As is often the case, Charlie Sykes has cut to heart of what's happening: "We were expecting the Munich Conference, but what Trump is offering is the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact."
Francis - an opinion predictable from the side of the aisle that dictate your politics. There are those with very good evidence that say it is you who are wrong and your dissonance prevents you from seeing the other POV.
Donald Trump’s presidency is the harbinger of many things – a vibeshift in our culture, a dismantling of bureaucratic and therapeutic government, a commitment to what the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Alex Karp calls a ‘Technological Republic’. But it also marks a return to a bleaker, starker, more pitiless world landscape.
Populations will not long endure being taxed beyond their incomes, sending their boys overseas and accepting unequal terms of trade simply so diplomats can have an easier time at cocktail parties.
The ideal of a rules-based international order, where multilateral institutions restrain states pursuing their self-interest, has proved to be a false hope. Instead of a world operating according to the dreams of Antonio Guterres or Ursula von der Leyen, we are back to a world closer to that of Thucydides in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
It’s not a new world order but a based world outlook. How can the politicians ask people to integrate into our Western society, a society where the forces of disintegration go unchecked?
Trump needs to be understood as to what he fears and sees has to happen to correct America’s place in this World. There are those who believe - with good sources and political insight - there is a bigger strategic imperative driving Trump’s agenda. He believes America is overstretched and China is the real danger. He is conscious that China is anxious to do what it can to take over Taiwan before the demographic disaster of the one-child policy decimates its working-age population.
He knows that America depends on Taiwan for the chips which assure its technological ascendancy and that denial of access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing would be the severing of his country’s carotid artery. So, like an investor seeing that there are only minutes left before the markets close, he wants to exit what he sees as a losing European trade and defend his important Asian equities. So take him seriously if not literally.
Is there an alternative? As Bismarck said, ‘a conquering army at the border will not be stopped by eloquence’. Whichever border we wish to defend – whether a principle that cannot be crossed or a frontier that should not be breached – we need to show a steeliness that has eluded us in the Western Denocracies thus far. If Trump can teach the Western democracies anything, it is that.
With respect to pivoting to China from Europe, this would not require ending the war in Ukraine, merely ignoring it. What Trump is doing is different. You could argue that he is courting Russia away from China in order to confront China more effectively a la Henry Kissinger's and others' analysis, but I seriously doubt he trusts Putin over the long term to play a side against China. So that leaves me thinking Trump has a personal stake that he is pushing by backing Russia here.
If Trump’s apparent capitulation to Putin is all about a pivot to free up resources and capacity to address the bigger strategic threat of China I do wonder how Beijing will actually interpret America’s demonstration that it will walk away from states it has pledged to defend, that it will reward aggressive military incursion, and that it will demonise the victim rather than the aggressor.
Even if one buys the need to confront China it’s far from obvious that selling out Ukraine aids, rather than hinders, that goal.
It seems much more likely that Trump, insofar as he can be said to have some principle he follows, believes in spheres of influence where the most powerful in a given area deserve to take what they can, and it's a sucker's folly to try to defend the weaker satellites in their orbit. That's what's behind a lot of his talk about Greenland and Canada, and throwing our weight around North America. And that should suggest just how willing he is to defend Taiwan. The only reason he'd even consider it is the semiconductor industry. Perhaps his tech CEO compatriots can explain how strategically important that is.
"Populations will not long endure being taxed beyond their incomes"
If this is true, we are certainly nowhere near that point in the US. Our total tax revenue is about 25% of our GDP. We are not in the top 10; at the top are all the western European powers, who have been at the top for the past 50-75 years.
"we need to show a steeliness that has eluded us in the Western Denocracies thus far. If Trump can teach the Western democracies anything, it is that."
As he showed his steeliness in building the wall he promised, making Mexico pay for it like he promised? Or is that once again "serious but not literal"? Maybe he's serious about stopping China but not literally going to do it. After all, he's planning an 8% decrease in defense spending per year for the next 5 years. I'm sure that will signal to China just how steely we are.
I think the commenter is referring to that portion of the population that is taxed beyond its income rather than the whole population. Plenty of people make a pleasant living on spending those taxes.
