The Unreality Of Consequences

We have not experienced any kind of significant kinetic disturbance in greater Europe since the fall of Yugoslavia and the resulting civil wars that resulted (ultimately) in the US Involvement in Serbia in the late 90's.  This week, apparently, we find ourselves there again.

War in the modern world is an odd, disturbing thing.  It is now literally broadcast into our homes and consciousnesses in a real time basis:  I sit as I write this in my chair with the heat on and a cup of coffee by my side; the lights are on and Poppy the Brave is sitting in her chair to my left, watching out the window to see if anyone is walking on this cold morning.  With the flick of a mouse, I can watch ongoing military action:  explosions, vehicles moving, the sounds of shells and shots, aircraft screaming overhead.

In effect, it is like watching a television show or movie or game:  moving images, sounds, even perhaps graphic detail.  But all with the very real sense of unreality.

The reality, of course, will come later and in ways that are actually impactful:  pictures of dead bodies and burned buildings to match the actual dead bodies and burned buildings half a world away; the inevitable crash of markets and the bemoaning of lost retirements and investments and supply chains stretched even further; skyrocketing energy prices which impact the cost of everything; the inevitable yammering of all sides about whose fault this is and what should be done; and the lessons learned from every state about how this situation feeds into future situations.

We are not a serious people.

Violence is our entertainment, our escape.  Death and destruction to us has become unreal because it is simply a way that amuse ourselves.  We watch movies of violent content and we laugh.  The destruction we see on the screen - large or small - desensitizes us as we know, in the back of our brain, that somehow it is not real or lasting.  Thus fed on violence and destruction, the images we see - because in the modern world, the wars and destruction are only ever "over there", not here.

I have written that as a martial arts practitioner, one of the great things that one becomes aware of is the outcome of one's actions.  Even though we train with wooden weapons (bokuto) or unsharpened swords (iaito) and practice paired drills (kumitachi) with care and cadence, the reality that is always at the back of one's mind is what damage can be caused, even as an accident.  Blunted weapons are still weapons and although we rigorously train to avoid contact, it is always a possibility (although no-contact is something that is drilled into our heads from the first day we train).  As a practitioner, one is very aware of what the "possibility" looks like.  I am sure that for anyone that trains in any martial art or any shooting art, the consciousness is the same:  all actions have consequences, be they the cut of the sword or the pulling of the trigger, consequences that will long outlast the moment in which the occurred.

This is my great fear as we roll into a period of turmoil and strife:  we have trained generations in the concept that there are no more consequences to such things than the restarting of a game or the rewinding of the movie. We know - as entertainment - that the dead are never truly "dead" and there are never long term impacts on lives as a result.  We have spent years creating a fantasy land of violence as a passive form of entertainment and enjoyment with no equivalent training or reality based observations in the cause and effect of situations.

The gladiators of Old Rome cried out "Ave, Caesar.  Morituri te salutant" (Hail Caesar.  We who are about to die salute you), understanding what was about to happen.  We, in our blithe ignorance, merely move to click a button so we can watch more.

On Crises In World Affairs

I am, in a lot of ways, the last generation that grew up with The Cold War.

My cousin was killed in action the year I was born in Vietnam.  I remember very vaguely the Fall of Saigon.  I heard about Afghanistan and wars of attrition years before a great many people alive now did. I remember the Soviet Congresses and Solidarity and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (and ultimately the tearing down of said Wall).  I remember the constant, low level background of fear that a nuclear conflict could break out at any time.  And I remember traveling in Eastern Europe in 1990, when suddenly (and magically) there was hardly a Communist to be found.

It is with this mindset that I view the current ongoing angst of the US/Russia/Ukraine with a certain jaded eye.

You may recall that back in April I wrote on this as well as things back then had (seemed to) reach a fever pitch.   We are back to said fever pitch, if you have paid any recent attention to the media.

The intent of today's post, of course, is not discuss politics or policies (I try not to do that, both for conversational purposes as well as for the fact that when I have tried, it goes poorly).  The point is to discuss the rather fascinating alarmism that such things seem to engender.

