Aurelien is too kind to the British regarding their supposed distaste for Imperialism. It was the plunder of India on an industrial scale (“loot” was originally a Hindi word!) starting on the 1750s the foundation for the later British success.
The Brits did take plunder under whatever name they preferred to call it, to new levels, that is certain. For a fascinating examination of the true extent this global imperial ransacking was carried to, I cannot recommend too highly Mike Davis’s “Late Victorian Holocausts”. Included are two links in case one of them fails:
What else did England have at that time? A failed North American colony? Ireland? Jamaica?
The problem is not me sounding “anti British” or anti English. The root issue here is that the modern (19-20thC) History discipline that has set the foundations of the common knowledge about the past among the population was written mainly by British historians that had plenty of motives to forget their own mistakes and magnify their successes.
But yeah, I stand by what I wrote: the British Empire was mostly created upon:
1) the massive plunder of India (at that time the 2nd wealthiest region of the world after China) starting in the 1750s.
2) the insufferable megalomaniac Napoleon who devastated most of continental Europe.
3) the plunder (mostly but not only by way of overpriced arms sales and usurious war credits that took many decades to service) of the newly independent Hispanic American countries (at that time the 3rd most wealthiest region of the world). And you might want also to check how English agents like Miranda funded and stoked the American revolts and how the early leaders of the rebellion like Bolívar later bitterly regretted how they were driven in the precise direction that the British wanted.
4) last but not least, the plunder of China in the 19thC.
Considering all of the above, the “pop culture” explanation of the success of the British Empire (scientific developments, Watt’s engine, coal mines, strong institutions, rule of law, trade networks, a strong Navy, strong banks, blah blah blah blah) were rather footnotes rather than the main drivers.
Whereas I can't recall a single one of Churchill's.
Then again, I was born and educated in Yugoslavia, where historical memory wasn't shaped by Churchill's extremely falsified, & intentionally Nobel-winning, memoirs.
I also fail to see how you keep missing the pretty obvious dialectic of "anything but Socialism at any cost" that has been motivating the imperialist mindset for a century and a half.
Why, of all countries, a Yugoslavian would find virtues in Stalin? I have positive things to say about Stalin, for example, ending the chaos that post-1917 Russia was. Population (save for the Ukrainians with the Holodomor) grew, life became better. On the other hand the political repression grew to unimaginable levels, the NKVD was something to be feared, and the purges were paranoid.
About Churchill, he leaded his country together with George VI in WWII, but he was very classist.
We split with Stalin amicably, deciding to pursue our own version of socialism, which worked for a time before a generationt became infested by ethno-nationalism.
"It’s reasonable to suppose that, as Europe recovered after the War, and in the absence of Soviet provocations and demands, which Stalin was probably too cautious to have made, the situation would have settled down. What changed all that, of course, and led to what historians call the “militarisation of NATO” was the Korean War, and the involvement of Chinese forces. At the time, this was taken to be at the behest of Stalin (who did indeed keep a rigid grip on the activities of foreign Communist parties and governments) and it was assumed that a similar move of conquest westwards would not be long in coming. Yet whilst Stalin does appear to have sponsored the war and also Chinese involvement, we now know that he was very concerned to avoid a direct clash with the United States, which also had forces on the peninsula"?
It was common, though far from reasonable to assume such things based, as they were, on delusions and deliberate ignorance. But, sans illusion, an informed supposition would account for these publicly known facts:
1. Stalin did discuss the war with Kim and, as he had done with other nations, helped arm them, but that is all. US Puppet Syngman Rhee had the means, motive and opportunity to launch the was and so did the wealthy, idiotic, communist-hating MacArthur. And they did: read "What Happened in Korea?" (Substack)
2. Ignoring its signed agreement to depart the Peninsula when the Russians did, US 'militarized Korea' by staying there and blocked Peninsula-wide, democratic reunification referendum.
3. China entered the war only after MacArthur ignored their repeated pleas and crossed the Yalu River and administered to NATO forces the worst defeat in modern military history: a rarely-seen, an all-forces rout that left US Generals and 40,000 comrades to be taken prisoner.