Our marginal tax rates are much lower than those other countries too. So either way, "will not long endure" requires considerable clarification, or, more likely, is simply not correct.
Sure... let's keep spending billions on this useless war that Putin keeps winning so more die.
Meanwhile the same experts that just got booted out of White House were for helping Iran go nuclear too.. Anything that keeps the US spending on war machines, bombs and bullets to help keep those Wall Street defense stocks nice and fat.
It's all true, of course, and frightening. But I think it's not that the Americans who voted for Trump weren't paying attention; rather, the hatred of the other side is so over the top for both sides that the Reps don't care much about this switch or are willing to overlook it. It won't bother them because Putin won't come after them. As long as Trump gives them what they want on the domestic front--and he does--they are happy.
Can't wait for all the usual suspects insisting that if Trump says that two plus two is five, only the Liberal Elitist Globalist Media would claim that it's four.
This will be Trump's and MAGA's downfall. I think much of what Trump and Vance have been saying about US government overreach and woke indoctrination has some truth to it, and their actions somewhat necessary, if over the top. However, his support of Russia in this case will fester and even hardcore Trump supporters will not buy it. Trump clearly thinks everyday American people are stupid, which was what he claimed about the Dems and which won the Reps the election.
I don’t think so. You are underestimating how little trust many people have for the mainstream establishment, which after the populist uprising of Brexit and the 2016 election started blaming all their problems on Russia. These people feel (correctly or not) that animosity towards Russia was mostly ginned up by political operatives for their own ends, and this war was completely unnecessary.
People may not believe that Russia was responsible for Brexit or Trump 2016 or the rise of populism, but (most) believe in the inviolability of national borders and the righteousness of freedom fighters, and the right of Ukraine to self determination and to join NATO. And (almost) no one believes Russia has the right to own Ukraine or to have a sphere of influence outside of their own borders, and certainly has no defensible position for invading Ukraine. It was Putin's gambit to Make Russia Great Again and it destroyed a country and killed many many people.
I don't want to defend Russia, but it's not that simple. Ukraine had a pro-Russian government until it was overthrown during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. The new government sided with EU and US. That is what kicked the whole thing off. Imagine if the government of Mexico was suddenly overthrown and a pro-China government was elected - how do you think the US would respond?
Ukraine was moving towards closer European ties until Yanukovich suddenly and inexplicably turned to Russia. Can we say bought and paid for here ? That is what kicked off Maidan. It was pro-Europe that was at play not pro-US per se.
I think the point about how this sets a precedent for China/Taiwan is one that will cause consternation for many Republican realists. Trump talks tough on China, but it seems to be all bluster and will eventually be exposed for being hot air.
"We are in the midst of a global fight between Western liberal democracy and authoritarian government."
Yes, we are. and the most direct and immediate threat to Western liberal democracy comes from the unelected authoritarians of Western governing bureaucracies who censor speech, inflict ruinous climate-based constriction on the economies we depend upon, enable crime, destroy education, neuter children (and tangentially, adult heterosexual men) and tolerate endless waves of unvetted immigrants who share nothing with the West but a thirst to enjoy its prosperity. Other than that we're in great shape.
Starts with Ukraine’s rejection of conditions to get EU/USA funds and appeals to Russia, late 2013.
USA and Soros fund NGOs and government opposition.
Anti-government protests. Right Sector and other violent groups injected into mass protest to provoke reaction. [The head of Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, was an aide to the head of Ukrainian equivalent of the KGB (the SBU) from 2006 to 2010 and 2014 to 2015. “Snipers were also trained in Poland” as “a favor to Washington,” said Polish politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke in an interview with Wirtualna Polska.]
Visits by US politicians encouraging opposition and neo-nazi groups:
‘In his memoir, former senior Obama aide Ben Rhodes acknowledged that Nuland and Pyatt “sounded as if they were picking a new government as they evaluated different Ukrainian leaders.” Rather than dispel that impression, he acknowledged that some of the Maidan “leaders received grants from U.S. democracy promotion programs.”
‘In 2012, one pro-Maidan group, Center UA, received most of its more than $500,000 in donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and financier George Soros.
