NATO’s War on Russia: Part II

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan recently posted an interesting YouTube video entitled “Ukraine War Q&A Series: Who Really Started This Whole Thing?” In the video Zeihan effectively (IMO) undermines the position bandied about by some that it is the aggressive expansion of US led NATO after the Cold War that forced Putin to invade Ukraine.

Zeihan points out that a country seeking to join NATO must first fulfill a number of not insignificant requirements. First, an applicant country has to pass an act of parliament stating that it seeks membership in NATO and then submit a preliminary application for membership. Next, each member NATO country has to approve the preliminary application. Next, the applicant country must upgrade its military to NATO standards as well as undergo civil and democratic reform. Finally, once these reforms are enacted the applicant country submits a report card along with a formal application, which typically requires another act of parliament by the applicant country, followed by a final approval of each NATO member. Accordingly, expansion of NATO is not something that the US or NATO can do on a whim. It requires the express application and enactment of reforms by the applicant country as well as the express approval of all member NATO countries.

Zeihan further points out that all of the countries that joined or have sought to join NATO since the end of the Cold War have at one time either been at war with or occupied by Russia. Many of the countries (e.g. Ukraine in 2014 and Georgia in 2008) have been recently threatened and invaded. Many probably have vivid memories of how the standard of living suffered under Russian / Soviet dominance and have no desire to return to that condition. Accordingly, the notion that these applicant countries were somehow strong-armed into joining NATO in order to antagonize Russia (rather than voluntarily joined for their own protection from Russia) appears to be highly suspect.

All this brings up another topic related to the extremist notion of the mainstream media myth. That is, if a news source is biased then nothing it reports can be trusted. I suspect the real reason for this argument is so that no agreed truth can be established thus freeing each extreme side (the left and the right woke) to believe what it wants to believe (in any realm including politics and religion).

But this of course cuts both ways. I could say those people who support Russia and the mainstream media myth are unduly biased against the US and the Western Liberal Tradition and therefore cannot be trusted to report truth either. As such, when they complain about “NATO’s war on Russia” it can be shrugged off as right woke propaganda. When they say the Parable of the Good Samaritan should actually be interpret to allow a Christian to hate his neighbor, that too can be shrugged off as right woke propaganda. Sanity is orthogonal to the extreme views of the left and right woke. Moderate Liberalism holds truth does exist and therefore there is common ground where people of different opinions can come to an agreement.

Left and Right Wokism

It is often argued by some that the United States as a nation is evil, controlled by evil people and consequently on the road to ruin. The political divide seems to be the clearest indicator that the US is irrevocably broken. The two sides of the political debate seem to be incapable of agreeing on a common set of facts not only related to the 2020 Presidential election (for example) or what sources are accepted as credible or authoritative.

Of course, by “two sides” I mean the woke and the moderate liberals. We all know the woke as they have been getting a lot of press. Certainly the “Left woke” are getting most of this press, but the “Right woke” are there as well. Although the left and right woke argue they are on opposite sides of the political divide they are actually very similar in their beliefs. For example, both the left woke and the right woke agree that identity politics is the most important item on their political agendas. Both the left woke and the right woke see the apocalypse as their guiding star. Both the left and the right woke use guilt and shame to keep themselves and their ilk line and to win converts to their causes. Both the left and the right woke are authoritarian, anti-democratic and suspicious of rights, freedom and the rule of law. Both the left and the right woke are suspicious of a free press and truth in general (although they may argue the point). Both the left and the right woke believe that power (not law) is the ultimate source of legitimate authority. Despite this last point, both the left woke and the right woke are motivated primarily by resentment against what they perceive to be the dominant and oppressive forces (i.e., illegitimated powers) in society.

By contrast, moderate liberal are orthogonal to this woke dichotomy. Moderate liberals reject identity politics. Moderate liberals do not see an impending apocalypse (either environmental or biblical) on the immediate horizon. Moderate liberals believe that a functional society is made of people who want to be a part of it, and not of people who are shamed into acting according to another person’s proclivities. Moderate liberals believe in our democratic institutions and do not gravitate towards leaders who seek to undermine them. Moderate liberals do not believe everything written in a news paper is a lie simply because it was written in a news paper. Moderate liberals believe in the rule of law and are primarily motivated to contribute to the functioning of the society in which they live rather than tearing it down or otherwise undermining it out of resentment.