Thanks Aurelien, much to think about here and I think that you are correct regarding the life of institutions.
There are many that are losing their purpose and will soon disappear or morph into something different. The EU and NATO are two outstanding examples that are poorly driven and heading for the brick wall. The conformity requirements are throwing up severe contradictions that will eventually break them, especially if the move to remove the veto of a single nation is pushed through. Riding roughshod over the membership generally doesn't lead to a smooth and happy organisation.
I think that the IMF and the WTO are a couple of others that are on the skids as the Washington consensus no longer applies, even in Washington. The desire of the US to run everything despite not signing on to anything is starting to stick in the throats of everybody else.
The Holy Roman Empire is itself a good example of what NATO and EU may become; it was still a much-evoked institution in the 18th century, even one with some political significance, but real power had long since passed to its member states and its survival was mostly a matter of familiarity and inertia. Napoleon destroyed it easily, but without him or some other outside-context destroyer it may well have lingered indefinitely.
Yes, imperialism was egregious, monarchy passé, nationalism toxic, democracy anathema, but trying to squeeze the differences out of them in the name of an abstraction, the product of that pesky left brain, is a sure road to disaster. I have at various times in my life leaned heavily in the direction of rationalism, usually after spending too much times with Greek philosophers. It seems like a perfect idea at the moment, acceptable in moderation, but, to me, in the final analysis, unsatisfying. Dreams, beauty, art, poetry, song, the sight and odor of flowers or the sea, natural majesty, a tropical sunset. Each in its way evokes inner feeling, triggers memory, produces awe, wordless pleasure. ... Here I am trying to describe that which is wordless ion words.
The EU and NATO, each in its fashion, seeks to fill the interstices. Abolish the shambolic. Leave no room for Bohemias. Snip the loose ends. Leave no room for friendly enemies to have a quiet talk. It all sounds too too lawyerly. Find good enough and stop pursuing perfect.
Greece is no Slovakia nor Portugal a Denmark. Why should they have identical attitudes. The Euro is convenient for an individual. It has not proven universally efficacious on the national level. There are positions somewhere between nothing but national currencies and only one currency that with a certain amount of cutting and fitting might be mostly satisfactory. Must there be one immigration policy? Is there no room for a state to place citizenship requirements that are in line with its history and culture?
I have been of a mind for some time that both NATO and the EU will cease to exist in their present form unless they change. I do not consider that a controversial position. From where I sit in the eastern United States, it appears that the governments of many European nations are deeply unpopular with the citizens and ignoring the needs and wishes of those citizens to pursue a "European" agenda. To me that screams a need for change.
It almost goes without saying that European unity in terms of cultural exchange, economic co-operation and even some form of political harmony would be ipso facto a good thing. However, with the present dominance of aggressive Neo-Liberalism, degenerating in some cases into incipient proto-Fascism (if that's not too much of a jargon formulation) such unity as there is is massively counter productive.
The present NATO and banker dependent clique has to go before any really positive progress can be made. How exactly that will happen I can't say, but I hope that the forthcoming defeat in the Ukraine will be a big step towards a reality based Europe.
1. "In Britain, Imperialism represented a significant and controversial break with the Liberal tradition, which preferred trade to war, and which argued (rightly as it turned out) that if you were concerned about raw materials, then being on good terms with the producers was more useful than trying to occupy their country "
We see this today when various alt-media personalities and commentators try to claim that the war in Afghanistan was really about a nonexistent pipeline project, that Syria or Donbass or Gaza is some treasure trove of untapped mineral wealth, etc..
2. The entire point of NATO is the europeans want the Americans to fight their wars for them. Again.
Europeans may be the biggest wimps on the planet, but their leaders are well on the way to getting their wish.
The present point of NATO is exerting control over the European satrapies.
As the US is not going to get into a hot war with Russia and neither is the alliance going to fight a war in its uninteresting periphery (Spain vs Morocco, Greece or Cyprus vs Türkiye, Türkiye vs someone eastward, Norway vs Polar Bears), its only real mission is to control, infiltrate and sell expensive US military gear.