‘By its own count, Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation spent over $109 million in Ukraine between 2004 and 2014.’
Police attack peaceful protestors, after meeting with Nuland/Pyatt.
How the US government initiates color revolutions and interferes with otber nations' internal affairs:
Funding.
Sacred victims.
Media brainwashing.
Regime change achieved after driving out elected president in final violent action.
Specifics:
‘Here’s ProPublica’s characterization: “The National Endowment for Democracy was established by Congress, in effect, to take over the CIA’s covert propaganda efforts. But, unlike the CIA, the NED promotes U.S. policy and interests openly.” The NED’s co-founder, Allen Weinstein, admitted as much. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he said in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post entitled, “Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups.” ‘
‘The archived page shows that from 2014 to the present, the NED has granted $22,394,281 through 334 awards to Ukraine. However, since the change, the NED only allows users to search back to 2017.’
Writing in February 2014, veteran journalist Bob Parry noted that the NED had over the previous year funded 65 projects in Ukraine totaling over $20 million, amounting to “a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.” https://www.rt.com/russia/559386-foreign-agent-registration-document/
Media Development Foundation (MDF) funded by NED heavily active in Ukraine since 2013.
I doubt Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq would agree that the US has exercised military constraint and upheld the international order. Is a country like Russia more likely to negotiate when NATO is pushing up against its borders and Ukraine being armed or through diplomacy and going back to the honouring the Minsk accords?
I wrote the following in response to Matt Johnson's article, "The Deep and Dangerous Roots of Trump’s Foreign Policy," but it might apply to this piece, too:
Everything in this article is true, except for its central conceit.
"Throughout most of history, powerful countries dominated their regions, and there was little their weaker neighbors could do about it. For hundreds of years, this system produced an endless boom-and-bust cycle of expanding and contracting empires. But after World War Two, the United States and its allies developed a set of rules, norms, and institutions" -- the "rules-based international order."
So who makes the rules? In that regard, the US was heir to the British Empire (and European overseas colonialism in general) -- a far-flung enterprise that was NOT based on dominating its region.
But with the end of European-style overseas colonialism (and the petering-out of its residual benefits-- to the point where Western Europe has been running on fumes), Trump seems to be betting on a return to the older, land-based model.
Yes, as another commentator notes, "Trump wants to relaunch policies that predate the USA’s superpower status" -- and yes, "If [that overseas paradigm is] terminated, so is the USA’s superpower status and it will be a regional power again."
But -- sad to say (and frightening as this is to contemplate) -- what if Trump is right?
What is the real problem here? It’s actually pretty simple. We don’t understand who we are, and that misunderstanding is likely going to destroy us.
We are and always have been an intensely parochial species - determinedly separating ourselves in all sorts of groups, large and small, based on any damn characteristic we can come up with, all but one of which (sex - and even that is far more integrated than far too many of us choose to imagine) are wholly illusory (religion, race/color, nationality, social class, financial status, political party, and so on). These are all completely artificial categories, yet for over four thousand years we have been finding them real enough to kill each other over in increasing numbers.
Up until August 6th, 1945, the most damage we could do in these frenzied bouts of illusory differentiation was manifest all across the world between 1937 and 1945. The damage was horrendous, but it has always possible to repair it. After that day, the potential for destruction increased to world totality. Yet we persist in rattling the same old saber, as if we were still back in those hot Mesopotamian wastes where war itself was born (see the Vulture Stele in the Louvre. It is, perhaps, the most telling human artifact ever recovered).
All this political and technical prattling about how the world works and what can be done to make it work better pales beside this one understanding. We just need to remember that what we share as human beings utterly trumps what we imagine differentiates us.
As the cartoon character Pogo once noted,”We have met the enemy, and they is us.”
As is often the case, Charlie Sykes has cut to heart of what's happening: "We were expecting the Munich Conference, but what Trump is offering is the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact."
Francis - an opinion predictable from the side of the aisle that dictate your politics. There are those with very good evidence that say it is you who are wrong and your dissonance prevents you from seeing the other POV.