The word “woke” is an interesting one because it suggests its adherents are awake and therefore aware of something that the non woke (i.e., asleep) people are not aware of. This is a characteristic of Gnosticism (although I suspect most woke people would not admit to being aware that they are Gnostic). Another aspect the woke movement shares with Gnosticism is that the world is a prison that they do not ultimately belong to. The Left woke believe the world to be dominated by a straight, white, male patriarchy. The Right woke believes the world to be “fallen” and dominated by sinners. Fortunately (I believe), the woke movement to be ultimately unsustainable. Not only is it too negative in outlook (and therefore repellant to most of its adherents over the long term) but it is also too extreme politically. Most people naturally fall somewhere in the middle politically speaking and will naturally revert to this position given sufficient time.

American Institutional Cycles

In his book “The Storm Before the Calm,” geopolitical strategist George Friedman writes about two overlapping cycles he observes in American history. The first is the “Institutional Cycle” (“IC”) which will be the subject of this blog post. The second is the “Socio-Economic Cycle” which will be the subject of the next. The IC lasts for approximately 80 years ending in an institutional crisis which once solved begins the next IC. The United States has experienced three ICs since its founding and if the pattern holds, the fourth IC will begin some time around 2030. Each time the cycle runs its course, the institutions that make up the United States (most notably the federal government and the states) change their relationship to one another. This change becomes necessary because the former arrangement that was successful at the beginning of the previous cycle stop working at its end. Put another way, the solution to the last problem eventually creates a new problem which requires a new solution. Friedman points out that war is a frequent catalyst for change in this area

The first IC was born of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. This cycle established the federal government but left its relationship to the states ambiguous. The Constitution provided a framework for the United States being an “invented country” based upon an idea rather than an ethnicity. It is not the purpose of this blog post to argue in favor of a country based on an ethnicity or not. There seems to be advantages and disadvantages to both. One advantage of an invented country is that it can reinvent itself when its institutions stop working. This is one reason why (argues Friedman) the United States is able to continue to thrive.

Invention is embedded in all parts of American culture, from technology to society. Other countries, like Russia and Vietnam, are not invented… When these countries reach a point where the way they operate no longer works, they might flounder, be paralyzed or fall into chaos. Their core becomes inflexible. The United States metabolizes change differently… Invention, not tradition, is cherished.

Friedman, George. The Calm Before the Storm, New York, 2020. p. 96.

The first IC, left the relationship between the federal and state governments ambiguous. This worked for a while but became more and more problematic over time and eventually stopped working completely at the time of the Civil War. The second IC began at the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, thus settling the problem of ambiguity and establishing the supremacy of the federal government over the states. This supremacy was rooted in the federal government’s ability to enforce the U.S. Constitution on, and limit the sovereignty of the states. During the second IC the federal government largely did not interfere with individual citizens, private property or business which planted the seeds for the problem which would bring about the third IC.

The third IC began with the Great Depression and World War II. The Depression required federal intervention (argues Friedman) in order prevent social unrest which could threaten the governing institutions. Under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government instituted the New Deal which in itself did not end the Depression but established the precedent that the federal government could interfere with the economy because it was in some manner responsible for it. The third IC also put into practice that the governing class in the United States should be comprised of experts whose expertise was credentialed by a college degree. This in turn created a governing class of technocrats who are presently in control but reaching the end of their tenure. This is because their way of governing which successfully saw the US through World War II and the Cold War is no longer successful and is the reason for the present institutional crisis.

The [present] institutional crisis is rooted in two things. First, the governing class, and the technocrats, accumulate power and wealth, and they begin to shape the institutions to protect their interests. The second problem is that the expertise that won World War II and built the postwar world is now encountering it own problem of inefficiency…

Friedman. p. 110.