Not to mention, for being a zombie outfit, NATO is proving an economic disaster for its member states. Only Spain, as far as I know, is still holding out on the 2%+ gouge demanded by that person in the White House.
None of these (Spain vs Morocco, Greece or Cyprus vs Türkiye, Türkiye vs someone eastward, Norway vs Polar Bears) is going to happen. The Americans have too many pressure points over the participants.
European strategy since 1917 has been to get Americans to do their fighting for them. People didn't think that the US would get into WWI or WWII, but the europeans got their wish, just as Serbia, Libya, etc..
Not convinced, Feral… it happens that the USandA was the one party that most profited from WW1 &2, especially considering the number of bodies / destruction of homeland vs rewards obtained. That was a very convenient result for them being “lured” into wars.
As for the Spain/Morocco/Algeria/Western Sahara area, it might get very hot very quickly. Same for Cyprus. Don’t reject it at all, especially in a few years, when the situation gets even worse in the Euro periphery.
That the US was a willing participant isn't argued. The europeans certainly were begging for the Americans to do their fighting for them, just as they are begging now.
As I noted, the US has many pressure points over the rulers of the areas you mentioned.
Item 2 - what leads you to think that the US will fight for Europe? The US is intent on making Europe a more obedient vassal - fighting their wars for them would contradict that.
At that point, the twinks would figure out that they're on their own.
They obviously anticipate that the United States will once again intervene on their behalf. If Trump actually wanted to prevent such adventurism, he need only tell the europeans loudly and publicly that this is not in the offing. That Trump does not do so says volumes.
The WTO is a good example of an institution that seems to have outlived its usefulness. Yet my guess is that the WTO bureaucrats all continue to go to work as usual every day, collecting their salaries, having "important" meetings, having internal intrigues, romantic liaisons, etc..... Someday soon the plug will be pulled....
Once again a profound and wise essay containing a lot to think about and digest.
Thank you very much Aurelian.
Especially the examination of how the idea of European integration developed since WWII.
I can forgive obvious errors (or was it a joke that I did not understand?) like
“ (India had been British for so long it wasn’t even really considered a colony.)”!. That seems odd to say the least, or, a deliberate joke as I say.
But, the commentary on EU development is spot on. I am someone who progressed in my EU feelings in precisely this way.
At first I thought it was an obvious good thing, preventing European conflict as I thought it would. And also, providing an independent counterweight to the US and dollar hegemony.
My further left friends’ disquiet helped me understand what was actually being created over the years. And, what the EU has turned into now should be a warning to all of us.
Well, it was tongue in cheek I suppose, but the fact is that in the nineteenth century they did think like that. India was not the "Empire" in the sense that, say, Tanganyika was. The title "Empress of India" dates from only 1876
I'm just amazed at the life span of these zombie organizations. They really do have some staying power long past their useful life. Inertia in public policy and politics is an amazing thing! All the more reason to fear the current buildup in the US of the next wave of politically oriented organizations. Locally, the most notable example is Trump's ICE gestapo airing television commercials poaching officers from local police departments *by name* with $50K sign on bonuses, etc. Never thought I'd see that kind of thing before.
I just read the section on NATO, and I offer an alternate analysis. There are documents that indicate right after the War ended that the USSR/communism would now be the enemy. This idea is furthered by the ensuing "Military Keynesianism". The US elites were quite aware that the Great Depression fully ended with the onset of WWII, and they believed in and promoted the MIC as the core of the American economy, which required an existential enemy to be politically accepted. Thus, military and political spending became policy in spite of any real threats from Stalin, just like today with Russia.
The purpose of a system is what it does. From what I can see, NATO's purpose since 1990 has been to maintain control of Middle East and African natural resources, and the Russians and Chinese are threatening this control.
Well, by your logic, NATO's real purpose is to have meetings, organise Summits, set up working groups and hold the occasional exercise, since that's pretty much all it does. It certainly hasn't been see, much in Africa and the Middle East.
