STATES OF TERROR

Professor Kaiser characterized the Ku Klux Klan as a terrorist organization: "The Ku Klux Klan was, very simply, a terrorist organization dedicated to re-imposing white rule by force, something it gradually managed to do." DK

 That seems very much true enough.

 Let's continue that discussion with my post below :

Monday, July 20, 2015

RE NATION STATES TERRORISM CIVIL WAR BOBBITT

Reading Bobbitt's works, especially passages in Shield, it becomes clear that he viewed Lincoln's Union as what he terms the first nation state. It gets lumped in with all the belligerents of The Long War, and with the strategic implications of total war, with which he identifies the nation state itself as with a moniker.

In his view, it seems, nation states are inherently prone to total war and terror.  See especially the passage in Shield at p 217. This has been an ideological fallacy of the so called Milner Group since the early 20th Century.  I take it that Bobbitt is firmly in that tradition, quibble though he might with Sir Michael Howard, another ' member '.

He characterized Davis' Confederacy as a state nation (remnant), fighting a war, where feasible, only against official military units of the Union, and disdaining guerilla tactics as well as attacks on civilians or property as being undignified, immoral, and ungentlemanly.

Lincoln's Union was not only the first nation state, under Bobbitt's analysis, but also the first terrorist nation state, in that it attacked the state nation- like Confederacy (its own federal territory, by its own definition) in what has been characterized as a strategy, in the end, and ultimately long after, of depopulation and terror. 

The freeing of the slaves (only in the Confederacy) as a war measure was conceived, and was quite understandably treated in the Confederacy, as a terrorist measure against the Confederacy and its population, erstwhile citizens of the US for whom the Union claimed to stand. 

Although there were Confederate guerrillas whose activities could not be well controlled, the Confederate Army apparently did not attack either Northern civilians or destroy their property. Rather like Frederick The Great.

See also Moyar's book on insurgency, the Civil War and Reconstruction Chapters.

I should point out that I do not really agree with Bobbitt's analysis or emphasis on some of these issues, and he might of course claim that I have misinterpreted his material in Shield. But if you disagree with this account, take a look at Shield, take it up with Bobbitt, not me.

Bobbitt thought, differing also from Professor Kaiser,  that Taney's views in Dred Scott were not so far wrong:

Friday, June 2, 2017

RE DK POST RE DRED SCOTT DECISION

Looking back through Bobbitt, I find an interesting passage in Constitutional Fate, p 86, 87, discussing Bickel's The Morality of Consent, a chapter called Structural Argument, (although the decision has normally been seen, including by DK,  as an historical one, or perhaps as he says a right wing originalist one). 

Here it seems to be squibbed as an example of structuralist jurisprudence, and we see Bobbitt concluding that Justice Taney in Dred Scott was perhaps tragically, as he put it, not so far from wrong.

CIVIL WAR AFTERMATH A USEFUL PASSAGE

"The large Republican majority in Congress was determined to preserve the results of the war by either reducing the representation of the Southern states, or by enfranchising the freedmen. The 14th amendment was written to do the first: it did not require Negro suffrage, as it was then called, but specifically promised to reduce the Congressional representation of states so as to reflect the number of voters they enfranchised. When the southern states, supported by President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment, the Republican Congressional majority--which grew even larger in the 1866 elections--passed its own Reconstruction plan, putting the South under military rule and insisting that the southern states enfranchise Negroes in new Constitutions before they could send representatives to Congress again. Negro suffrage, sadly, was a measure well in advance of even northern opinion, and the radicals realized by 1867 that it had to be put into the Constitution in order to impose it upon the South. This the 15th Amendment did." DK

This is a more or less correct account.

Not a pretty picture.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DUMB AND DUMBER

THE ROOSKIES ARE ALL OVER ME TODAY

Entry	Pageviews
United States	67
Russia	63
Portugal	10
France	8
South Korea	7
Poland	2
Belgium	1
Germany	1

DK POST DECEMBER 29 2011

Why not post his 2011 post here, so that my remark can be seen in context?:

 

Thursday, December 29, 2011

A similar era?

