A Plea to Mr 'B' to read before he writes

I posted this as a comment on an earlier thread. But it raises a broader question:

I beg Mr 'B' to try a bit harder to read what is here before he writes. He writes this time: 'I have to confess, Mr Hitchens, that, no matter how often I try, I cannot understand the phrase "post- modern". '

All right then, let me just say 'an old thing in a new guise, using techniques only possible in the age of the Internet, rolling TV news and social media'. Does that help?

He says :' I do not accept, in this instance, the differentiation between the people and the elite when it comes to referendums. I recall a holiday I took in Slovenia in about 1997 and the anxiety of people whom I met to join the EU.'
'Anxiety' is an interesting word. Of course, the position for supposed sovereign nations such as Slovenia (actually a former part of Austria-Hungary, then a province of Federal Yugoslavia, was always that its supposed independence was a polite fiction. It was separated from Yugoslavia precisely *so that* it could be absorbed in to the EU.

Had Mr 'B' even tried to read my many postings about von Kuehlmann's 'Federative Imperialism' he would understand immediately what was taking place here. The province of a former power (in this case Yugoslavia) had been seduced from its former allegiance, as a way of breaking up that empire and absorbing its constituent parts into the rival power's rule and governance.

I can't really see why anyone in Slovenia should have been 'anxious'. As a former Austro-Hungarian territory, its entry into the EU was guaranteed.Though any serious attempt to maintain its existence as if it were a sovereign nation, with a real currency, enforced borders, armed forces etc, would indeed have been pretty anxious.No such fate was even remotely likely. How can this obvious process be mistaken for anything other than it is? A process for transferring territory from one power to another.

He asks 'Do you think that, in the case of Norway, the elite of that country just happened to be on the same side as the people - twice? '. No, as I understand it, the Norwegian elite were anxious to join but were frustrated by unusually well-informed popular resistance.

Mr 'B': 'The fact is that the peoples of twenty two countries have voted, either through referendums or through their representatives, to join the EU and that is not indicative of imperial power. '

I do not see the logic of this. If the imperial power has willing collaborators in the elites of the states involved, why shouldn't such votes indicate the strength and influence of the imperial power? Many of these states have never been truly independent in modern times, and fear the costs and dangers of genuine independence. Isn't it at all interesting that so many countries supposedly so grateful for their freedom from the USSR were so quick to hand over their laws, finances, currencies, borders, defence and foreign policy to the EU?

Having been cut loose from their former connections and markets, they also feared the EU's power to exclude their people and goods. The trade terms made by such countries as Poland for EU membership were very harsh indeed, hardly the actions of free states making a free choice between independence and dependence.

Mr B:'Those who have not wanted to join, or have wished to leave have been permitted to follow their wishes without impediment from the EU.'
An interesting statement. But which of the East European states has actually sought genuine independence and now maintains its own borders, laws and foreign policy? (see above for reasons)

Mr B' I doubt that many of even the elite of Germany or any other EU member state is familiar with Herr von Kuehlmann'

Who am I to say? I hope he is wrong.I would be surprised if he is right. Any student of German history will be aware of this episode, and certainly any properly educated diplomat or politician or will know of von Kuehlmann, as his British equivalent will know of Edward Grey or Arthur Balfour. AS for Friedrich Naumann, he is still revered by the German Liberal Party.

Mr B 'I would contend that you are placing far too much emphasis on events and personalities from a century ago. You talk as though World War II changed nothing, not even the German outlook on its neighbours. Germans whom I have met are obsessed by their recent history and their determination not to repeat it. '

How can anyone *be* so blazingly unresponsive? I have repeatedly explained precisely this point, that WW2 made it impossible for Germany to pursue these aims *openly*, as Germany. That is exactly why these objectives have now passed into the hands of the EU and are pursued in the name of 'Europe' rather than in the name of Germany.

But what is this Europe? Why, a German-dominated politico-economic bloc which exactly shares the century-old ambitions of Germany. .But German needs - markets, raw materials, food, land, labour and strategic territory reaching the Black Sea have not changed since 1914, and will exist as long as Germany exists as a people and a nation.