The third IC also saw a dramatic increase in the power of the presidency relative to the other branches of the federal government. This was largely because of the threat of nuclear war. If another country were to launch a nuclear attack on the US, there would be no time for the President to consult Congress. As such, the power to wage war, although constitutionally the jurisdiction of Congress has been de facto usurped by the President out of necessity. Again, we see that war (or the threat of war) is the catalyst which changes the relationship between the institutions that govern the United States.

The crisis is this: institutions built on expertise are no longer working. The federal government is increasingly diffuse and entangled and cannot operate in a timely or efficient manner. Universities are increasingly inefficient, with tuition and student loans at staggering levels, making the cost of acquiring credentials increasingly out of the reach of much of the population… The accumulation of wealth by experts, combined with the decreasing efficiency of technocracy, is creating the third institutional crisis… President Trump came into office promising to “drain the swamp,” a metaphor for attacking technocracy, but he had neither the clarity as to how to proceed nor the political base from which to do it. The country was still divided down the middle, with the technocrats successfully defending their institutions.

The third institutional crisis in now in its first stages, driven by the new and uncomfortable position of the United States in the world and the long jihadist wars. The United States is looking for a new framework for dealing with the world, but it can’t readily do so in the framework of the third institutional cycle.

Friedman. p. 114-115.

The solutions to institutional crises do not reveal themselves with specificity until implemented. As such (argues Friedman) the individuals occupying the positions of power are not as important or influential as the larger political forces at work which constrain push those people occupying positions of power to act as they do. I would like to think that the present culture of wokeness is a result of this governing technocracy and that the present institutional crisis which presumably will dethrone the technocrats will also dethrone wokeness as well. I guess we will know with certainty by 2030.

Election Denial is but a Small Piece of a Larger Puzzle

On the 797th day after the defeat of former President Donald J. Trump, a rural Pennsylvania county on Monday began a recount of ballots from Election Day 2020. Under pressure from conspiracy theorists and election deniers, 28 employees of Lycoming County counted — by hand — nearly 60,000 ballots. It took three days and an estimated 560 work hours… The results of Lycoming County’s hand recount — like earlier recounts of the 2020 election in Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona — revealed no evidence of fraud.

“Driven by Election Deniers, This County Recounted 202 Votes Last Week,” New York Times, January 15, 2023.

The intellectually dishonest game of the 2020 presidential election deniers continues, and likely will never end despite all evidence to the contrary. Much like the Woke’s charges of “systemic racism,” “white fragility,” and calls for reparations, no amount of evidence (or lack of evidence), reason and accommodation will ever satisfy. They cannot be satisfied because all people who are taken in by an extremist ideology see any form of compromise as a defeat. They also see any person closer politically to the other side as all the way on the other side and therefore, essentially evil. Moreover, their war is a permanent struggle to maintain their victim status.

This is what speak of when I say that I am a moderate liberal. I do not seek to impose my values on others, nor do I wish to have their values imposed upon me. As a servant of the light, I seek to honor the free will of my fellow man and I will not take without permission. This stance is opposed to both the Woke as well as the opposite side of the same coin, the far right who do seek to impose their will upon others, do not honor their free will and in doing so, do take without permission.

Far right Orthosphere blogger JMSmith when confronted with the idea of moderate liberalism has on multiple occasions quoted the Book of Revelation, wherein Christ states “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16. I imagine this quote to be a convenient one for both the Woke and the far right who both seek to convert all the world to their cause through out right force or through shame and guilt. If it cannot convert them it will make an enemy out of them. As such, no one is allowed to stand in the middle. But this myopic view fails to see that the Woke are the yin to the far right’s yang (or perhaps vice versa). My political view of moderate liberalism is a rendering unto Caesar, not a rendering unto God as the Woke and the far right which to compel me to view it.