At long last I have acted on my intention to investigate the Gilded Age, in order to find exactly how similar politics 140 years ago were to our own. My text has been a remarkable book, Twenty Years in Congress, 1861-1881, written by a distinguished participant, James G. Blaine of Maine, who came within an ace of becoming President himself in 1884 but lost by the votes of a few thousand New Yorkers and retired to write this most interesting history. There is no substitute, I have found, for investigating an era through the eyes of a participant, and Blaine combined an eye for character with a respect for primary sources, quoting the Congressional Globe and presidential addresses at great length. My read has tended to confirm that the similarities in the two eras are rather striking, largely because both are dominated by a mixture of partisanship and corruption.

I have skipped volume I for the moment and began in the wake of the Civil War, during the Presidency of Andrew Johnson, one which bears an uncomfortable similarity in some respects to the time we are passing through now. Johnson, a poor white from East Tennessee, was one of the greatest accidents in American history. A loyal union man and a "War Democrat," as they were known, he joined Abraham Lincoln on the "Unionist" (not Republican) ticket in 1864 to appeal to loyal Democrats and the border states. Like many upcountry southerners, he hated the planter class, but it turned out that he hated the newly freed slaves more. The large Republican majority in Congress was determined to preserve the results of the war by either reducing the representation of the Southern states, or by enfranchising the freedmen. The 14th amendment was written to do the first: it did not require Negro suffrage, as it was then called, but specifically promised to reduce the Congressional representation of states so as to reflect the number of voters they enfranchised. When the southern states, supported by President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment, the Republican Congressional majority--which grew even larger in the 1866 elections--passed its own Reconstruction plan, putting the South under military rule and insisting that the southern states enfranchise Negroes in new Constitutions before they could send representatives to Congress again. Negro suffrage, sadly, was a measure well in advance of even northern opinion, and the radicals realized by 1867 that it had to be put into the Constitution in order to impose it upon the South. This the 15th Amendment did.

Johnson's dogged resistance to these measures was fully shared by the Democratic Party, northern as well as southern. In an odd echo of what we have been through for the last three years, not a single Democrat in Congress voted for either the 14th or 15th Amendments, nor did any Democratic-controlled legislatures ratify them. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress, with good reason, did not trust Johnson to use the executive branch's powers to carry out their policies, and in 1867 they passed the Tenure of Office Act, taking advantage of a Constitutional ambiguity to make the approval of the Senate mandatory to remove, as well as to appoint, federal officers. Utterly contrary to tradition and precedent, this measure was clearly unconstitutional, but the Republicans forced it through nonetheless, and it became the basis for Johnson's impeachment when he removed Secretary of War Stanton from office. The Republicans would have done much better to have impeached him for clearly attempting to subvert the laws that they had passed, but they preferred to rest their case on a technicality instead. Blaine by the time he wrote his book clearly recognized that the impeachment was a mistake, although he had voted for it as a member of the House at the time. In the end, thanks to some courageous Republicans, Johnson was acquitted by the Senate by the narrowest of margins. The Tenure of Office act controversy now parallels the battle over President Obama's recess appointments, which the Senate used parliamentary subterfuge to try to prevent.

Partisanship dominated nearly every major issue in this period. The Democrats, many of whom had never believed in the Civil War, wanted to pay off the enormous war debt in depreciated paper currency; this the Republicans refused to do, and they made impressive progress in paying it off even under Johnson. Even the admission of new western states was now pushed or rejected on partisan grounds, because they were thought to be likely to send more Republicans to the Senate and the House. Republicans often referred to "the Democracy," as it was then called, as the party of treason (another call they have taken up again), while Democrats referred to Republicans as the party of dictatorship and racial equality. It was probably fortunate that the nation had General Grant to turn to, since he could command some bipartisan support at least in the North. We have no such figure on the horizon today.