 

I posted it in response to this comment from Mr @Mike B':

I have to confess, Mr Hitchens, that, no matter how often I try, I cannot understand the phrase "post- modern". To my mind, it means "future", but perhaps I am being a little too literal. I do not accept, in this instance, the differentiation between the people and the elite when it comes to referendums. I recall a holiday I took in Slovenia in about 1997 and the anxiety of people whom I met to join the EU. (I assure you that I do not mix with the elite of any country which I visit.) Do you think that, in the case of Norway, the elite of that country just happened to be on the same side as the people - twice? The fact is that the peoples of twenty two countries have voted, either through referendums or through their representatives, to join the EU and that is not indicative of imperial power. Those who have not wanted to join, or have wished to leave have been permitted to follow their wishes without impediment from the EU. I doubt that many of even the elite of Germany or any other EU member state is familiar with Herr von Kuehlmann and I would contend that you are placing far too much emphasis on events and personalities from a century ago. You talk as though World War II changed nothing, not even the German outlook on its neighbours. Germans whom I have met are obsessed by their recent history and their determination not to repeat it.

 

Which was in response to this comment form me:

 

Mr 'B' says : 'The thing about empires is that their constituent parts tend not to have applied for membership'. Is it? The EU is a pioneer in imperialism, compelled to adopt post-modern methods because its ruling power is not permitted openly to exert or state its authority, while even so dominating the whole thing. Part of this arises from Richard von Kuehlmann's 'Federative Empire' scheme of 1917, under which Germany posed as the liberator of Poland, Ukraine etc so that it could take over Russia's eastern European empire. Part of it arises from the post-Hitler inability of Germany to make any kind of open assertion of interests or territorial demands, combined with the fact that Germany's needs continue to exist and still need to be fulfilled. I have explained this so many times here ('EU Eum?', 'The continuation of Germany by other means'. etc etc. ). If Mr 'B' hasn't been paying attention, could he please desist from commenting until he has caught up? If he disagrees with my assessment, could he be kind enough to explain precisely why he does so? But to repeat , without elaboration, the very assertion which I have striven for months to rebut in deep detail, verges on bad manners. I might add that, like his fellows in so many of these arguments, Mr 'B' is confusing a country's elite (which is quite likely to contain willing collaborators with the would-be coloniser) with its people and a referendum (rigged by party and media bias) with genuine public opinion. In the modern 'democratic' world, 'democratic' forms are indeed adopted when annexations are made. But this does not mean there was any real choice, or that they represented a genuine popular will. See Britain's own Common Market referendum, in which the leadership lied to the electorate about what was at stake.

 

A contributor says that I am suggesting an equivalence between  the EU and Russia. This recalls the argument about the 'false equivalence of opposites' which was often assumed by the left in arguments about the Cold War. 

 

The equivalence was false because of the nature of the Soviet and Communist governments on the 'other side'.

 

In this case there's no comparable ideological divide between the competing blocs. There are differences, but there are also similarities. The further east you go (whichever bloc you are in) the less liberty and the more corruption you will find.

 

But I am not asking anyone to take sides. on the contrary, i am saying it is utterly foolsih to ennoble a squalid struggle for territory ( as the Western media do) into a battle between good and evil.

 

Once you see that it is a squalid struggle for territory, you can also identify the actual aggressor, through the simple use of geography and mathematics (whose frontier is expanding? Who controls more territory after the event than they controlled before? In which direction has Ukraine gone after it removed the brake of 'non-alignmnent?); also by calling things by their proper names .

 

Thus 'foreign interference in Ukrainian politics ' is foreign interference in Ukrainian politics', 'a violent mob' is 'a violent mob' and 'an unconstitutional, lawless putsch against a legitimate elected government' is ' an unconstitutional, lawless putsch against an elected government'.

 

A good test of the validity of such language is to ask yourself this. What would you have called such actions and events if your enemies were behind them, and their outcome suited your enemies? 

If the description of your own side's actions is different from the description you would apply to identical actions by your foes, then you have deceived yourself .