“ It’s interesting perhaps that the two Empires overthrown by the Spaniards, the Aztec and the Inca, were both tribute-based systems and themselves both in decline at the time.”
interesting indeed: some historians believe that a possible reason for the ease with which a modest bunch of Spaniards were able to overthrow these Antic Cultures is due to the fact that Spaniards made no prisoners, whereas their opponents kept prisoners alive - thus blocked ressources - to give them as offerings to their Divinities.
I think you will find that the “disease gradient” favouring the invaders to have been the primary factor behind the astonishing rapidity of the Spanish conquests, though exploitation of internal tribal animosities (there were local allies to be found eager to rid themselves of their tributary yoke — oops!), a significant delta in weapons technology and the susceptibility of both the Aztec and Inca empires to elite “decapitation” (or captivity and coercion) strikes also played significant roles.
Aurelien - is this a 'hat-tip' to Ambrosius Aurelianus, the Romano-Celtic general who may himself have been one of the real life figures for the legendary King Arthur, he of the Round Table?
Please escuse me my inference if it is improperly infered. And terrific post as always, thank you.
Aurelien is too kind to the British regarding their supposed distaste for Imperialism. It was the plunder of India on an industrial scale (“loot” was originally a Hindi word!) starting on the 1750s the foundation for the later British success.
The Brits did take plunder under whatever name they preferred to call it, to new levels, that is certain. For a fascinating examination of the true extent this global imperial ransacking was carried to, I cannot recommend too highly Mike Davis’s “Late Victorian Holocausts”. Included are two links in case one of them fails:
https://blackbooksdotpub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/davis-mike-late-victorian-holocausts_-el-nino-famines-and-the-making-of-the-third-world-verso-books-2017.pdf
https://archive.org/details/latevictorianhol00dav_wbr
Thanks for tip!
I found W. Dalrymple’s “The Anarchy” also a very interesting read on this topic.
I’ve read only The Anarchy but his other books look a,so very interesting.
I refuse to think Britain had not anything before the plundering of India. You are a bit anti-British.
What else did England have at that time? A failed North American colony? Ireland? Jamaica?
The problem is not me sounding “anti British” or anti English. The root issue here is that the modern (19-20thC) History discipline that has set the foundations of the common knowledge about the past among the population was written mainly by British historians that had plenty of motives to forget their own mistakes and magnify their successes.
But yeah, I stand by what I wrote: the British Empire was mostly created upon:
1) the massive plunder of India (at that time the 2nd wealthiest region of the world after China) starting in the 1750s.
2) the insufferable megalomaniac Napoleon who devastated most of continental Europe.
3) the plunder (mostly but not only by way of overpriced arms sales and usurious war credits that took many decades to service) of the newly independent Hispanic American countries (at that time the 3rd most wealthiest region of the world). And you might want also to check how English agents like Miranda funded and stoked the American revolts and how the early leaders of the rebellion like Bolívar later bitterly regretted how they were driven in the precise direction that the British wanted.
4) last but not least, the plunder of China in the 19thC.
Considering all of the above, the “pop culture” explanation of the success of the British Empire (scientific developments, Watt’s engine, coal mines, strong institutions, rule of law, trade networks, a strong Navy, strong banks, blah blah blah blah) were rather footnotes rather than the main drivers.
Are you American? Is Dalrymple British?
As my nick might suggest, I am Celtiberian. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberia
Dalrymple is Scottish, iirc.
Who are you? A Carolingian?
Well. Given that I am Catalan, I am indeed a Carolingian because we were part of Charlemagne's Empire. Good Guess.
Footnotes? Nah. By any chance you support Scottish independence? I would understand your opinions in such a case. But otherwise, no.
Thanks, dear Aurelien, love your work.
However… Stalin's "few" virtues?
I can recall dozens off the top of my head.
Whereas I can't recall a single one of Churchill's.
Then again, I was born and educated in Yugoslavia, where historical memory wasn't shaped by Churchill's extremely falsified, & intentionally Nobel-winning, memoirs.
I also fail to see how you keep missing the pretty obvious dialectic of "anything but Socialism at any cost" that has been motivating the imperialist mindset for a century and a half.