Yet I could not help noticing that despite the equally partisan divide, the Congress functioned infinitely more efficiently than it does now. The House routinely suspended its rules to rush through legislation (this required a 2/3 vote, which the Republicans could usually, but not always, get), and the filibuster seems to have been unknown even in the Senate. Committees worked quickly and efficiently--without any staff at all. The level of oratory was incomparably higher than it is today. And one senses, in speeches on all side, an acute sense that the United States was still a relatively young democratic experiment--many of the legislators, after all, would have known in their youth men and women old enough to remember the adoption of the Constitution--and an instinctive, continual resort to the first principles of Republican government. The average legislator today would find himself intellectually overmatched, should a time machine take him back 150 years.

The real issue in this period, as in the war itself, was the question of federal authority. Having strengthened it beyond imagination to win the war, the Republicans, led by Charles Sumner in the Senate, one of the few real heroes of the era, knew they must keep it strong to complete the work of the war. Only the continued occupation of the South by federal troops, even after states were re-admitted to the Union, gave the black citizenry and white Republicans (of which there were some!) any chance of exercising their franchise and securing their lives and property. The Ku Klux Klan was, very simply, a terrorist organization dedicated to re-imposing white rule by force, something it gradually managed to do. Meanwhile, Democrats North and South, and even some dissenting Republicans, argued that the Republican majority, and, after 1869, the Grant Administration, was maintaining a wartime despotism long after the time had come to restore peace. Grant won a big electoral victory in 1868, but Blaine points out that his margin was somewhat deceptive. Both New York and New Jersey voted for Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candidate, and Grant's margins in several other Democratic states were quite small. Although Grant remained personally committed to reconstruction, he was a much weaker President than he had been a general, and his Administration's corruption so undermined the confidence of many concerned citizens that he faced a liberal Republican revolt in 1872. The liberals nominated a titan of the Republican Party, the editor Horace Greeley, and the Democrats decided they had best support him. Greeley could not win their loyalty, however, and he went down to a much worse defeat than Seymour.

Turning back for a moment to the present day, the Republicans in the last four years have treated Barack Obama in the same way their ancestors treated Andrew Johnson--and, I would suggest, for the same two reasons. First, they see him as attempting to maintain an old order which they detest--the remnants of the New Deal and the Great Society. They prefer, of course, to argue that he is trying to impose a new order, socialism, but I suspect that in their hearts they know the truth. There is some truth in this, just as Andrew Johnson and the defeated white Southerners and their Northern Democratic allies meant to restore the supremacy both of the white race and the Democratic Party. But secondly, neither set of Republicans viewed, or views, the President as legitimate. Johnson they regarded as an apostate; Obama they regard as unfit, for various reasons, to sit in the White House. Having opposed everything he did for two years, and having been rewarded with control of the House of Representatives, they are now obstructing him at every turn, and doing their best, too, to deny the Presidential appointing power by refusing to confirm his nominees, regardless of their impact upon the ability of the federal government even to function. George Will, who evidently realizes that Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, calls for four more years of total obstructionism in his last column of the year.

It has now become clear to me that the United States has enjoyed only two eras of genuine political consensus in its history: from 1800 to 1824 (although in some respects that consensus persisted into the 1830s), and from about 1941 until about 1968 (although in some respects that consensus lasted at least until the 1980s.) The earlier consensus was built around white manhood suffrage, expansion into the Northwest, and attempts to keep slavery where it was. The second was based upon the New Deal and the United States' new world role. The Civil War and Reconstruction proved that the nation could pass through one of its periodic crises without creating a real consensus or even strengthening the federal government. The executive branch did not recover from the Presidency of Johnson until Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson. There is every reason to think that those of us in our sixties will not live to see a genuine consensus established again, and that the executive will continue to grow weaker for at least the next decade.

The issue of corruption at all levels of government, combined with serious economic inequality, eventually brought about the Progressive era, more than thirty years after the end of the Civil War. We too may have to wait for decades before we set about fixing government and, perhaps, restoring some of the role it played in the economy in the middle of the twentieth century. In any case, the trends of that era were clearly not fated to continue indefinitely. We have moved into a new era, one sadly reminiscent of the Gilded Age, few of whose politicians have gone down as heroic figures.