Donald Trump’s presidency is the harbinger of many things – a vibeshift in our culture, a dismantling of bureaucratic and therapeutic government, a commitment to what the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Alex Karp calls a ‘Technological Republic’. But it also marks a return to a bleaker, starker, more pitiless world landscape.
Populations will not long endure being taxed beyond their incomes, sending their boys overseas and accepting unequal terms of trade simply so diplomats can have an easier time at cocktail parties.
The ideal of a rules-based international order, where multilateral institutions restrain states pursuing their self-interest, has proved to be a false hope. Instead of a world operating according to the dreams of Antonio Guterres or Ursula von der Leyen, we are back to a world closer to that of Thucydides in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/get-real-the-harsh-lessons-of-our-new-world-disorder/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020240220%20%20HOUSE%20ADS%20%20IH+CID_7376d47c7dc85a946c222ff4465f83d7
It’s not a new world order but a based world outlook. How can the politicians ask people to integrate into our Western society, a society where the forces of disintegration go unchecked?
Trump needs to be understood as to what he fears and sees has to happen to correct America’s place in this World. There are those who believe - with good sources and political insight - there is a bigger strategic imperative driving Trump’s agenda. He believes America is overstretched and China is the real danger. He is conscious that China is anxious to do what it can to take over Taiwan before the demographic disaster of the one-child policy decimates its working-age population.
He knows that America depends on Taiwan for the chips which assure its technological ascendancy and that denial of access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing would be the severing of his country’s carotid artery. So, like an investor seeing that there are only minutes left before the markets close, he wants to exit what he sees as a losing European trade and defend his important Asian equities. So take him seriously if not literally.
Is there an alternative? As Bismarck said, ‘a conquering army at the border will not be stopped by eloquence’. Whichever border we wish to defend – whether a principle that cannot be crossed or a frontier that should not be breached – we need to show a steeliness that has eluded us in the Western Denocracies thus far. If Trump can teach the Western democracies anything, it is that.
With respect to pivoting to China from Europe, this would not require ending the war in Ukraine, merely ignoring it. What Trump is doing is different. You could argue that he is courting Russia away from China in order to confront China more effectively a la Henry Kissinger's and others' analysis, but I seriously doubt he trusts Putin over the long term to play a side against China. So that leaves me thinking Trump has a personal stake that he is pushing by backing Russia here.
If Trump’s apparent capitulation to Putin is all about a pivot to free up resources and capacity to address the bigger strategic threat of China I do wonder how Beijing will actually interpret America’s demonstration that it will walk away from states it has pledged to defend, that it will reward aggressive military incursion, and that it will demonise the victim rather than the aggressor.
Even if one buys the need to confront China it’s far from obvious that selling out Ukraine aids, rather than hinders, that goal.
It seems much more likely that Trump, insofar as he can be said to have some principle he follows, believes in spheres of influence where the most powerful in a given area deserve to take what they can, and it's a sucker's folly to try to defend the weaker satellites in their orbit. That's what's behind a lot of his talk about Greenland and Canada, and throwing our weight around North America. And that should suggest just how willing he is to defend Taiwan. The only reason he'd even consider it is the semiconductor industry. Perhaps his tech CEO compatriots can explain how strategically important that is.
"Populations will not long endure being taxed beyond their incomes"
If this is true, we are certainly nowhere near that point in the US. Our total tax revenue is about 25% of our GDP. We are not in the top 10; at the top are all the western European powers, who have been at the top for the past 50-75 years.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf
"we need to show a steeliness that has eluded us in the Western Denocracies thus far. If Trump can teach the Western democracies anything, it is that."
As he showed his steeliness in building the wall he promised, making Mexico pay for it like he promised? Or is that once again "serious but not literal"? Maybe he's serious about stopping China but not literally going to do it. After all, he's planning an 8% decrease in defense spending per year for the next 5 years. I'm sure that will signal to China just how steely we are.
I think the commenter is referring to that portion of the population that is taxed beyond its income rather than the whole population. Plenty of people make a pleasant living on spending those taxes.
Our marginal tax rates are much lower than those other countries too. So either way, "will not long endure" requires considerable clarification, or, more likely, is simply not correct.
Sure... let's keep spending billions on this useless war that Putin keeps winning so more die.
