Consider the Source…
Several months ago, I was perusing the content of a thoroughly unpleasant website (one of the many to which I refuse to link). Most of what I read indicated that the author had drunk deeply of a toxic cocktail of ideological Kool-Aid, media mythology and political propaganda. Most of his claims (this “gent” listed heavily to the left, incidentally – surprise, surprise!) were easily refuted. Most of his logic was anything but logical. And most of his arguments consisted of setting up and knocking down straw men.
Even worse, nothing I read indicated that the “puir bit crathur” could actually do anything but bitch about economics and politics. Tragic, as his understanding of both was disturbingly limited, and seemed to derive from public high school textbooks. Bluntly put, he was no more conversant with Marx or Machiavelli than with Locke or Lao Tzu. Not that I suppose it bothers him: a typical, anonymous “Internet creep,” he doesn’t allow comments and doesn’t provide contact information.
“Where do they find them – and why do they send them here?” as was often said on You Can’t Do That on Television…
(His “essays,” incidentally, reminded me of my college days, during the mid- and late-1980s. At the time, I commuted daily from Roswell to the GSU campus in Atlanta. As it happened, the most convenient way of doing so was to drive to the Lenox or Brookhaven MARTA stations and ride the subway to Five Points. When taking any form of mass transit, needless to say, one meets some “colorful” characters -- and in this respect, MARTA was no exception to the rule.
One of the more memorable specimens in this menagerie of misfits was a shabby young man, perhaps five years older than myself; best described as one of nature’s crueler jokes upon itself. He was of medium height and somewhat paunchy, with a shock of greasy, straw-blond hair; unfocused blue eyes behind smudged, coke bottle lenses; and a perpetual five o’ clock shadow. His molasses-drawl – low, but with a permanent, whining undertone – hinted at congenital retardation, while his obliviousness to even the simplest social graces left the mark of bad breeding writ large upon his sweaty brow.
Despite the fact that he had trouble forming complete sentences, he lectured all within earshot on the virtues of socialism -- a subject he obviously didn’t understand. Occasionally, he handed out mimeographed leaflets – in this case, probably not of his own authorship – until someone actually expressed interest. When this happened, he apparently became convinced that They were “out to get him,” as he’d stuff his pamphlets into his grungy overcoat, clutching them to his un-bathed breast as if they were original copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I suppose the associative connection between this creature and the blogger is obvious: both wave their antennae furiously – until someone actually pays attention to them. When the light of inquiry is shone in their direction, they scuttle pell-mell for the comforting darkness beneath the metaphoric refrigerator.)
A few of the blogger’s passages, though, merited further investigation. Something – intuition, perhaps – moved me to conduct a bit of additional research. Upon doing so, I found that of the lunatic’s many claims and allegations (most of them absurd), these few were factually correct.
The moral of the story: Even lunatics and idiots can speak the truth. Discernment consists of the ability to separate truth from bullshit, and to assess not only the credibility of the messenger, but the content of the message, as well. (The inability to do so, by the way, is why the gullible are easily misled by “experts.”) Yes, I know it’s a lot of work – but then again, no one ever claimed that critical thought was easy…
“A wise man will learn more from a fool than a fool will ever learn from a wise man.”
-- Japanese proverb.
Remarkable Men
Whenever someone whines about “Eurocentric” history, I usually roll my eyes and reach for the antacids. Nine times out of ten, the aggrieved party is either a confused weenie, fresh out of public school and with a head full of half-baked notions about life beyond the pale of Christendom; or the same sort of half-educated, agenda-driven fuckwit who can y chirp (merrily and ad nauseam) about Constantine and the Council of Nicea – but who goes completely “blank” when the term “canonic authority” is tossed into the (usually one-sided) conversation.
Occasionally, though, the complaint rings true. As most of what we consider “history” in this modern Dark Age adheres to the ideologically driven “deify/demonize” model, much of what has transpired beyond the Urals for the last few centuries is either swept under the rug, or inflated beyond its actual historical significance. (Exactly which depends upon whether the “historian” loves or hates the West. Most, as nearly as I can tell, fall into the latter category, these days.) The few who dare “oppose” either camp usually do so by treating history as a mysterious set of “processes” and “forces,” and portray the world as a chessboard, upon which human beings are mere pawns.