Being a very part-time amateur historian (perhaps lover of history is a better concept), one can always see the parallels to past emergencies:  this is "critical" moment, in which if we do not respond, something terrible is going to happen.  So terrible, in point of fact, that we have to push everything to the brink of saying we will engage in military action - beyond all the usual "send the diplomats home, call each other bad names, threaten each other economically" sorts of things that make for good action pose speeches but make little difference.

What strikes me is that for so many - at least those pushing themselves out there - this is somehow a new thing.  Russia (in this case; your enemy of civilization may vary) is apparently a hair's breadth away from destroying the entire fabric of Western Civilization in the current dispute (or in other, previous, disputes).

Is it possible?  Sure.  There are still nuclear weapons that are undoubtedly pointed here (and, sadly, at our friends in Alta Canada as well).  But is the same as the post 1947 World confrontation between two ideologies that spawned a 43 year chess game of almost nuclear holocaust?  Not really.

To the younger generation, it is hard to explain what having true world ending stuff in the background is really like.  We have become used to the sorts of long term disasters that are going to happen "someday soon"; we are not used to the "It all ends now" the way it used to.  And  I was on the tail end of the Cold War; to those in the 50's and 60's, the reality was even more overbearing (insert 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis here).

And so I read the speeches and the flailing of arms and the "This is our line in the sand - no, this is. Wait, this one over here.  Do not ignore us, we are ready to do things." - and quietly go about my business of feeding the rabbits and practicing Iai and making dairy products and the host of small things that fill my life in meaningful ways.

I suppose the possibility for such a world ending scenario exists.  The reality is, it always has.  And if the past two years has taught us anything - or for us older ones, the previous Cold War - it is that living your life in fear of an enemy you can neither influence nor control or somehow become agitated and vocal about a crisis in a life where you have lived through so many, is simply a path to constantly not living your life at all.

When Do Nation States Give Up On Themselves?

When do nation states give up on themselves? When are they no longer worth fighting for?  When do they simply dissolve, perhaps not into chaos but into smaller units for which the past becomes a vague memory?

Governments, of course, never give up on themselves.  They always consider themselves to the best form of rule and therefore see no reason for anything to change at all.  (Yes, I know a great many people define this as "the elites", but the elites can be anyone those not an elite do not care for.  A government is a distinct unit).  For them, anything that is not themselves represents disorder and chaos and a bad ending.

No, what ultimately holds a nation state together is the belief of its population in the nation state.  The inhabitants the believe in the state, that are willing to abide by (and enforce) its laws, that are willing to die for wars, that are willing to pay its taxes, that are ultimately willing to endure decisions which impact themselves poorly but help the nation state as a whole - these are the ones that hold the nation state together.  Without them, the government at best rules an apathetic population who does not care (to quote a joke from the Cold War Soviet Union days, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us") or at worst a population which is actively working to destroy the government.

History, of course, is littered with these:  The back and forth of Chinese Empire (perhaps until the Yuan dynasty), the rise, dissolution, and re-convening of Japan's Sengoku Jidai (Age of War) that accompanied the latter years of the Ashikaga Shogunate, the Western Roman Empire and then the Eastern Roman Empire (or as was said in the 1400s,
'Better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's Tiara"), the Norman conquest of England and the disappearance of the Anglo-Saxon order (after Hereward the Wake we do not hear of more resistance), the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into what we now call Central Europe, the Fall of Imperial Russia and the the re-fall of Communist Russia and then the Warsaw Pact itself.  All of these, at some point, even if there were (as there often were) a violent takeover, ultimately collapsed because those that lived in them did not support (or came not to support) the previous regime.

Why does that matter, today of all days? I find myself questioning the longevity of most modern nation states, including my own.

I can only speak of my own experience, which perhaps both gives weight to my considerations as well as undermining them as being my own - but with my self, I am finding less and less connection to the concept and idea of my own government on a national scale.

Overall my government - be they one party or the other in power - have taken a much greater concern in how I think, what I believe, and how I live my life rather than in creating and establishing a system where I can live my life.  The circle of my ability to live freely has slowly been eroded over the course of my life to where alone in a room with no windows, no electronic devices is the only place I am free of potential government involvement and action.