Good points. Thanks.
Thank you Vladimir. I have tried to point out this failing of Aurelian several times recently.
Why, of all countries, a Yugoslavian would find virtues in Stalin? I have positive things to say about Stalin, for example, ending the chaos that post-1917 Russia was. Population (save for the Ukrainians with the Holodomor) grew, life became better. On the other hand the political repression grew to unimaginable levels, the NKVD was something to be feared, and the purges were paranoid.
About Churchill, he leaded his country together with George VI in WWII, but he was very classist.
We split with Stalin amicably, deciding to pursue our own version of socialism, which worked for a time before a generationt became infested by ethno-nationalism.
On "holodomor", please see:
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/08/10/the-holodomor-hoax-joseph-stalins-crime-that-never-took-place/
"It’s reasonable to suppose that, as Europe recovered after the War, and in the absence of Soviet provocations and demands, which Stalin was probably too cautious to have made, the situation would have settled down. What changed all that, of course, and led to what historians call the “militarisation of NATO” was the Korean War, and the involvement of Chinese forces. At the time, this was taken to be at the behest of Stalin (who did indeed keep a rigid grip on the activities of foreign Communist parties and governments) and it was assumed that a similar move of conquest westwards would not be long in coming. Yet whilst Stalin does appear to have sponsored the war and also Chinese involvement, we now know that he was very concerned to avoid a direct clash with the United States, which also had forces on the peninsula"?
It was common, though far from reasonable to assume such things based, as they were, on delusions and deliberate ignorance. But, sans illusion, an informed supposition would account for these publicly known facts:
1. Stalin did discuss the war with Kim and, as he had done with other nations, helped arm them, but that is all. US Puppet Syngman Rhee had the means, motive and opportunity to launch the was and so did the wealthy, idiotic, communist-hating MacArthur. And they did: read "What Happened in Korea?" (Substack)
2. Ignoring its signed agreement to depart the Peninsula when the Russians did, US 'militarized Korea' by staying there and blocked Peninsula-wide, democratic reunification referendum.
3. China entered the war only after MacArthur ignored their repeated pleas and crossed the Yalu River and administered to NATO forces the worst defeat in modern military history: a rarely-seen, an all-forces rout that left US Generals and 40,000 comrades to be taken prisoner.
Just sayin'.
Keep on 'Just sayin', please.
Thank you Godfrey,
I particularly liked the reminder of number 3.
The US threatens China now, forgetting the last time they tried it and what happened after that.
Thanks Aurelien, much to think about here and I think that you are correct regarding the life of institutions.
There are many that are losing their purpose and will soon disappear or morph into something different. The EU and NATO are two outstanding examples that are poorly driven and heading for the brick wall. The conformity requirements are throwing up severe contradictions that will eventually break them, especially if the move to remove the veto of a single nation is pushed through. Riding roughshod over the membership generally doesn't lead to a smooth and happy organisation.
I think that the IMF and the WTO are a couple of others that are on the skids as the Washington consensus no longer applies, even in Washington. The desire of the US to run everything despite not signing on to anything is starting to stick in the throats of everybody else.
Very interesting times.
The Holy Roman Empire is itself a good example of what NATO and EU may become; it was still a much-evoked institution in the 18th century, even one with some political significance, but real power had long since passed to its member states and its survival was mostly a matter of familiarity and inertia. Napoleon destroyed it easily, but without him or some other outside-context destroyer it may well have lingered indefinitely.
Yes, imperialism was egregious, monarchy passé, nationalism toxic, democracy anathema, but trying to squeeze the differences out of them in the name of an abstraction, the product of that pesky left brain, is a sure road to disaster. I have at various times in my life leaned heavily in the direction of rationalism, usually after spending too much times with Greek philosophers. It seems like a perfect idea at the moment, acceptable in moderation, but, to me, in the final analysis, unsatisfying. Dreams, beauty, art, poetry, song, the sight and odor of flowers or the sea, natural majesty, a tropical sunset. Each in its way evokes inner feeling, triggers memory, produces awe, wordless pleasure. ... Here I am trying to describe that which is wordless ion words.