RE DK 2011 CIVIL WAR POST EXCERPT

"The real issue in this period, as in the war itself, was the question of federal authority. Having strengthened it beyond imagination to win the war, the Republicans, led by Charles Sumner in the Senate, one of the few real heroes of the era, knew they must keep it strong to complete the work of the war. Only the continued occupation of the South by federal troops, even after states were re-admitted to the Union, gave the black citizenry and white Republicans (of which there were some!) any chance of exercising their franchise and securing their lives and property. The Ku Klux Klan was, very simply, a terrorist organization dedicated to re-imposing white rule by force, something it gradually managed to do. " DK

 

What he calls 'the work of the war' had not been the mandate of Lincoln when elected. Quite the contrary. Lincoln had actually campaigned on limited federal authority, even on the states' rights slavery issue. One can see that this had been a Kennedy fallacy broken promise.

 

Freeing the negro slaves during the war, and then giving them voting rights, and even faux political control as puppets of southern political offices, had never even been imagined as desirable by almost any white Americans either north or south. 

CLIMATE CHANGE ANY IDIOT COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING A MILE AWAY AND 100 YEARS AGO

OLD POST SOMEONE SAW WHY NOT REPRISE THIS LITTLE BEAUTY

Friday, July 9, 2010

Re Thomas M Huber book

Unfortunately, re 'reforms' here, compared to and contrasted with
others, I question whether we even have anything like a kind of 'service intelligentsia', to which Huber referred re the Meiji Restoration and other revolutions.

I will omit describing what kinds of things we have, other than a more modern kind of new Gilded Age, as David Kaiser has noted;

but certainly not, it seems to me, a 'service intelligentsia' associated with it, of the kind to which Huber referred.

Most of the people, who might have gone in that direction, here, were redirected, over the decades, to other things, narrow special interests, sports fannism, you name it, even a debauched Ayn Randism, or several things worse.

Additionally, as, for example, Philip Bobbitt mentioned in a televised interview I saw not so long ago, the American political system is extraordinarily difficult to reform. Certainly, political changes are now impending, but based more on new technological possibilities, which he also mentioned in, I believe, The Shield..., re direct democracy referenda etc., than on a service intelligentsia. These changes also will not necessarily be those which some of us would recommend.

PROGRESS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF EUROPEAN POLITICS

Schroeder mentions progress, in connection with certain events and tendencies. He talks about real and useful political and social change. I think I know what he means, but....

 

He entitles Ch 15 Revolutions, Progress, and Standstill, 1830 - 1833.

 

What is real and useful political and social change?

 

What is its direction, features, nature, scope, direction, pitfalls, failures, delusions?

 

These are questions unanswered there.

 

Could one have say bad progress, or good standstill?

 

Is there some intermediate thing, not yet progress, but not quite standstill, toward which one should incline sometimes?

Is Schroeder's concept of progress merely Butterfield's Whig liberalism dolled up?

Where is Schroeder's progress going? Where did it allegedly come from? Why?

RE DK CURRENT POST EXCERPT

"Thus, the mainstream liberal media has been unable to face the scale of the impending Republican triumph." DK

 

They have published some articles indicating, to me, that they are in despair for other, larger, reasons, and I have recently commented on several of those, noting what they seem to mean, although it is not about specifically what the impending domestic Republican triumph means, but rather about the end of the Western Liberal globalist system as such.

 

EXPERTISE FOIBLES EBAY DIALOGUE

Ebay thinks only experts tell the truth about whether something is authentic.

 

Why?

 

Because experts have told them so.

 

Can anyone sell an authentic item on Ebay?

 

No.

 

So no authentic things that may involve expertise can be sold sold as authentic except by an expert?

 

No.

 

Who decides for Ebay what things may involve an expert?

 

Experts who deal in and own own authentic things.

 

Who are they?

 

Experts who sell on Ebay.

 

Who decides for Ebay who is a trustworthy expert?

 

Experts.

 

All experts?

 

It helps to sell on Ebay.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS COST TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS COST

IMPROV REFERENCE FROM RANDY'S SITE PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING

https://www.facebook.com/rfertel/posts/10155404706119402

I thought this especially cute.