Add to that, as the population has grown over the years and the size of lawmaking bodies has not, my representation has grown smaller and smaller. I may be on in 15 million for my state and on in 330,000,000 for the nation:  can it be said that government truly represents my best interests?

I am the first to confess that in many ways I am still very grateful to my country - after all, the concept of God-given rights versus rights granted by the government started no-where else and even while under attack, still seems to be a bedrock - but the trend is not towards government making itself less intrusive but more intrusive, more overbearing rather than less, more controlling instead of more enabling.  And I suspect I am not the only one.

Given this, can we truly not be that far away from a day when we begin to wonder if something else is better than something we have - and act on it?

The Age of Empires

We are - maybe - one generation away from the end of the world as we know it (no, not That end of the world, just the end of our world).  The end of the nation state is almost upon us - we are devolving back to the age of Empires.

Lest anyone think that this is a desired development, or some sort of historical "advance" - it is not.  Review the history of any Empire and you will find that while in fact they were able to accomplish incredible things, such as pyramids or cultural advancement or economic stability, it was all at the cost of the individual. 

In empires, citizens - if they are fortunate enough to be that (lots of empires had lots of inhabitants that were not) - existed only to serve the state and the ruling classes of that sate.  Their labor went to create things, their lives lived to to serve those that were in place above them.  They may have been described as having "rights", but these rights were only theirs on sufferance of the rulers and subject to revocation upon need or demand.

We now live in an age where such history is forgotten, where the needs of the State - be they economic, social, or environmental - outweigh the needs of the individual. Individuals, under the current modern view, are little more than rebels unless they conform to the "correct" social views.  At best individuals are only useful as supporters of the "greater good"; at worst, they are hindrance to be eventually removed.

You might think I am over-reacting on this.  But I have heard the baying of the masses, seen their "demands", watched the continued march of the loss of individual rights and the ability to act in the name of "the nation" or "the planet".

The Iron Age is coming.  I fear for the future.

Election Day 2018, Or Why This Election Changes Nothing

Dear Friends:

Today the 2018 Midterm Elections occur in the United States (to my ex-US friends, my sincere apologies as I fear it may have taken over your news feed as much as it has taken over our own.  I can only hope this is a minor inconvenience).  By the end of the evening, we will largely know the structure of the United States Congress for the next two years.

There are one of three outcomes of this election:

1)  The party not currently in power gains power.
2)  The party currently in power strengthens its majority.
3)  There is a status quo with some seats changing hands but the balance of power at or near what it is.

In none of these solutions is there a true resolution to the ills of this state.

1)  The party not in currently in power gains power - for the next two years, there will be an inability to get any legislation passed (and multiple calls for impeachment, our version of "Replace the President before an election").  The opposition base becomes more motivated.

2) The party currently in power strengthens its majority - look for the opposition party to increase the rhetoric and unrest to continue to grow as they are motivated.

3)  There is a status quo with some seats changing hands but the balance of power at or near what it is - More of the same of the last two years.

In none of the above possible outcomes is a true unity possible.  And this is the real problem of the state.  We are tearing ourselves apart - politely (more or less) now, but more violently as we go forward.

I have been thinking of a solution where the nation emerges stronger and more united from an election, not weaker.  I cannot think of one.

I have been arguing (for years now) that the only reasonable and rationale way forward is to separate into our respective corners before we do it by force.  And I see nothing coming out of this election that will change any of that.

Sadly, I fear national unity - or at least respect for one's fellow citizens, even of a different belief - has ended.  We shall not see its like again in our lifetimes.

Why We Cannot Build Each Up: An Open Response

A friend of mine - an old one, a very dear one, posted on Facebook something to the effect of  "Americans have shown how much they are able to tear each other down.  Are they able to show how much they can build each other up?"  He is someone whom I respect immensely:  he is intelligent, wise, a deep thinker, and very knowledgeable about many things. That said, of course, any sort of discussion on social media almost immediately devolves into a heated name calling argument, so posting an actually response would be fruitless.  But here is what I would have said to him, had I been willing to engage into No Man's Land called political on-line discussions:

Dear X:

I cannot tell you how much I deeply appreciate your question, can Americans show how much they can build each other up?  I appreciate it both because of the intellectual integrity I believe you have and the fact that, simply put, almost no-one is asking the question.