The EU and NATO, each in its fashion, seeks to fill the interstices. Abolish the shambolic. Leave no room for Bohemias. Snip the loose ends. Leave no room for friendly enemies to have a quiet talk. It all sounds too too lawyerly. Find good enough and stop pursuing perfect.
Greece is no Slovakia nor Portugal a Denmark. Why should they have identical attitudes. The Euro is convenient for an individual. It has not proven universally efficacious on the national level. There are positions somewhere between nothing but national currencies and only one currency that with a certain amount of cutting and fitting might be mostly satisfactory. Must there be one immigration policy? Is there no room for a state to place citizenship requirements that are in line with its history and culture?
I have been of a mind for some time that both NATO and the EU will cease to exist in their present form unless they change. I do not consider that a controversial position. From where I sit in the eastern United States, it appears that the governments of many European nations are deeply unpopular with the citizens and ignoring the needs and wishes of those citizens to pursue a "European" agenda. To me that screams a need for change.
It almost goes without saying that European unity in terms of cultural exchange, economic co-operation and even some form of political harmony would be ipso facto a good thing. However, with the present dominance of aggressive Neo-Liberalism, degenerating in some cases into incipient proto-Fascism (if that's not too much of a jargon formulation) such unity as there is is massively counter productive.
The present NATO and banker dependent clique has to go before any really positive progress can be made. How exactly that will happen I can't say, but I hope that the forthcoming defeat in the Ukraine will be a big step towards a reality based Europe.
1. "In Britain, Imperialism represented a significant and controversial break with the Liberal tradition, which preferred trade to war, and which argued (rightly as it turned out) that if you were concerned about raw materials, then being on good terms with the producers was more useful than trying to occupy their country "
We see this today when various alt-media personalities and commentators try to claim that the war in Afghanistan was really about a nonexistent pipeline project, that Syria or Donbass or Gaza is some treasure trove of untapped mineral wealth, etc..
2. The entire point of NATO is the europeans want the Americans to fight their wars for them. Again.
Europeans may be the biggest wimps on the planet, but their leaders are well on the way to getting their wish.
The present point of NATO is exerting control over the European satrapies.
As the US is not going to get into a hot war with Russia and neither is the alliance going to fight a war in its uninteresting periphery (Spain vs Morocco, Greece or Cyprus vs Türkiye, Türkiye vs someone eastward, Norway vs Polar Bears), its only real mission is to control, infiltrate and sell expensive US military gear.
Not to mention, for being a zombie outfit, NATO is proving an economic disaster for its member states. Only Spain, as far as I know, is still holding out on the 2%+ gouge demanded by that person in the White House.
None of these (Spain vs Morocco, Greece or Cyprus vs Türkiye, Türkiye vs someone eastward, Norway vs Polar Bears) is going to happen. The Americans have too many pressure points over the participants.
European strategy since 1917 has been to get Americans to do their fighting for them. People didn't think that the US would get into WWI or WWII, but the europeans got their wish, just as Serbia, Libya, etc..
Not convinced, Feral… it happens that the USandA was the one party that most profited from WW1 &2, especially considering the number of bodies / destruction of homeland vs rewards obtained. That was a very convenient result for them being “lured” into wars.
As for the Spain/Morocco/Algeria/Western Sahara area, it might get very hot very quickly. Same for Cyprus. Don’t reject it at all, especially in a few years, when the situation gets even worse in the Euro periphery.
That the US was a willing participant isn't argued. The europeans certainly were begging for the Americans to do their fighting for them, just as they are begging now.
As I noted, the US has many pressure points over the rulers of the areas you mentioned.
If by “the Europeans” you mean the British, I’ll take that.
It's not limited to them, but they have been the most consistent beneficiaries of being America's Special Little Catamite.
Item 2 - what leads you to think that the US will fight for Europe? The US is intent on making Europe a more obedient vassal - fighting their wars for them would contradict that.
At that point, the twinks would figure out that they're on their own.