For me, it is high comedy.

Keynes, what. In the long run, WE ARE ALL DEAD....

Ayn Rand: excel, go down swinging...

Maybe I am alone in finding this comical.

Think of journalism as rather like American professional wrestling.

That will help calm you down.

Journalists are nothing if not a little clever, in a low sort of way.

GLOBALIZATION MARKET CAPITALISM'S PRINCIPLE IS BASED ON MARX

The mode of production determines the form of life....

ANDREAS GISALBERTI GUARNERI'S TEACHER I HAVE ONE SO LABELLED YOU SEE

The label is typed or printed in old, faded, blue ink....

SOUTH KOREA HUGE TODAY MAYBE AN OBSERVATION DECK FOR SOMEONE ELSE?

Entry	Pageviews
South Korea	72
United States	61
Hong Kong	7
France	4
Sweden	3
Bangladesh	1
Belgium	1
Brazil	1

HORACE PETHERICK VIOLIN REPAIR MANUAL AND GUARNERI

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26878/26878-h/26878-h.htm

This is a choice discussion, even someone named Roger Hargrave got involved, maybe the real one:

https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/330360-violin-restoration-ethics-cannibalizing-old-instruments/&page=3

They tend not to criticize Petherick's Guarneri book too much, most of them. They try to defend him, as a product of the knowledge of his time. Etc. 

I think he was asked and paid to write this book, by the editors of The Strad, who sponsored it, who had used him as a trusted expert witness in the past, and who also had interests in the trade, to intentionally mislead not only retail customers, but also, probably, other merchants everywhere as well.

It seems to me that they succeeded in that, with Petherick's book, even down to the present moment.

VIOLIN FOIBLES

Violin owner: I have a violin with an authentic Stradivari label and a certificate.

Merchant: The firm has an old collection of authentic labels.

Violin owner: Where did they come from?

Merchant: We bought them.

Violin owner: From whom?

Merchant: A Merchant.

Violin owner: So, what is my violin?

Merchant: It's a mediocre copy.

Violin owner: How do you know?

Merchant: The label!

Violin owner: What about the certificate?

Merchant: Hahahahaha!

no more sovereignty at bay for China baby

The South China Sea, and, frankly, soon, The Pacific, are China's, not its corporations', oysters.

JUST THINK OF THE ACA AS A SORT OF KANSAS NEBRASKA ACT OR EVEN TO MIX BRANCH METAPHORS

a Dred Scott, asserting federal authority against virtuous red states in favor of evil blues.

With the reds now in control, overturning the ACA, the Dred Scott of today, the blues have to secede!

RE DK CURRENT POST AND MY COMMENT

We need something else besides what has been proposed.

 

Were we in the 18th century, again, and in Europe, I might invoke a principle, noblesse oblige. It is long gone. We rejected it ab initio here.

 

Michael Lewis uttered those words, at the Princeton speech. They make no sense to Americans.

 

Once upon a time, the needs of the poor were ministered to, rather badly then as well, by the aristocracy, and by the church.

 

With the Reformation, the charitable work of the church in Europe was taken over by the state, or terminated. When it continued it, it did not do it even as well as the Catholic Church had... resources were diverted even more than before... 

 

But we are not in the 18th Century.

RUMPOLE ERSKINE-BROWN

Oliver Hardy
Macaire Bertrand
Kramden Norton
Falstaff Prince Hal

SHABBY CHIC CHUBBY CHICK

LIBERAL JOURNALISM FINALLY AGAIN TEARING OFF THE MASK

https://www.facebook.com/rfertel/posts/10155398891794402

Terms search: Lorch, Drew Pearson Fallacy, The Times, Fallows Fallacy, muckraking, Milner Group, The Establishment, vital center, LIEO, CFR, Quigley, Hannah Arendt, Davos, EU,  Neocon

It has usually been either cheap sensationalism, or corrupt, bought off, partisanship.

Here is the journalist wearing, for the moment, the market capitalist cheap sensationalist's retort:

 

 (Lorch) Newspaper Editor's retort to assembled Scholars: 

"Don't you know what the newspaper business is all about, you bloody fool...For the past ten minutes you've been trying to make me out as some kind of hideous ogre devoid of any shred of social consciousness.