This is tragic, as history – minus humans – is mere paleontology. True history is a record of the actions and interactions of various individuals and groups. Some, it’s true, leave larger “ripples” than others, but establishing a meaningful perspective entails taking the whole “pond” (or such of it as we can see, at any rate) into account. Nowhere is the failure to do so more evident than in the history of the Eurasia. As students of Eurasian history generally adhere to one of two equally silly schools of thought: the Ex Oriens, Lux school; and the Drang nach Osten school the situation is unlikely to improve in the near future.
While pro-Eastern lotus-eaters dreamily prate of the “ancient” civilizations of Southeast Asia (perennial favorites of theirs, it seems), blissfully unaware that Thais, Vietnamese and Burmese – for example -- migrated to their current stomping grounds well within the Christian era, displacing the native Malay and Mon-Khmer people in the process; pro-Western beef-eaters try to prove that fair-haired, fair-skinned Scythians and Tocharians single-handedly civilized Asia, until their light was cruelly snuffed by the native barbarians.
Both camps seek demigods and demons, villains and victims within history’s pages – and both are completely full of shit. Neither is willing to weigh and measure any given culture against another – honestly noting its’ virtues as well as its vices, its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Lest anyone think I’m espousing relativism; I assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth – as modern “relativism” isn’t relative at all. When compared relatively, some cultures, civilizations, and even individuals can indeed be considered superior to others. Some nations are happy, peaceful, prosperous, and long-lived. Others are brutal, war-torn, poverty stricken and ephemeral. Whether the purpose of a nation is: 1.) Self-perpetuation or; 2.) Protecting its citizens’ rights and freedoms, the former are unquestionably superior to the latter -- relatively speaking. Modern “relativism,” though, scrupulously avoids such comparisons, stating categorically that all things are equal. (Except Western civilization, which is thoroughly wicked. Isn’t it neat how “relativists” think in absolute terms, betimes?)
Modern relativism, alas, will be with us until the last relativist discovers -- preferably through firsthand experience -- that pork and plutonium are not equally nourishing. As for the EOL and DNA schools: I’d suggest gladiatorial combat, but it’s probably better (and more moral) to pity -- and ignore -- the benighted souls. Fortunately for those of us who are interested in piecing together what really happened, rather than feeding our own prejudices, a few brave souls have taken great pains to disperse the artificial mist dividing East and West. Giving the lie to Kipling’s bold assertion, they’ve demonstrated that the twain have oft met, and under interesting circumstances, as often as not.
The most recent of these is British historian David Nicolle, Ph.D. Whereas Dr. Nicolle’s name is hardly a household word; the quality of his work speaks for itself. Most of it, to the best of my knowledge, is confined to a few excellent volumes in Osprey’s Men at Arms and Elite series – a shame, as he deserves a broader audience. Being exhaustively researched (many of the photos were taken by the author in situ, during his travels, and the bibliographies are guaranteed to occupy the curious for months) and beautifully illustrated by Angus McBride, Nicolle’s “no-frills” military histories are a feast for minds and eyes alike. My only criticism is that he leans a little too far in the EOL direction (excusable in a scholar whose interest in his subject is both passionate and genuine, mind you), but ours is not a perfect world, after all.
I first became aware of his work during the mid-‘80s, when I purchased and read Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars, The Age of Charlemagne, and The Vikings.
To say that I was deeply and favorably impressed would be a gross understatement. Here was a man –a respectable and legitimate scholar, at that -- who was neither a dismayed classicist, apologizing for the Dark Ages as if they were an embarrassing stain on the fabric of European history; nor a “Gothomaniac,” yearning for some mythical “Golden Age” of heroic barbarism. Here was a man who studied – objectively and rationally – the rise and fall of various tribes and nations, their strengths and weaknesses, their influence upon their neighbors, and their neighbors’ influence upon them. Having suffered the “slings and arrows” of SCA stupidity for years, I came to think of Dr. Nicolle an oasis of truth in an intellectual/historical desert: a man who wrote of the Middle Ages as they were; not “as they should have been.”
A few years later, I obtained Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe, The Normans, and Attila and the Nomad Hordes. At the time, I was an avid student of Asian martial arts; albeit one whose previous and ongoing study of history, archaeology, linguistics, genetics and cultural anthropology (at times, academic; at others, independent) led him to question not only the wisdom of his putative teachers, but that of the recognized “authorities” in the field, as well. At best, most of the aforementioned “authorities” were bigots. At worst, they were fools, liars, intellectual cowards, or completely impervious to facts.
