Objective political verisimilitude

Typedef

The notion that somehow, grouping Europe together to fight off the hegemony of the US, is in my view entirely spurious and here is why.

If one looks at Bismark's Germany for example, one can see a great parallel to be drawn in terms of a grouping of people with interest (x) against another group of people with interest (y) and in terms of the great rolling wheels of history, bloc (x)'s interests as against the interest of elements of bloc (y)'s interests have been the reason for any amount of propaganda dreamed up as a reason to coalesce bloc (y). In this context Bismark's Germany, Federal Europe, or this Republic may as well be the same entity, they are in many ways, defined by their adversity to 'something', be that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the USA or the UK, take your pick.

To be specific. I don't think the French ever thought for one second that (a) the war was wrong or (b) that French oil interests wouldn't take second place to American oil interests.

What I honestly do think is that (a) French politicains have played a great game to exploit anti-American feelings to their own ends and that any notions of us (Europeans) versus them (Americans) is a fundamentally flawed argument, since we (Europeans) are them (the Americans), in that our economies are so utterly interdependant that this spat over who controls Iraq's oil, is really just a great rolling amount of propaganda, used by the elite in the respective blocs of all countries involved in order to distract the population away from the real issues that count in ordinary people's lives.

To put my point another way. The only time nationalism has any sort of gravitas, is when you have 'an enemy' to fight, a demon, a distraction, an opiad for the prolateriate. In many instances the national enemy can change, the common hate figure of a country might shift, but at the end of the day, George Bush, Jaques Chirac, Tony Blair and Lenin aren't the guys who go off to fight the war, it's the poor fools who believe the propaganda, for without an enemy to fight, the prolateriate will invariably turn on their masters.

Think about that when you get high and mighty about the US, the UK, Fianna Fial, the Green Party or the pesky admins on boards.ie.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is no good and there is no evil, there is simply perception and those who exploit it. The only time leaders get asassinated by an interest, be that interest a country, a group or a nutjob, is when that leader hasn't played the game and sat on the fence to keep his people making a strugle in defence of 'princaipal (x)' with him at the head of it.

Jaques Chirac has to be, in my opinion one of the most brilliant exponents of this theory to date. First the great push against Le Pen and then a great push against Americans, all the while keeping the hounds sniffing for Chriac's blood in France at bay, for it would be unpatriotic to question the leader, when the enemy is at the gate. On this basis, George Bush will be elected to a second term, maybe you missed it, but, there is a war on against evil and the French after all, have stabbed the US in the back right?

So take a side and get worked up about it, hell go and fight for your cause (x), I'm sure, the leader will tell you widow, you died serving the 'righteous' cause, I'm sure your leader will tell your family whatever gormless platitude (again) that made you go and fight to begin with, but at the end of the day, that won't bring you back from the dead.

Elect me, you know I'm right.

Victor

So "Blood and Steel" and "Bread and Circuses" are one and the same?

[dream on]I understand what you are saying, buy isn't there somewhere is your heart, the admission that we can all work together to fight the real evils of hunger, disease, etc.?[dream off]

growler

quote:
"for without an enemy to fight, the prolateriate will invariably turn on their masters"

so revolution is a direct result of boredom then?

believe in anything and you are being manipulated by another , to his/her own devious ends ?

we all know politics, domestic and international is a game with it's own shifting unwritten rules, the French possibly did not think the war was wrong but their oulicly stated position was the one they felt would be in their longer term interests, which is a very complex analysis to finish.

Europe v's US , isn't quite a clash of political ideologies , it's a manifestation of a clash of cultures and attitude towards war in general.

You may have been right in the past to say that the ruling classes needed regular wars to stimulate economic growth and possibly to keep the populations of young men under control , but i don't belive such motivations exist in the west today.

mike65

I've been saying this for a while about the French governments anti war stance. It was'nt remotely based on priciple only what was good for France or rather President Chriac at the time. I belive that the French establishment wants to use any oppotunitiy that might come to hand to point up "value" differences between Europe (read France)
and the US. The whole European project is seen by the French elite as
the chance to succeed where Napolean did'nt quite.