"You act as though you think the job of a newspaper is to be an educational institution for the masses.

"Education is your job, not mine.

"I run a business. That business is to make money. My stock in trade is something called 'news'. It isn't really news all the time-- it's entertainment in the guise of news quite often.... I am not going to print educational stuff that'll put me in the poor house." 

With their other hat on, the one the NYT aways wears, they are the only repository of truth, a bulwark against fraud, falsehood, and cheap sensationalism, in a fallen world. 

VIOLIN FOIBLES

Violin owner: I have a certificate!

Merchant: Hahahahahahaha !

TODAY THEY LOVE ME IN HONG KONG

Entry	Pageviews
United States	66
Hong Kong	20
Portugal	16
Brazil	4
Thailand	4
France	2
United Kingdom	2
India	2
Poland	2
Sweden	2

MAYBE PUTIN HIMSELF CAN INSTITUTE A NEW PAX MONGOLICA RIGHT ACROSS EURASIA

hooking up with the New Silk Road China is putting in place, and it can hook up with India also, so that these endless droves of poor angry and hungry masses, many billions really, can come to share intimately in the enormous bounty of the heritage of Western European Civilization, first hand, up close and personal?

I, personally, would love to see Moscow and St Petersburg inundated with poor, loving, Mongolian masses relocating voluntarily, and at will, from Siberia and its environs.

All it would take is millions of boots on the ground. They don't need vehicles, just way stations.

DOESN'T THAT JUST FROST YOUR ASS?

This was one of my father's favorite remarks.

 

Very versatile.

I can even think of it as a wistful Republican antidote to global warming, or a Democratic tart rejoinder to Ass Roast Physics, either one!

PLACES LIKE INDIA WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF RULED BY A BRITISH RAJ INDEFINITELY

The India Raj would have been able to keep the infidel Muslims elsewhere.

The Muslim British Raj would have kept infidel Hindis out.

That was part of what Rajs were for.

IF YOU WERE A HINDU HAVING A BUNCH OF GREASY MUSLIMS CHOMPING DOWN ON BEEF STEAK

would really frost your ass, wouldn't it?

BBC THE MENU IS INDIA DESCENDING INTO MOB RULE?

And by god why not?

 

A North India Hindi mob attacked some Muslims because Muslims eat beef.

 

According to the Western LIEO, they need to all go to McDonalds together, spend what little they have on Big Macs , and live a happy multicultural life ever after.

VIOLIN FOIBLES

Hi. I have a Dario d'Attili.
You mean a certificate?
No, it has that too!
Oh. That's wonderful. Old Dario labels themselves are becoming more valuable and collected.
Is the certificate valuable too?
They are getting more valuable and collectible too!
Great! So what is this violin?
Oh, that is an old factory violin made in Czechoslovakia.
Is that valuable too?
No, sorry.

Rooskies heavy right now from Ukraine if you are looking at this they are probably hacking or porning you too

It's one or the other. Entry	Pageviews
United States	94
Ukraine	21
Portugal	8
France	6
United Kingdom	6
Brazil	2
Germany	2
Hong Kong	2
Netherlands	2
Bolivia	1

THEY LOVE THIS DARIO POST WHY SHOULDN'T YOU ALL SEE SOMETHING RATHER RECHERCHE

Posts

Entry	Pageviews
RE THE DARIO D' ATTILI FALLACY OF VIOLIN EXPERTISE... Nov 10, 2014, 3 comments	15
re DK's current post Mar 8, 2014	8
RE DK POST PAX MONGOLICA POWER AND PLENTY May 25, 2016	8
BROOKS MIS EDUCATION CONTINUED SYMBOLIC ANALYSTS L... Jun 25, 2017	6
AN OLD POST SOMEONE IS LOOKING FOR Jun 25, 2017	6

TRUMP REJECTS EID WHITE HOUSE DINNER

Amen.