It seems we in the West are at an historical inflection point. Demographic changes need to be reversed as they are currently unsustainable. Political restructuring is also required as the old solutions no longer solve the old problems and have created new problems that require new solutions. This type of inflection point has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Once we have reached the end of this cycle, a new period of renewal will emerge and the extremists on both the left and the right will retreat to their rightful places. I began this OP with a quote from the New York Times. Doubtless, the far right will reject its reported facts as some kind of manipulation of the left dominated “mainstream media.” As such, it would be fruitless to use it as evidence against their unfounded claims of election fraud. But really, that is only a small piece in a larger puzzle. So be it. Time is on the side of the moderate liberal.

Peter Zeihan on Demographics in the Orthodox World

In a recently released YouTube video, Peter Zeihan talks about the demographics of the Orthodox Christian world which he defines as geographically containing Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia. Essentially, he is talking about the former communist states within the Orthodox Christian world. Zeihan observes that this part of the world is suffering from a large scale demographic collapse which he asserts is largely the result of three trends.

The first trend is the broad economic dislocation the Orthodox Christian world experience in the 20th century which negatively impacted their demographics. This economic dislocation resulted from the economic mismanagement under communist regimes which created a lower quality of life and prosperity in this area than it would have otherwise experienced. Poor people in an urbanized, industrialized world have less children because children make life more expensive. This is in contrast to an agrarian economy where children are economically advantageous as essentially free labor when they are young and a retirement plan for the parents when they grow old. The second trend is vast immigration from the Orthodox Christian World to Western Europe and North America. Many people who had the means to immigrate out of this economically dysfunctional area did so. Many women did so by entering the sex trade do to poor education. The third trend Zeihan talks about is the use of abortion as the primary method of birth control. Because of the long term impact of these three trends Zeihan asserts these countries will likely never repopulate themselves.

Zeihan observes Russians specifically experienced series of stacked political disasters that contributed to its current situation. World War I, World War II, the famine under Stalin, the economic mismanagement under Brezhnev and Khrushchev, and the post Cold War economic collapse all created economic dislocation and contributed to making the current generation the smallest one on record. As such, Zeihan asserts, the current war in Ukraine will be the last war that Russia will ever fight. Moreover, says Zeihan, even if the Ukrainians emerge victorious over the Russians, their ethnicity will vanish over the next 20 to 30 years followed by the Russian ethnicity 20 to 30 years after that.

All of this begs the question as to what are Vladimir Putin’s motives? Why would he seek territorial expansion in the face of this demographic collapse of ethnic Russians? If it is (as Zeihan has previously argued) to shore up the defense of the Russian geography, will he have the manpower to do conquer the land in the first place and to secure it in the second? Is it to add the population of Ukraine to Russia? If so, the would the loss of Ukrainians and Russians in the conflict not cancel out any gains in population? Perhaps it is the last gasp of a dying ethnicity, one that is not dying because of a NATO war on Russia, but rather because of mismanagement and misfortune.

Territorial Alteration

JMSmith of the Orthosphere points out in his OP “Bad Books: PLEZ Section 2,” that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion puts forth the idea that modern wars should not be wars of “territorial alteration.” That is, according to international law no country should annex the territory of another nation. Indeed, this international understanding has been the norm certainly since World War II. I take JMSmith’s point to be that the outlawing of the annexation of territory from a weak country by a stronger country is a “liberal” and therefore evil proposition and that it is right and just for a strong country to take the territory of a weak country. But I suppose for some reason, it is not right and just for an even stronger country to protect the weak country from the strong country.

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan makes the argument that the reason Russia has invaded Ukraine to regain control of it’s natural defensive frontiers. That is, the invasion of Ukraine was to extend it’s boundaries to the Carpathian mountains and then plug up the invasion route between the Carpathian Mountains and the Black Sea with a military presence. To do this, would require Russia to conquer all of Ukraine, Moldova and part of Romania. This is only one of several invasion routes that would have to be regained. The others would require the annexation (or control of) essentially the entire former Soviet Union which would require the invasion of many other now independent nations. Certainly, Russia has a historical basis for this strategy, having been invaded throughout its history most notably by the Mongols, Sweden, France and Germany twice.