As for the times we live in - on the boards as eleswhere, some ppl need someone/something to hate and the US/GWB fits nicely at the moment.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

As for the times we live in - on the boards as eleswhere, some ppl need someone/something to hate and the US/GWB fits nicely at the moment

Why do people need someone to hate? And hate is such a strong word. Surely, even in the world of conservatives, republicans and other right wing groups, there are not so many people who would be as arrogant as that statement, to say that 'the reason people hate us because they need something to hate'? I think that is rubbish; people have realised to varying degrees that the new 'Soviet Union' [insert archnemesis here] for Western Europe is the USA - not simply because they need something to hate, but because there are substantial grounds for grievance against the USA; more so than any other country around, especially from the people in Europe who do not feel the effects of the Killing Fields of Cambodia because Cambodia is not strong enough but will feel the effects of an American domination of certain strategically important regions - because America is powerful enough to threaten Europe.

If one looks at Bismark's Germany for example, one can see a great parallel to be drawn in terms of a grouping of people with interest (x) against another group of people with interest (y) and in terms of the great rolling wheels of history, bloc (x)'s interests as against the interest of elements of bloc (y)'s interests have been the reason for any amount of propaganda dreamed up as a reason to coalesce bloc (y). In this context Bismark's Germany, Federal Europe, or this Republic may as well be the same entity, they are in many ways, defined by their adversity to 'something', be that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the USA or the UK, take your pick

This glazes over far too much. Analyze the situations carefully; Bismarck built the union of German states on nationalism and shared culture, religion economy, rather than a reaction to any foreign power (though the decimation of Prussian power might have been a factor in such a proud race seeking allies and eventually subjects). An EU superstate is a coming together of shared history, a celebration of shared culture and the ideal of a shared economy - not a reaction to US power.

To be specific. I don't think the French ever thought for one second that (a) the war was wrong or (b) that French oil interests wouldn't take second place to American oil interests

Let's be fair; the French people more than likely thought the war would be wrong - just like the people of Ireland, Germany, the UK and lets face it, millions in the USA.

To put my point another way. The only time nationalism has any sort of gravitas, is when you have 'an enemy' to fight, a demon, a distraction, an opiad for the prolateriate. In many instances the national enemy can change, the common hate figure of a country might shift, but at the end of the day, George Bush, Jaques Chirac, Tony Blair and Lenin aren't the guys who go off to fight the war, it's the poor fools who believe the propaganda, for without an enemy to fight, the prolateriate will invariably turn on their masters.

I object to the mentioning of Lenin with the other three there; Lenin was not a leader in the sense of the others. He was a figurehead more than anything else. And Trotsky did fight alongside his men since that is what he was good at. Without a distraction, the proletariat will begin to educate themselves and see that their masters - the Debsian elite - are using them to economic and often military ends - that I can agree with.

So take a side and get worked up about it, hell go and fight for your cause (x), I'm sure, the leader will tell you widow, you died serving the 'righteous' cause, I'm sure your leader will tell your family whatever gormless platitude (again) that made you go and fight to begin with, but at the end of the day, that won't bring you back from the dead.

Elect me, you know I'm right.

Yeah right wing lol. No but seriously, what are you driving at here? Why does there have to be a leader - and why so cynical; you remind me of a few Orwellians I know.

vorbis

I would have to agree, the US represents a very easy target for europeans to rail against. I think it goes back more to the loss of influence suffered by 'old' europe after ww2. For the previous 300 years, their decisions and policies had shaped the world. Now though they are merely spectators. For the French especially, I think it grates to be so helpless to change events. They are shrewd enough to realise that they can't currently build up France to match the US so they are trying lead an European bloc against the US. Can't see it working though as the smaller eu states like their indedependence.

Clintons Cat

What exactly did France and Chirac do that was so wrong?

Whats the point of the security council,if its purpose is only to Ratify the actions of the 5 permenent members?