Meanwhile the same experts that just got booted out of White House were for helping Iran go nuclear too.. Anything that keeps the US spending on war machines, bombs and bullets to help keep those Wall Street defense stocks nice and fat.
It's all true, of course, and frightening. But I think it's not that the Americans who voted for Trump weren't paying attention; rather, the hatred of the other side is so over the top for both sides that the Reps don't care much about this switch or are willing to overlook it. It won't bother them because Putin won't come after them. As long as Trump gives them what they want on the domestic front--and he does--they are happy.
Can't wait for all the usual suspects insisting that if Trump says that two plus two is five, only the Liberal Elitist Globalist Media would claim that it's four.
This will be Trump's and MAGA's downfall. I think much of what Trump and Vance have been saying about US government overreach and woke indoctrination has some truth to it, and their actions somewhat necessary, if over the top. However, his support of Russia in this case will fester and even hardcore Trump supporters will not buy it. Trump clearly thinks everyday American people are stupid, which was what he claimed about the Dems and which won the Reps the election.
I don’t think so. You are underestimating how little trust many people have for the mainstream establishment, which after the populist uprising of Brexit and the 2016 election started blaming all their problems on Russia. These people feel (correctly or not) that animosity towards Russia was mostly ginned up by political operatives for their own ends, and this war was completely unnecessary.
People may not believe that Russia was responsible for Brexit or Trump 2016 or the rise of populism, but (most) believe in the inviolability of national borders and the righteousness of freedom fighters, and the right of Ukraine to self determination and to join NATO. And (almost) no one believes Russia has the right to own Ukraine or to have a sphere of influence outside of their own borders, and certainly has no defensible position for invading Ukraine. It was Putin's gambit to Make Russia Great Again and it destroyed a country and killed many many people.
I don't want to defend Russia, but it's not that simple. Ukraine had a pro-Russian government until it was overthrown during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. The new government sided with EU and US. That is what kicked the whole thing off. Imagine if the government of Mexico was suddenly overthrown and a pro-China government was elected - how do you think the US would respond?
Ukraine was moving towards closer European ties until Yanukovich suddenly and inexplicably turned to Russia. Can we say bought and paid for here ? That is what kicked off Maidan. It was pro-Europe that was at play not pro-US per se.
I think the point about how this sets a precedent for China/Taiwan is one that will cause consternation for many Republican realists. Trump talks tough on China, but it seems to be all bluster and will eventually be exposed for being hot air.
I hope you are right, but from what I have seen, I am afraid you aren.t But we can hope.
"We are in the midst of a global fight between Western liberal democracy and authoritarian government."
Yes, we are. and the most direct and immediate threat to Western liberal democracy comes from the unelected authoritarians of Western governing bureaucracies who censor speech, inflict ruinous climate-based constriction on the economies we depend upon, enable crime, destroy education, neuter children (and tangentially, adult heterosexual men) and tolerate endless waves of unvetted immigrants who share nothing with the West but a thirst to enjoy its prosperity. Other than that we're in great shape.
Recipe for Revolution:
Money. Media. Techniques.
Starts with Ukraine’s rejection of conditions to get EU/USA funds and appeals to Russia, late 2013.
USA and Soros fund NGOs and government opposition.
Anti-government protests. Right Sector and other violent groups injected into mass protest to provoke reaction. [The head of Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, was an aide to the head of Ukrainian equivalent of the KGB (the SBU) from 2006 to 2010 and 2014 to 2015. “Snipers were also trained in Poland” as “a favor to Washington,” said Polish politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke in an interview with Wirtualna Polska.]
Visits by US politicians encouraging opposition and neo-nazi groups:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/04/30/what_10_years_of_us_meddling_in_ukraine_have_wrought_spoiler_alert_it_wasnt_democracy_1027411.html
‘In his memoir, former senior Obama aide Ben Rhodes acknowledged that Nuland and Pyatt “sounded as if they were picking a new government as they evaluated different Ukrainian leaders.” Rather than dispel that impression, he acknowledged that some of the Maidan “leaders received grants from U.S. democracy promotion programs.”