RUSSIAN HACKERS IN UKRAINE APPARENTLY LOVE MY SITE

Entry	Pageviews
United States	78
Ukraine	24
Portugal	8
France	7
Brazil	2
Germany	2
Hong Kong	2
Poland	2
Bolivia	1

DEMOCRACY AT ITS BEST IS A STATE OF LOW GRADE ANARCHY THE AMERICAN COLONIES

The objections (Kennan's) are, in some ways, similar to,

 

and as valid as, those made by European emperors and

 

their ministers to the European republics, especially

 

Republican France, after 1815.  

He quotes Tocqueville in Russia and the West

 

Under Lenin and Stalin,  "a democracy can only with

 

great difficulty regulate the details of an important

 

undertaking, persevere in a fixed design, and work out

 

its execution in spite of serious obstacles."

i HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, or at least very very well founded, that the colonies, both  before and after 1776, were hot beds of piracy, smuggling, disorder, sedition, reilgious sectional and political fanaticism, fragments of a proper European class society in shambles, and anarchy.

ANARCHY DEMOCRACY AND ORDER

Saturday, March 8, 2014

re DK's current post

Each assertion requires differing treatment. 

Maybe I'll never get around to that....:

“The peoples of Ukraine, the United States, Europe and Russia need peace and economic recovery, and they can only secure them upon a foundation of political liberalism....

Isn't it overly liberal international order anarchism, itself, which has tended to make peace, and domestic recovery, more urgent needs than ever for each, after all?

JUNE 26,2017: Here's a recent recapitulation of my 2014 point:

THE TRANSFORMATION OF EUROPEAN POLITICS THE BEGINNINGS

People here now are outraged at interference by foreigners in American domestic political affairs... and personal information, and life here, in general.

 

We, back in 1776, were the original champions of globalized democratic revolution against all entrenched European imperial autocracy and tyranny. We encouraged the rest of the world to rise up against the yoke of European  authority and its lackeys everywhere. 

 

We actively promoted rebellion and revolution against all established Western European crowns and empires, wherever they were located. And they were located everywhere.

SOMEONE SAW THIS OLD POST

Saturday, March 8, 2014

re DK's current post

Each assertion requires differing treatment. 

Maybe I'll never get around to that....:

“The peoples of Ukraine, the United States, Europe and Russia need peace and economic recovery, and they can only secure them upon a foundation of political liberalism....

Isn't it overly liberal international order anarchism, itself, which has tended to make peace, and domestic recovery, more urgent needs than ever for each, after all?

"In the last crisis of the 1930s and 1940s--the subject of my forthcoming book, due out exactly one month from today--the government of the United States stood unreservedly for international law, against international anarchy...."

International law, in the old sense, and liberal global anarchic trade and investment, are inconsistent, and the US stood, rather, in the 1930s and 1940s, for the latter, against the former, wherever possible, and thereafter, until now. 

"Again and again President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull called upon nations to respect one another's territorial integrity, and warned that anarchy, once unleashed, was bound to spread to the western hemisphere..."

The concept of self determination was not a respecter of existing borders; quite the contrary.

A liberal global international economic trade and investment order respects no national borders, as Bobbitt, even,  a so called liberal, has pointed out, in some detail, in The Shield Of Achilles.

"We live in a very different world today.  The United States and the western hemisphere are not threatened with invasion, but anarchy threatens much of the world, including Ukraine..."

Anarchy will be a precurser to incursions. Many soft power incursions, into these highly permeable liberal democratic influence peddling membranes have occurred, long ago, also.

"Then in 1999 Bill Clinton led NATO into war against Yugoslavia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians.  The Russian government and the UN Security Council did not bless that war, and thus began a chill in Russian-American relations... "

We attacked the Orthodox world, albeit its rogue Serbian branch, in defense of the Muslim world, on the very eve of the Arab Spring..... that was a prescription for liberal globalist anarchy in the Balkans, in itself. 

We are an ideological, and civilizational, loose cannon.

"Wicked dictators, we still believe, must go as soon as a few hundred thousand people demonstrate against them in the street, and democracy will naturally follow.”

Well put. Nuf said.