I have no answers,Chiracs actions have thrown into sharp focus the inequalities of the structure of the UN security council, there was only one muslim country (syria) amongst the 10 non permanent members of the security council,and some of those who were present had ecconomies that were totally dependant on the US,And were placed under ecconomic pressure to ratify both 1442 and a second (aborted) resolution .

Éomer of Rohan

The UN needs reform. What it doesn't need is to be at the beck and call of the nation which is the one most likely to ignore it. Sum total of any UN discussion is abolish the security council and rebuild it without permanent members and vetoes.

I would have to agree, the US represents a very easy target for europeans to rail against. I think it goes back more to the loss of influence suffered by 'old' europe after ww2. For the previous 300 years, their decisions and policies had shaped the world. Now though they are merely spectators. For the French especially, I think it grates to be so helpless to change events. They are shrewd enough to realise that they can't currently build up France to match the US so they are trying lead an European bloc against the US. Can't see it working though as the smaller eu states like their indedependence

This is not completely accurate. Remember that the French are still world players. In the world, maybe the USA, China and the UK are more powerful than France. Then Russia then Germany. So, in the top 6, we have three European nations - all three of whom will be in the Euro-zone by the end of the next session of British parliament. Two of which have signed the 'multi-polarity' agreement, which basically states that if either are threatened economically or militarily by a sole world power (and presently there only is one) , they will act with each other, in the UN and out - for those of you wondering, this would be the PRC and RF.
France's economic interest was threatened - and it reacted just as every other reactionary capitalist nation would; by lashing out as best it could - and the best it could in this case was diplomatic since the USA is bigger and an ally. That France is facing a new impotence is absolutely incorrect. France has suffered many humiliating retreats from her former colonies in the last century; Dien Bien Phu (ie Indo-China and Algeria) to name the most significant. I would imagine the forward thinkers in the EU are imagining the consequences of a future that donated control of the world to the USA by virtue of the former seat of world power (Europe) not having anything with which to counter it - and thus the strengthening of the EU by the addition of so many extra nations plus the foundations for a United European military and the formation of a huge economic block; one that might outweigh the USA eventually; I imagine France and Germany (and the smarter progressives in the UK) are thinking about the future rather than the present mess.

vorbis

that was kinda my point eomer. They are influencing the building of a federal europe because France alone couldn't challenge the US. They've being using the war among other issues to portray an image of europeans standing against the US. I don't think it will wash as very few european countries would see themselves as European before their own national identity.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
I don't think it will wash as very few european countries would see themselves as European before their own national identity.

Actually a lot of Europeans see thermselves as that, European first, X nationality second. Perhaps it is our desire to not be identified as British has it the other way around for us.

Typedef

One aspect of the point I was making was that being 'European' as being defined as 'non-US', is as spurious a mantra for Federal coalescence as being 'Irish' is being 'non-English'.

On another level, people seem to get up in arms about Iraq for example (an issue I have tried to avoid over the last (n) months) and forget about hospitals, schools, crime and so on within their own countries, so while Iraq was happening, the government in this country could enjoy the distraction created by war, much in the same way as the War on *ism by President Bush has served as a great distraction for the collapse of the global economy.

Many leaders have 'frought' in war, George Bush Senior for example, still, did that stop him deploying his own coutry men to fight to protect the interests of American oil companies in the first Gulf war? So is one's supposed hawhishness in battle an adequate supplicant for the realities that leaders almost without exception never stick their own necks out to fight for cause (x)?

Perhaps that is a little harsh, but, I think it is accurate to say that generally the elite in society are just that 'elite' and as such lead the prolateriate, perhaps that is the nature of human society, stratification and rising through the ranks. For me, I find an invariable algorithm, where the small guy, gets sucked into fighting for the interests of the big guy, be those interests apparent or etheral.

So on one level, all political intrigue, is simply a device to exponenciate an elite within society, to prorouge another elite and annex power for themselves, be, such tides of change at the parlimentary, national or socio-economic level. I guess what I'm saying is look out for yourself, not French v Anglo-American oil interests, because the oil interests certainly won't look after you. To the men who run those interests, easily roused, slightly politicised youth, is the oil of a war machine, be that machine at the ballot box or on the battle field.