All these invasions took place prior to the modern liberal notion that it is against international law for a strong country to take and annex territory from a weaker country. Now, it has been argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is actually a result of NATO’s war on Russia and that (I suppose) Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine did not seek alignment with the West. If we are to believe Peter Zeihan, Russia would have invaded Ukraine or sought to militarily and politically dominate it in any case. But if we are to believe the principle of international law (and I suppose, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), that NATO (a defensive alliance) would not seek to invade Russia and annex its territory, then there would be no need for Russia to invade Ukraine.

So I suppose the question is, if the Protocols are true, then why would Russia (or those who believe in the authenticity of the Protocols) fear Ukrainian alignment with the West enough to justify a Russian invasion?

The Odd Couple

I imagine to anti-liberal living in a liberal society must feel a bit like Felix Unger living with Oscar Maddison in The Odd Couple. Oscar is disorganized and messy and believes both he and Felix should be free to do as they please. Felix, by contrast, wants to live in an ordered environment. But because Felix lives in Oscar’s apartment he has to live in Oscar’s environment. However, if Oscar moved into Felix’s apartment it would be the same thing in reverse if Felix chose to impose his values onto Oscar. That said, Oscar does not believe he is imposing his values onto Felix (because they are both free to do as they please) but he is, because in order for Felix to live the way he wants to he must clean up after Oscar.

Still, one philosophy must win out over the other and under that condition I choose liberalism. I choose liberalism (specifically moderate liberalism) because I believe in the values it stands for, most notably, (1) the rule of law, (2) equality before the law, (3) freedom of speech, (4) freedom of the press, (5) freedom of religion, and (6) a democratic process governed by free and fair elections. Of course, liberals and anti-liberals can go to extremes and when they do they seek to impose their values on others through shame and brute force. We see this in Marxist wokism and in right wing Fascism. Both of which have more in common each other than they do with moderate liberalism espousing the aforementioned six values.

Those extreme, shadow philosophies will argue that the six aforementioned values of moderate liberalism are a sham and do not actually operate as they are intended. They will say the rule of law is simply the strong imposing their will on the weak, that there is no true equality before the law, that freedom of speech is actually limited and allows the majority to oppress the minority, that the press is in fact biased and untrue, that freedom of religion creates a disorganized and immoral society and that the democratic process is fixed and a sham. There may be some truth to these criticisms on the margins but I believe them to be largely overblown. Furthermore, the driving force behind these criticisms is to undermine these values and are deceitful in that they are made to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Words from the Ghost of Christmas Present

“There are some upon this earth of yours … who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”

Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA, Candlestick Press 2006), 84.

OpenAI’s opinion of Sycophancy and Profligacy

Sycophancy and profligacy are two words that are often used to describe negative traits or behaviors. Sycophancy refers to the act of fawning or flattering others excessively in an attempt to win favor or gain an advantage. It is often used to describe people who are overly eager to please or who will go to great lengths to curry favor with those in positions of power or influence. On the other hand, profligacy refers to the act of being wasteful or extravagant, especially with money or resources. It is often used to describe people who are careless or irresponsible with their use of resources and who are prone to indulging in excess or extravagance.

In today’s society, sycophancy and profligacy can both be seen as serious problems, particularly when they are exhibited by those in positions of power or influence. When people are overly eager to please or flatter those in power, they may be more likely to make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader community. This can lead to corruption and abuse of power, as those in positions of authority may come to expect and rely on flattery and sycophantic behavior from those around them.

On the other hand, profligacy can also be a serious problem, particularly when it involves the wasteful or irresponsible use of resources. In a world where resources are limited and the demand for them is constantly increasing, it is important for people to be mindful of their consumption and to use resources wisely. When people are profligate, they may be more likely to squander resources or indulge in excess, leading to waste and inefficiency.

One of the key ways in which sycophancy and profligacy can be addressed is through education and awareness. By teaching people about the dangers of these behaviors and encouraging them to be more mindful of their actions, it is possible to reduce the prevalence of sycophancy and profligacy in society. This can involve educating people about the importance of being responsible and accountable in their use of resources, as well as the importance of honesty and integrity in their relationships with others.