Nicolle to the rescue, once again!
Here was a man who, to the best of my knowledge, had never taken a marital arts course in his life. He had, however, studied archaeology and history, as a result of which – contrary to Draeger and Smith’s assertions – he noted that the “barbarians” of the steppes “gave as good as they got,” exercising an equal (if not opposite) influence on Chinese culture and technology in the process.
Smith eventually conceded -- however grudgingly -- that the Manchu were “warriors, in their own right.”
Right charitable (if slightly condescending) of him, that...
Nicolle, on the other hand, pointed out that Turco-Mongol strategy, military technology, and martial acumen usually eclipsed those of their “civilized” subjects; and that acculturation and absorption (both civil, rather than martial processes, incidentally) did more to liberate the Chinese from foreign oppression than any number of renegade Shao-lin monks or shady “triads.”
With all due respect to the self-styled lo han and the spiritual descendants of the lin kuei, I’ll note that in the absence of popular discontent (ultimately, the Yuan and Ch’ing dynasties owed their respective collapses to the selfsame, unruly critter), neither group could have succeeded as it did – for better or worse.
The very notion of “waves” of this sort flowing in one direction or another is, sadly, every bit as alien to the deracinated, modern “post-American American” as the notion of objective reality. Like a millennial Byzantine, he envies the barbarians at the gates, but has neither the balls to join them, nor the intellect to recognize the threat they present.
This bring us to Rene Grousset’s Empire of the Steppes, a sadly – and perhaps fatally -- neglected book
Grousset, being a modern Frenchman – and closet commie; one suspects; it “goes with the territory,” after all -- decided that the flux of Eurasian history was irreparably disrupted by Euro-colonialism, and that “prehistory” ended with the founding of the late, unlamented USSR, and with Mao’s de facto ascent to the throne of the “Middle Kingdom.”
Como se dice, “Fumbling on the one-yard line?”
For all that Grousset never foresaw the collapse of the USSR; the PRC’s gradual shift from communism to fascism; or the pan-Islamic resurgence, Empire of the Steppes is mandatory reading for anyone with a genuine interest in bypassing the East/West rockpile -- not to mention “grokking” the dichotomy between mutually beneficial interaction and irreconcilable differences.
Defining “irreconcilable differences,” though, is a challenge in and of itself.
In the absence of physical and philosophical inquiry, it’s damn-near impossible, as a matter of fact.
As nearly as I can tell, Jonathan D. Spence chases neither rabbit. His magnum opus – a translation of the autobiography of the Chinese emperor, Kiang-Hsi – leaves Gurdjieff’s Meetings With Remarkable Men “sucking wind,” insofar as it paints a portrait of a truly remarkable man; a man who -- on the surface -- was one of the most powerful men on earth, but understood his own mortality and limits, all the same.
Emperor of China: A Self Portrait of Kiang Hsi is an edited collection of the journals, letters, and edicts of Kiang Hsi; as genuine a “renaissance man” as Washington, Franklin or Jefferson – especially when his “barbarian” origins are taken into account.
Kiang Hsi, the son of a nomadic, steppe/taiga conqueror, refused to disarm his newly acquired subjects – especially the non-Han Miao and Yi : “Without their bows, how will they feed their children?” in his own words. He likewise refused to disarm the Han-proper, noting that all of his subjects (he was no republican, admittedly) had the right to defend themselves against the depredations of bandits and rebels.
Aside from noting that a lomg-dead Eastern despot trusted his conquered subjects more than the US government trusts the “governed,” from whose consent it purports to derive its powers, I’ll shut up and leave the Gentle Reader to do his own reading and draw his own conclusions.
Religion and Politics, or: “Silly Season” is Ycumen In
Well -- almost. In a few days, it’ll be time for the “sheeple” to traipse off, baaing and bleating, to the political slaughterhouse. Depending upon my mood, I may or may not be among them. Mags plans to resort to write-ins, as a protest of sorts. I’ll accompany her to the precinct, but unless Baldwin makes it onto the ballot in Georgia, I won’t be voting for president.