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Many leaders have 'frought' in war, George Bush Senior for example, still, did that stop him deploying his own coutry men to fight to protect the interests of American oil companies in the first Gulf war? So is one's supposed hawhishness in battle an adequate supplicant for the realities that leaders almost without exception never stick their own necks out to fight for cause (x)?

IIRC, Bush Snr was a naval pilot and would have lead a relatively "clean" war, had he been at the receiving end in tranch warfare, he may have been slower to react. I'm not sure of his career path from there to DIA, but I suppose one needs to have a balanced experience in life at all levels to truely represent "the people".

Captain Trips

I think the Bush admin are continuing to do what is best for the US economy and that is the reason - heck, Bush may cry at night at the thought of innocent Iraqis killed but he has 270 million armed Americans. Yes it serves as a distraction to home economic realities but that's nothing new.

Two things I think are important to note: (quotes)
1. War is never avoided, only postponed to the advantage of others (what the US does - Sun Tzu)
2. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. (okay it's a ficitonal quote but it's an interesting stance that the UN/EU seems to promote)

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Actually a lot of Europeans see thermselves as that, European first, X nationality second. Perhaps it is our desire to not be identified as British has it the other way around for us.

Do you have any sources on this Victor, because I would have thought that it goes against everything I've seen of Europeans. Granted I'm living in a non-EU nation in the middle of all of them, but even still, I dont get the impression that anyone really considers themselves as European first.

Hence, I'd be interested in any sources which say otherwise.

jc

Sparks

What was that comment that everyone was making about arabs a while back?
"Me against my brother; my brother and I against
my cousin; my brother, my cousin and I against the stranger."
Or some such rot...

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Do you have any sources on this Victor, because I would have thought that it goes against everything I've seen of Europeans. Granted I'm living in a non-EU nation in the middle of all of them, but even still, I dont get the impression that anyone really considers themselves as European first.

Apparently it is a popular notion for some, especially those in and around the Benelux countries where polls (over a number of years) report 10-25% of people consider themselves European first. This I got from reports of polls (possibly EU run) in the media. I don't have a link.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Granted I'm living in a non-EU nation in the middle of all of them, but even still, I dont get the impression that anyone really considers themselves as European first.

I do.

mike65

Apparently it is a popular notion for some, especially those in and around the Benelux countries where polls (over a number of years) report 10-25% of people consider themselves European first.

Its not a suprise that benelux ppls might think they're european first as the countries they live in have little history - modern Belgium only came into existence in 1831.

Italy only became a coherant nation in the mid 19th century. While borders on the Continent have long been "flexible" as so hard to feel very attached to.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

Do you have any sources on this Victor, because I would have thought that it goes against everything I've seen of Europeans. Granted I'm living in a non-EU nation in the middle of all of them, but even still, I dont get the impression that anyone really considers themselves as European first

Me too Bonkey.

And Vorbis, the point I am making regarding the EU, you seem to have twisted in some way in order to say that I posited that an EU is an idea based on being anti-US which I didn't. Even the smaller nations are joining Europe, as I have said before, because their people view 'Europe' as an ideal; unity of heritage and economy and such like. I personally view it as a celebration of the shared history and many cultures and ultimately I see it as a way to unite a continent under a socialist ideal but that is not the point, the point is that you seem to be arbitrarily assigning the EU an anti-US function when that is only correct at present and not even for all EU member nations.

Éomer of Rohan

Its not a suprise that benelux ppls might think they're european first as the countries they live in have little history - modern Belgium only came into existence in 1831.

Italy only became a coherant nation in the mid 19th century. While borders on the Continent have long been "flexible" as so hard to feel very attached to.

Well what about the Netherlands, which, conveniently you ignore; it has a long history since it broke free from Spain with it's own Monarchy, alliance with England, a sea based empire, wars with France, a rich country in culture and heritage. It too is in the BeNeLux region. And in Belgium, you have two parts to the country - one of which is Flemish - and that people have been there since the time of the Celts from Feudalism to fascism to modern day.