Another key way to address these issues is through the use of laws and regulations. By putting in place rules and guidelines that discourage sycophancy and profligacy, it is possible to create a culture that values honesty, integrity, and responsibility. This can involve measures such as campaign finance reform, which aims to reduce the influence of money in politics and reduce the temptation for politicians to engage in sycophantic behavior.

One important way to combat sycophancy and profligacy is to promote a culture of transparency and accountability. By making sure that those in positions of power and influence are held accountable for their actions, it is possible to create a culture in which people feel comfortable speaking out against wrongdoing and where there are consequences for those who engage in sycophancy or profligacy.

Ultimately, the key to reducing the prevalence of sycophancy and profligacy in society is to create a culture that values honesty, integrity, and responsibility. By promoting these values and encouraging people to be more mindful of their actions, it is possible to create a society in which these negative traits are less prevalent and where people are more likely to act in the best interests of the broader community. So, it is the duty of every individual to be conscious about these things and to try to make a better society for all.

(The preceding essay was written by ChatGPT in response to my instruction to write a 1000 word essay using the words “sycophancy” and “profligacy”. This task was inspired by an Orthosphere post entitled OpenAI’s opinion of Thomas F. Bertonneau and Richard Cocks and more! written by Richard Cocks. I wanted to get at least one more post out by the end of the year, however, inspiration seemed to be lacking and I have been extremely busy with my various occupations. As such, it seemed less and less likely that another post would come to me. Luckily, Mr. Cock’s blogpost came around to provide the needed inspiration to post something after all. Merry Christmas to all my loyal readers!)

Genesis 1:27

According to Genesis 1:27 God made man in his own image. But what does this mean? Are we to understand this to mean God made man to look like Himself physically? Or do we take this to mean God created man to be like Himself in some other way? This is not made clear by the plain meaning of the text. And it is also unclear how one should view the decedents of this original man. Just because the original man was made in the image of God does not mean that his decedents were also of that image. But one might suppose that if the descendants of that man resembled him, he might also resemble the God who created that man. Regardless, we might suppose that man created in the image of God as well as his decedents have some connection to God in their image. Of course, none of this is known for sure and the word written in the Bible is open to interpretation.

But really what it comes down to (from a Christian perspective) is whether we as decedents of that original man share in his original sin as it is recorded in the Bible. Certainly no blog writer of the twenty-first century can be an authority on the subject. All of this has been pondered and discussed and written about by scholars for centuries. And the Christianity that has been handed down to us mere mortals in 2022 is not the Christianity of Augustine or Constantine or Francis or Luther or anyone before us. But here we are in this place and time. And here we are trying to figure out our relation to God and how we should live our lives in the best way possible.

One way to live our lives is to believe that this distant relative of ours committed this unforgivable sin of eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And because these decedents ate this fruit, we too are guilty of their sin. And that Jesus Christ paid for this sin through his suffering and death on the cross. And as such, we who have lived in the world ever since are living in this reality in sufferance and somehow inauthentically.

This is trap. Did we ask to be incarnated into this situation? Perhaps we did, but we have no memory of doing so. And if we have no memory of doing so, can we really be held accounted for it? For are we not the sum of our memories? One might argue that if we committed a crime but have no memory of that crime we are still guilty of the crime. However, one might also argue that if we committed a crime and were so mentally changed so as to have no memory or wherewithal to commit the crime that we have been absolved of the guilt.

But we are not even talking about that. Our situation is one step removed. In our situation, our distant ancestor committed a crime that we are somehow guilty of. Yes, Jesus paid the price for this crime, but for some reason we must still live our lives as if we were guilty of that crime. We must live this life as if it were something embarrassing and unsightly. We must look upon our fellow man as embarrassing and unsightly. We must somehow look upon ourselves as not made in the image of God but as made in mockery of the image of God like the orcs in Tolkien’s tales.

If that is the way you choose to look at the world, good riddance to you. But it is certainly not the only way to look at the world. And I do not think it is the way a loving God would look at the world. But it might be the way Caesar would want you to look at the world so that you would render unto him what he believes belongs to him.