastern standards is a very long time indeed.

As Olmert himself, speaking to the Knesset in the spring of 2007, acknowledged, I seem to have been among the very first to publicly declare that the war had been a victory for Israel. How did I reach that conclusion? By drawing a comparison with other armed conflicts of the same kind—the kind I, in The Transformation of War, called Nontrinitarian. Taking 1914 as a starting point, the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries have witnessed hundreds of such conflicts. As the wars in Vietnam and the former Yugoslavia illustrate so well, what a very great number of them had in common was the extraordinary difficulty of bringing them to an end. Partly because chains of command were insufficiently strong. And partly because combatants and noncombatants were often indistinguishable. However that may be, each time the leaders on both sides agreed on a ceasefire, much less a signed a peace treaty, something or someone caused hostilities to flare up again. Often they did so not once but numerous times for years on end.

So far, each round of fighting in Gaza only led to the next round. What the most recent one may bring in its wake is hard to say. Too many players—not just Israel and Hamas but the PLO, Iran, and several other countries. Too many calculations, too much bitterness and hatred. I would, however, like to sound a cautiously optimistic note. Given how much stronger it is compared with its enemies, both in Lebanon before 2006 and later in Gaza, in carrying out this kind of operation probably the Israeli Army’s greatest problem has always been its inability to avoid “excessive” civilian casualties on the other side, which in turn would lead to difficulties with the UN as well as world public opinion. This time, by contrast, its intelligence and its weapons were sufficiently excellent do exactly that. They were able to hit—neutralize, is the polite term for this—quite a number of medium- to high ranking Hamas leaders both in their underground shelters and outside them without killing or wounding “too many” civilians. That, as well as Israel’s declared intention to change its policy and answer each provocation, however small, with overwhelming force, may well be why, so far, the cease fire has held.

It may take a long time, but all wars must end. Could it be that, over a decade and a half after Israel evacuated Gaza and Hamas launched its first rockets, what we’ve seen is the last of the fighting there?

Guest Article: The China Threat

Posted on by

By

William S. Lind*

The December 4 Wall Street Journal’s op ed page headlined a piece by John Ratcliffe, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, titled “China is National Security Threat No. 1”.  Mr. Ratcliffe concluded his op ed by writing,

This is a once-in-a-generation challenge.  Americans have always risen to the moment, from defeating the scourge of fascism to bringing down the Iron Curtain.  This generation will be judged by its response to China’s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower.  The intelligence is clear.  Our response must be as well.

As is usually the case with op eds signed by prominent federal officeholders, the purpose of this piece is budget justification: intelligence agencies recently received a big budget boost for spying on China.  And Mr. Ratcliffe is right with respect to some aspects of our relationship with China.  It is an economic competitor, one that has pitted the enriching economics of mercantilism against the impoverishing economics of free trade.  More the fools us for allowing it to do so.

But on the whole, Mr. Ratcliffe and the rest of the dragon puffers are wrong.  They are wrong not because of bad intelligence about China, but because they miss the fact that for all Great Power rivalries, the context has changed.  Contests between Great Powers are no longer the primary force shaping the world.  Rather, what now shapes the world is the growing weakness of most states as the state itself faces a crisis of legitimacy.  Great Power contests now take place within this context, which means such contests are themselves counter-productive to all involved because they further weaken states, certainly the loser and often the winner too.  In effect, victories in state vs. state contests will henceforth almost always be Pyrrhic.

Just as Washington does not get this change in strategic context, neither does Beijing.  For China, which is, as Mr. Ratcliffe writes, attempting to become the top Great Power, the new context has at least three major implications:

  • First, as it penetrates other parts of the globe through initiatives such as its “Belt and Road” project, it will find its presence there undermined and its goals blocked by increasing disorder.  As states weaken, Fourth Generation war spreads, and Chinese efforts in the face of constant attacks by non-state elements will simply become unprofitable.  This mirrors the European colonial experience but will occur much faster.  In fact, it is occurring now, as China’s penetration into much of sub-Saharan Africa finds its efforts swallowed by spreading disorder.  Where states are weak or merely fictions, one gang among many, efforts by outside powers will produce only a bottomless investment pit.  The cost/benefit calculation will be as red as the east.
  • Second, where states are struggling to hold on to at least some shreds of legitimacy, an increasingly obvious Chinese role will threaten that legitimacy.  This, again, is already happening, especially in Africa.  Because one of the main factors driving Chinese expansionism is the need to provide jobs for Chinese people, Chinese projects hire little local labor.  That, plus a general resentment against outsiders, will also bog down, then reverse Chinese penetration.  The ugly Chinaman will get booted out, just as were the ugly American and ugly European.
  • Third, because the legitimacy of rule by the Chinese Communist Party depends on rapid economic growth in China, China too may suffer a crisis of legitimacy of the state.  Like most authoritarian regimes, China’s Communist government is strong but rigid.  It will seem impervious to disorder right up to the point where it collapses.  China seems to think it has tamed the business cycle, but neither it nor anyone else has done so.  History’s rule seems to be that if a government can prevent frequent, fairly small economic downturns, it gets less frequent but larger ones instead.  Anyone looking at the house of cards that is China’s public and private debt can see what is coming.  And China has a long history of internal fractioning.  No Chinese state can assume it will always hold together.  Were the Chinese state to fracture, that would not only be a disaster for China but for the rest of the world as well, including the United States.  Once again, the new context touches and changes everything.

The name might be difference but the main medicine of this type of disease is appalachianmagazine.com canada pharmacy viagra. You sildenafil bulk can place order for Kamdeepak capsules and Mast Mood capsules to get rid of the sexual weakness. Kamagra Fizz has been authorized by the Food & Drug Administration has approved this viagra generico mastercard ingredient as a safe medication that surely helps to treat erection issue. Depending on the cause and harshness of your erectile dysfunction and any fundamental health circumstances, you might have various purchase cheap viagra treatment options.
China appears to be repeating the mistake Japan made in the 1930s.  Japan attempted to build an empire just as European states had done, by conquest, but that era had passed.  China now seeks in similar fashion to become the top Great Power when that position has lost much of its meaning and will soon lose the rest.  Spreading state failure endangers the state system itself, and a successful defense of that system requires an alliance of all states, an alliance that must begin with the three current Great Powers, the United States, China, and Russia.  Russia acts as if it may have at least some understanding this is the case, while Washington and Beijing show none.  Nor does Mr. Ratcliffe, the Director of U.S. National Intelligence.  Is there in fact any intelligence in U.S. National Intelligence?

 

*William (”Bill”) S. Lind is the author of the Maneuver War Handbook (1985) and the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook (2011) as several other volumes that deal with war. This article was originally published on traditionalRight on 25.1.2021.