They obviously anticipate that the United States will once again intervene on their behalf. If Trump actually wanted to prevent such adventurism, he need only tell the europeans loudly and publicly that this is not in the offing. That Trump does not do so says volumes.
The WTO is a good example of an institution that seems to have outlived its usefulness. Yet my guess is that the WTO bureaucrats all continue to go to work as usual every day, collecting their salaries, having "important" meetings, having internal intrigues, romantic liaisons, etc..... Someday soon the plug will be pulled....
Once again a profound and wise essay containing a lot to think about and digest.
Thank you very much Aurelian.
Especially the examination of how the idea of European integration developed since WWII.
I can forgive obvious errors (or was it a joke that I did not understand?) like
“ (India had been British for so long it wasn’t even really considered a colony.)”!. That seems odd to say the least, or, a deliberate joke as I say.
But, the commentary on EU development is spot on. I am someone who progressed in my EU feelings in precisely this way.
At first I thought it was an obvious good thing, preventing European conflict as I thought it would. And also, providing an independent counterweight to the US and dollar hegemony.
My further left friends’ disquiet helped me understand what was actually being created over the years. And, what the EU has turned into now should be a warning to all of us.
Well, it was tongue in cheek I suppose, but the fact is that in the nineteenth century they did think like that. India was not the "Empire" in the sense that, say, Tanganyika was. The title "Empress of India" dates from only 1876
Funny about how I keep reading about comparisons with the Holy Roman Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, about the EU. Must be onto something :)
I'm just amazed at the life span of these zombie organizations. They really do have some staying power long past their useful life. Inertia in public policy and politics is an amazing thing! All the more reason to fear the current buildup in the US of the next wave of politically oriented organizations. Locally, the most notable example is Trump's ICE gestapo airing television commercials poaching officers from local police departments *by name* with $50K sign on bonuses, etc. Never thought I'd see that kind of thing before.
I just read the section on NATO, and I offer an alternate analysis. There are documents that indicate right after the War ended that the USSR/communism would now be the enemy. This idea is furthered by the ensuing "Military Keynesianism". The US elites were quite aware that the Great Depression fully ended with the onset of WWII, and they believed in and promoted the MIC as the core of the American economy, which required an existential enemy to be politically accepted. Thus, military and political spending became policy in spite of any real threats from Stalin, just like today with Russia.
The purpose of a system is what it does. From what I can see, NATO's purpose since 1990 has been to maintain control of Middle East and African natural resources, and the Russians and Chinese are threatening this control.
Well, by your logic, NATO's real purpose is to have meetings, organise Summits, set up working groups and hold the occasional exercise, since that's pretty much all it does. It certainly hasn't been see, much in Africa and the Middle East.
Here my usual italian translation:
"Un'Europa delle nazioni? Ancora."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/09/uneuropa-delle-nazioni-ancora.html
Thanks as always, Marco.
“ It’s interesting perhaps that the two Empires overthrown by the Spaniards, the Aztec and the Inca, were both tribute-based systems and themselves both in decline at the time.”
interesting indeed: some historians believe that a possible reason for the ease with which a modest bunch of Spaniards were able to overthrow these Antic Cultures is due to the fact that Spaniards made no prisoners, whereas their opponents kept prisoners alive - thus blocked ressources - to give them as offerings to their Divinities.
I think you will find that the “disease gradient” favouring the invaders to have been the primary factor behind the astonishing rapidity of the Spanish conquests, though exploitation of internal tribal animosities (there were local allies to be found eager to rid themselves of their tributary yoke — oops!), a significant delta in weapons technology and the susceptibility of both the Aztec and Inca empires to elite “decapitation” (or captivity and coercion) strikes also played significant roles.
Aurelien - is this a 'hat-tip' to Ambrosius Aurelianus, the Romano-Celtic general who may himself have been one of the real life figures for the legendary King Arthur, he of the Round Table?
Please escuse me my inference if it is improperly infered. And terrific post as always, thank you.
Not really, it's a hat-tip to one of my favourite writers, the French poet and novelist Louis Aragon. "Aurelien" is his best-known novel.