‘In 2012, one pro-Maidan group, Center UA, received most of its more than $500,000 in donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and financier George Soros.
‘By its own count, Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation spent over $109 million in Ukraine between 2004 and 2014.’
Police attack peaceful protestors, after meeting with Nuland/Pyatt.
How the US government initiates color revolutions and interferes with otber nations' internal affairs:
Funding.
Sacred victims.
Media brainwashing.
Regime change achieved after driving out elected president in final violent action.
Specifics:
‘Here’s ProPublica’s characterization: “The National Endowment for Democracy was established by Congress, in effect, to take over the CIA’s covert propaganda efforts. But, unlike the CIA, the NED promotes U.S. policy and interests openly.” The NED’s co-founder, Allen Weinstein, admitted as much. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he said in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post entitled, “Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups.” ‘
‘The archived page shows that from 2014 to the present, the NED has granted $22,394,281 through 334 awards to Ukraine. However, since the change, the NED only allows users to search back to 2017.’
https://humanevents.com/2022/03/15/the-fog-of-information-war-in-ukraine/
Writing in February 2014, veteran journalist Bob Parry noted that the NED had over the previous year funded 65 projects in Ukraine totaling over $20 million, amounting to “a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.” https://www.rt.com/russia/559386-foreign-agent-registration-document/
Media Development Foundation (MDF) funded by NED heavily active in Ukraine since 2013.
The KIEV INDEPENDENT (considered go-to source for MSM on the war) backed by NED. https://www.mintpressnews.com/280167-2/280167/
I doubt Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq would agree that the US has exercised military constraint and upheld the international order. Is a country like Russia more likely to negotiate when NATO is pushing up against its borders and Ukraine being armed or through diplomacy and going back to the honouring the Minsk accords?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/21/american-revolutions-9-parts-locke-1-part-hobbes/
I wrote the following in response to Matt Johnson's article, "The Deep and Dangerous Roots of Trump’s Foreign Policy," but it might apply to this piece, too:
Everything in this article is true, except for its central conceit.
"Throughout most of history, powerful countries dominated their regions, and there was little their weaker neighbors could do about it. For hundreds of years, this system produced an endless boom-and-bust cycle of expanding and contracting empires. But after World War Two, the United States and its allies developed a set of rules, norms, and institutions" -- the "rules-based international order."
So who makes the rules? In that regard, the US was heir to the British Empire (and European overseas colonialism in general) -- a far-flung enterprise that was NOT based on dominating its region.
But with the end of European-style overseas colonialism (and the petering-out of its residual benefits-- to the point where Western Europe has been running on fumes), Trump seems to be betting on a return to the older, land-based model.
Yes, as another commentator notes, "Trump wants to relaunch policies that predate the USA’s superpower status" -- and yes, "If [that overseas paradigm is] terminated, so is the USA’s superpower status and it will be a regional power again."
But -- sad to say (and frightening as this is to contemplate) -- what if Trump is right?
What is the real problem here? It’s actually pretty simple. We don’t understand who we are, and that misunderstanding is likely going to destroy us.
We are and always have been an intensely parochial species - determinedly separating ourselves in all sorts of groups, large and small, based on any damn characteristic we can come up with, all but one of which (sex - and even that is far more integrated than far too many of us choose to imagine) are wholly illusory (religion, race/color, nationality, social class, financial status, political party, and so on). These are all completely artificial categories, yet for over four thousand years we have been finding them real enough to kill each other over in increasing numbers.
Up until August 6th, 1945, the most damage we could do in these frenzied bouts of illusory differentiation was manifest all across the world between 1937 and 1945. The damage was horrendous, but it has always possible to repair it. After that day, the potential for destruction increased to world totality. Yet we persist in rattling the same old saber, as if we were still back in those hot Mesopotamian wastes where war itself was born (see the Vulture Stele in the Louvre. It is, perhaps, the most telling human artifact ever recovered).
All this political and technical prattling about how the world works and what can be done to make it work better pales beside this one understanding. We just need to remember that what we share as human beings utterly trumps what we imagine differentiates us.
As the cartoon character Pogo once noted,”We have met the enemy, and they is us.”
One day soon that may well be our epitaph.