In reply I can only offer a comment and a question.  My comment is no, I do not think we can build each other up in the way you are asking.  Why?  Because what does it mean to be an American?

We have become a society of divisiveness - to the point that we can almost not talk to each other.  We identify by race, by gender, by preferred sexual orientation, by political beliefs, by economic beliefs, by religious beliefs - in fact, if there is a way to identify into a subgroup, we have found it.  This sort of divisiveness - I suppose it could be termed "diversity", although diversity should in theory not be divisive - never really works for the nation state or really any sort of human organization, unless there is an underlying set of beliefs or assumptions that bind us together.  We are Y, because we are not Z.

If you can accept a rather poor analogy, it is like a family:  a group of people that may love each other or quibble and fight and call each other horrible names (and maybe not talk to each other in years) but have the underlying identification that they belong to this family and not another one.  It is our tribe, the point by which we differentiate ourselves from the world in that even though we are very different, we share at least that one identifying characteristic.

I then ask the simply question:  what is that defining characteristic or characteristics that makes us Americans?

One could argue that at one point it encompassed a shared set of beliefs about who we were and what we believed (keep in mind that for the political geographer, a nation (group of people) must have a shared culture, a shared language, and a shared origin).  Now many would argue that in point of fact that set of beliefs was incredibly narrow minded and not representative of who we actually were and that point can be debated.  What is important is that on the whole America believed it held them, even if it was not in practice.

What binds us together today?  From what I can see, very little.  We, on the whole, share only the space that we live in and the laws that we live under.  Everything else has become highly fragmented and isolated.  We find our "group", and then try to form the world to conform with what the group believes.  We have largely lost the ability to live and let live: we now live in a new age of clans and tribes, constantly seeking to do battle (thankfully only by words written and spoken at this point) with everyone around us.  We are the confederation of Celts before the arrival of Gaius Julius Caesar:  a large group of people in a large territory that would just as soon fight each other as fight against an outsider.

What would it take to change this?  I fear that task has slipped beyond any of us at this point because it would require two things.  The first is that it take a consensus on what it actually means to be an American.  Maybe that has changed over the years or maybe we have become so used to what we enjoy that we forget that we need to rededicate ourselves to such things on a regular basis.

But assuming we could reach a consensus, the second item looms in the way.  We would have to learn to accept a limitation of our influence.

Every group in the U.S. seeks to make the country into a vision of what it sees.  Anything that does not fit into that mold must be destroyed.  What I am suggesting is that different groups, even ones diametrically opposed to each other, would have to learn to accept and live with each other.  If one side believed A, B would have to accept this but also in practice agree to let A believe otherwise and not attempt to impose their vision of the world on them. 

(There is an addendum to this point as well:  every one would have to learn to forgive what has been said and written and (in some cases done).  This is an addendum of course, because in point of fact those that learn to live together in toleration if not amity can learn to let the past go.)

Building someone else up means wanting the best for them, even if the best is success above you or beyond you.  It means willing good, and being willing to see good occur without anger or regret or a coveting of that success for one's own (and then trying to bend the world to make it that way). 

As you might have guessed, I think we are far beyond this point now and have argued for some time that an amicable divorce would be better than the nasty and drawn out divorce I fear is coming (in fact, I have argued the point for a while some years, a Cassandra on the fringes of the Interweb). Why not simply accept the fact that historically this nation-state is over (it does happen, of course - someone born early in the last Century could have lived through three states:  The Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia or Tsarist Russia, The Soviet Union, and The Russian Federation) and try to manage the process instead of continuing to tighten the pressure lid down until it boils over?

Sometimes, the best one can do is manager the dissolution of the company or marriage or denomination and work to build a different, better one.

Your Obedient Servant,

Toirdhealbheach Beucail