As for Italy - I don't think any other country in Europe has a culture more distinctive; Italy as it is today was in the same shape back in Roman times - Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul plus the Latin cities add up to modern Italy; and all existed as a unified 'nation' after Caesar enfranchised the Transalpine Gauls in 48BC after the civil war.

And lest we forget, borders are obviously very important (ie people are obviously attached to them) given that in 1870-71 Germany went to war over Alsace-Lorraine, a Germanic but French occupied territory in lower France and then between the First World War to the installation of Mussolini and eventually the fall of Hitler we saw the rise of extreme nationalism which pretty much throws out the argument that Europeans find it hard to feel attached to their borders/countries.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
Its not a suprise that benelux ppls might think they're european first as the countries they live in have little history - modern Belgium only came into existence in 1831.

A little under a century before modern Ireland did :rolleyes:

Italy only became a coherant nation in the mid 19th century.

Late nineteenth century actually, and a decade before Germany. Both had national identities and aspirations long before unification. They are actually very well documented.

I think you devalue the patriotism felt by many of the citizens of the continental European states with your rather simplistic argument.

While borders on the Continent have long been "flexible" as so hard to feel very attached to.

Ireland’s geographical position as a peripheral island has afforded her a certain level of ethnic homogeneity. However, even Ireland has enough ethnic diversity to constitute "flexible" borders - the question of the North being a case in point.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I do.

Recent shift for you then

Here you were an Italian, in response to a post which referred to "Euros".

And yes....I did actually remember the post...I didnt just go searching blindly

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Here you were an Italian, in response to a post which referred to "Euros".

I am still an Italian, and an Irishman, for that matter. Proud of both, too.

But I would probably consider myself European first. That was, after all bonkey, what I was responding to

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I am still an Italian, and an Irishman, for that matter. Proud of both, too.

But I would probably consider myself European first.

I was hoping you'd say that

The reason I brought the point up is that I've encountered a lot of people who initially profess to be "European first", and then back down when you start discussing an EU which has no internal nations remaining - that they should give up their "national identity" in favour of an "ethnic identity" in a truly united Europe. No borders, no national governments...the whole Federal Shebang.

Put it a different way...would someone poking fun at Europe or the EU have generated the same amount of "you dont know Jack" indignation with you as the comments about Italy did? What about if it was only the Germans I was insulting? They're fellow Europeans....would you get as indignant as when someone attacked the Italians here?

Would Eomer defend the EU as much as the Republic of Ireland, or a belief in a United Ireland, despite telling us repeatedly that nations are an outdated idea anyway?

This is my point. Many people claim their first allegance is to one entity, but are inclined to defend the other more vehemently, or have reasons why certain aspects of their nationality are important, or, or, or. Caveats all over the place.

Maybe you and Dave do genuinely believe in Europe before Nationality...but you'd be the first two I've met who genuinely believe it.

Ultimately, I would still stand by my original comment, with the correction that I should have said "many people" rather than "anyone".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Put it a different way...would someone poking fun at Europe or the EU have generated the same amount of "you dont know Jack" indignation with you as the comments about Italy did? What about if it was only the Germans I was insulting? They're fellow Europeans....would you get as indignant as when someone attacked the Italians here?

In the last few months, even you must have noted the number of threads where individuals have continually rushed to the defence of the Germans and French (With this thread being the best example to date). To assume that they simply manifested the spectre of anti-Americanism would be unfair, as many (including myself) felt obliged to support our European brothers.

Actually, while I did not specifically say "you don’t know Jack" here with regard to Europe and Europeans, that was the motivation. I even got banned for a week for my troubles

This is my point. Many people claim their first allegance is to one entity, but are inclined to defend the other more vehemently, or have reasons why certain aspects of their nationality are important, or, or, or. Caveats all over the place.