We both refuse to vote for Barr – politically speaking, his support for the patriot act is “the sin that will not be forgiven, in this world or the next,” as far as Maggie and I are concerned. Assuming that the “Islamo-fascists” really do want to “take our freedom,” the patriot act is sheer – if bitterly ironic – absurdity.
“Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.” (Proverbs 3:31)
Nor will we vote for McCain or Obama. Neither represents our concerns, our moral values, or our political convictions, and we’d rather not vote at all – or even “waste” our votes -- than share in the responsibility for electing either.
I’ve heard all the boring, panicky arguments (all of them from Republicans) against doing either – and dismissed them.
I made my choice during the primary. That choice was Ron Paul. Unfortunately for Mr. Paul, the Republicans’ dominant, neocon wing ignored him, then maligned him, misrepresented his positions, and finally resorted to insulting his “followers,” while referring to the rest of the scabby, diseased, ersatz-conservative herd as “supporters.”
This, by the way, was an interesting choice of words, and indicative of unbelievable degrees of denial and projection. It was propagandistic wordplay worthy of a Clinton-era Democrat, and a sterling example of the neocons’ penchant for attributing their own negative traits to their perceived “enemies.”
Well congratulations, boys. You’ve just turned your perceived enemies into real ones.
“Devise not evil against thy neighbor, seeing he dwelleth securely beside thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he hath done thee no harm. (Proverbs 3:29-30)
“Followers?” Interesting. Ron Paul’s campaign (while severely hampered by McCain-Feingold) was largely a grass-roots effort. Freedom-lovers –whether conservative or libertarian – aren’t known for being “followers.” We aren’t the ones who constantly squeal about the need for “leadership” – you neocons are.
Worse still, after 2003, anyone who deviated from the party line in any way was simply dismissed as a “turncoat,” a “traitor,” “unpatriotic,” or worse. It goes without saying that these are unforgivable insults, all more so because they’re lies. No true patriot – no man with any backbone at all, for that matter – will ever vote for anyone who’s blackened his name in this way.
Neocons, though, being neither true patriots, nor men (except in the physiological sense; and this includes their women, as well), simply don’t understand this. But without offering even a hint of an apology, they now demand our votes. I’m not sure which is more disgusting: the sheer audacity or the implied sense of entitlement.
To hell with both. I respect neither. To steal a pet phrase from one of their sillier pundits, I’m going to be a “rugged individualist” and say, “Get bent. You need me far more than I need you – all the more so, because I don’t need you at all.”
So much for the “Well, those are your choices” argument. Once again: Get bent. I made my choice. Now be men enough to accept the consequences of your choices – even if said consequences include losing a few votes.
To those who whine, “But the Democrats will win”: yet another “Get bent.” You should have taken that possibility into account, and picked a less repulsive candidate. One who opposes gun control, open borders, tax-funded abortion, and rampant government growth might have been a good idea, as your support base is ostensibly conservative. Unfortunately, you neocons aren’t exactly renowned for the quality of your ideas. Well, stupidity carries a heavy price, babydolls. Study deeply upon this.
“But what about the war on terror?” is the lamest plea I’ve yet heard. “Terror” is a tactic, boys and girls. Like fuckwit Obama’s pet shibboleth, “change,” it’s a fucking process. Treating abstractions as concretes, and processes as objects has always led to failure and will always lead to failure, as it seeks to deny the nature of reality.
“Terror” exists, it has always existed, and it will always exist (the Assyrians were masters of the art, as were the Romans, Huns, Avars, Vikings, Pechenegs, Magyars, Mongols, medieval Scots, feudal Japanese, and Timurids, just to name a few), as all but the most ignorant know very well. Like war, poverty, and intoxicants (upon all of which the US has declared “war” at one time or another – with a 0-3 record, I might add) “terror” is simply a fact of life. It is no more preventable or eradicable than death itself, and the best we can do is hold it at bay.
“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:34)
Call me “Mr. Skeptic,” but I don’t think complete dependency upon Mid-East oil for energy and Chinese goods for life’s essentials serve the purpose of attending to the evil of the day very well. Nor do I consider open borders and unlimited immigration the marks of wisdom or strategic genius. “War on Terror?” Yeah, right. You lot couldn’t win a barroom brawl, for the love of God…
Next, we come the “But there’s no perfect candidate!” ploy, so beloved of Herman “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims” Cain.