These caveats are called regionalism, which is a common enough concept throughout the World. My father will describe himself as a Florentine before an Italian. Most Bavarians too, will consider themselves just that before being Germans, and the same goes for Flemish, Catalans and, to some degree or other, every other region in Europe. Actually, look at Britain for the best example of all - they don’t even play on the same teams in sports.

The concept of Europe as a national identity is an embryonic invention - as have most if not all national identities: Britain was an artificial union of largely antagonistic states; both Italy and Germany were the unification of fairly vague ethnic groups who didn’t even speak the same language; and Spain was essentially the product of a marriage!

When you look at the last two centuries, most nationalities are a product of a mixture of romanticism and a vague commonality, and any European nationality would be no exception. If you look at the arguments used by those who unified Germany, Britain or Italy in the nineteenth century, they would have included vague concepts such as common heritage and history. The same can easily be argued for Europe as a whole, whether it actually succeeds is another matter.

Éomer of Rohan

Would Eomer defend the EU as much as the Republic of Ireland, or a belief in a United Ireland, despite telling us repeatedly that nations are an outdated idea anyway?

Erm, JC, I can't see the relevence of the first two 'beliefs' given that one - I have consistently argued against a United Ireland and two, I don't live in the Republic coupled with the fact that, as you say, I believe that nation states are outdated anyway so why would I defend them? And as fopr sticking up for Germans and French, I think I have been doing that given the amount of BS that has been flapping about regarding those two nations and peoples from some of the Pro-War crew lol

Typedef

Isn't it easy to feel an afinity with the poor French, fighting the good fight in the UN against the horrible US oppressor?

Funny, how France and Britain tried to invade and annex the Suez canal in the 1950s, but were stopped by the Americans.
Leopards don't change their spots and I doubt that if France had the ability to annex it's former colonies again, that it would waste much time in 'justifiying such action', perhaps using Weapons of Mass Destruction as an ironic excuse to do so.

For me, on the Federalist note, if Ireland is to be force fed Federalism, then I for one would want to see complete and total commitment to the same. Don't get me wrong, I oppose European Federalism for Ireland, but, if the government of this country and other European nations are intent on prorouging in perpetuity and forcing a quasi-Federalist state, then it makes sense to make that State as malleable and as 'strong' (as laden with ambiguity an all encompassing inferences as the word means) as such a State can be made. In effect all or nothing (on the European Federalist front), with no Federalism for Ireland being my preferance. Half assed Federalism would be a disaster or more a waste of time and resources, with too many indians and and inadequate supply of chiefs.

Viva France.

Éomer of Rohan

Funny, how France and Britain tried to invade and annex the Suez canal in the 1950s, but were stopped by the Americans.

I agreed with the Americans on that one incident.

Leopards don't change their spots and I doubt that if France had the ability to annex it's former colonies again, that it would waste much time in 'justifiying such action', perhaps using Weapons of Mass Destruction as an ironic excuse to do so.

Where is the justification for this opinion?! It is not France that threatens other nations with her nuclear deterrent is it?! That's right! It is the USA.

PS. It is 'Vive la France' (or for those of us more friendly to the French 'Allez le Bleus' lol.)

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
PS. It is 'Vive la France' (or for those of us more friendly to the French 'Allez le Bleus' lol.)

And if you're going to go correcting something, get it right yourself

It should be "les Bleus". Plural with plural.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

lol. Good grief JC, you do read everything on these boards don't you?! And that wasn't what I corrected anyway lol.

Typedef

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Where is the justification for this opinion?! It is not France that threatens other nations with her nuclear deterrent is it?! That's right! It is the USA.

Pardon my French but, that is a load of twaddle.

The French were full participants in the cold war and were letting off Nuclear weapons in French Polynesia as recently as 1997.

Added to which is the fact that it was France, not the USA which supplied Israel with the atomic bomb.

I agree, the USA is far from a pillar of moral fortitude, but, the French are about the last people on earth who can point the finger in that regard, even Ireland, with it's support (covertly) of the dirty war in Northern Ireland for twenty five years, is unfortunately exactly as dirty as the French and Americans, based on such criteria of self exponential morality.

Cuidado con el gato.