Ignoring the impossibility of taking a man who actually believes that the IRA, UDA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, Sendero Luminoso and FARC are Muslims, seriously (either he’s monumentally ignorant, he’s a liar, or he thinks you’re stupid – Hmmm. That sounds vaguely familiar…), I’ll call bullshit on his assertion. It’s utterly false. What he’s attempting, in essence, is to persuade his audience to abandon their own standards and adopt his: in other words, to settle for far less than second best.
Before my wife and I made up our minds to support Ron Paul, we thoroughly investigated his voting record and his political platform. The only thing either of us could hold against him (besides his hairstyle) were a few minor matters of application – not of principle. In short, he was our “perfect” candidate. Sorry, Herman.
“When sinners entice thee, consent thou not.” (Proverbs 1:10)
I’ll conclude with the “wasted vote” non-issue. Just bear with me: I’m one of those ever-pesky Christians – so pesky, in fact, that unlike certain ostensibly “Christian” talk-show hosts, I’m not squeamish about mentioning the name Jesus -- so this will take some explaining. I’m not a very good Christian, and I’ll be the first to admit it. I do, however, recognize the ultimate authority of God – even above the ultimate authority of the US government, the UN, the Republican Party, AIPAC, and the latest winner of American Idolator.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3)
‘Nuff said?
Scripture often refers to the necessity of social order, and the importance of cooperating with temporal authorities in the interest of justice and stability. No Christian, least of all myself, objects to just and limited government. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is second nature to us. Unfortunately, “Caesar” has become increasingly demanding of late. Not content with his lot, he covets God’s more and more – even to the point of demanding that we hold his law above God’s. For the first hundred-and-forty years of our nation’s existence, his law and God’s were seldom, if ever, at odds.
Welcome to the wonderful world of change. Where once “Caesar” sought only to prevent the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, he now demands that we abandon the free exercise and expression of our own in public. Where once “Caesar” taxed us to keep the government running, he now taxes us and uses our money to support unconscionable causes. Where once Caesar asked only that we defend our country, he demanded, during three of the last four major wars; that we take up arms and strive without cause against those who had done us no harm.
Even Caesar’s current war, in shifting away from Afghanistan (home of the Taliban, and hidey-hole of Osama bin Laden), to Iraq, and thence to remaking the Middle East in our own image is only a hair’s breadth away from demanding that we put aside God’s law in favor of his. There’s no draft – yet, thank God.
Non-existent “yellow-cake” uranium. Non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Non-existent ties between Iraq and September 11. Even the feeble “Yeah, but Hussein was a monster” excuse rings false. He was always a monster, and we knew it from day one –even when we supported him against Iran, during the ‘80s.
“Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.” (Proverbs 4:14)
And yet the new “war” widens and continues, and American boys – some of them Christian – will eventually be pressed into service to continue it.
“These six things doth the LORD hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)
Taking all of this into account, I refuse to vote Rebublican, as it means more of the same. The same party that abandoned a just war and duped us into an unjust one. The same party that erases our boundaries and culture, while “nation building” abroad. The same hubristic party that slandered and marginalized the only candidate who might have made a difference – because he wasn’t “with the program.” To vote for them is to condone their actions; just another way of helping Caesar usurp God, and I refuse to do that.
“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” (Proverbs 17:15)
As for Mr. “Change”?
Not on your life. Anyone (and I do mean anyone, not just Republicans) who treats a process as an object is an utter moron and beneath contempt; the more so if he treats it as an object of worship. For this reason alone, I’d never even consider voting for the Democrats’ would-be messiah. Add the facts that the Democratic Party has long been rotten to the core; that their “Golden Boy’s” “clinging to guns and religion” crack was a display of arrogance and ignorance worthy of Bush himself, and draw your own conclusions, Gentle Reader.
Obama symbolizes the very culture of self-worship and unaccountability that has rotted the country from within. Moreover, I’m none too fond of puffed-up, substance-free, semi-retarded megalomaniacs. Suffice to say that I’m no more impressed with the “leadership” qualities of a cliché-spouting simpleton than I am with those of a man best known for being captured by an enemy; and for voting to disarm his countrymen, abolish his nation’s borders, and silence dissent. Both represent the new, secular, statist god – to whom I refuse to bow, as I much prefer the real God.
See you at the polls. I’ll be the one shaking his head sadly and laughing out loud, by turns.
