Whither the World?
I would like to apologise for my silence of late. This has been, in most part, occasioned by my immersion in my new book.
I am working on a political history and defence of Christendom. This is proving to be lengthy, comprising some six parts covering history; divinity; civics; politics; traditionalism and polemics. This work is also a call for the decent interment of the remains of liberal democracy. I conclude by proposing some modest suggestions for a more traditional, accountable and open society.
No one can deny that we certainly live in interesting times! For any observer of world history and politics, 2019 is proving to be a fascinating year.
Contextually the most symbolic, and perhaps the most immediate political contest, is the constitutional crisis in Britain. This contest sees the Prime Minister doing battle on behalf of the will of the people against the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ and the political ‘establishment’ over Brexit.
In America the sad and sorry ragtag rabble of total-progs [totalitarian progressives] still can’t seem to accept the fact that Donald Trump actually won the last presidential election.
In Europe the emergent New Right is challenging the anti-democratic monstrosity that is the European Union. In Australia the progressives lost the seemingly unlosable election to a reassuringly pragmatic conservative leaning Prime Minister.
This victory of common sense and security over progressive social engineering and economic nihilism belies however a far deeper social malaise across Australia. Individual states are preparing the roll-out of suites of ‘death laws’ through various late termination abortions and euthanasia legislation. That total-progs share the same preoccupation with killing as their less than illustrious Stalinist forebears is of continuing and great concern.
The lunacy of identity politics has been taken to new heights in the Australian state of Victoria where the increasingly irrational government of total-progs has passed legislation allowing misfits to choose their gender on their birth certificates.
However, moving well north of this arrant and anal nonsense are the real problems gripping the attentions of proper grown-ups, these include serious international military tensions – namely China emergent and the South China Sea; the problem of North Korea and its resident Rocket Man; freedom of passage through the Straits of Hormuz; escalating tensions between Israel and Iran – and then of course, last but by no means least, there is the United States-China trade war to consider.
But taking stock, this is a year of significant anniversaries. From a perspective of great sadness, the year marks the centenary of the Treaty of Versailles [28 June 1919]. This ill-conceived document, intended to formally end the war of all wars, provided instead the roadmap to the Second World War. A century on and mankind has proved tragically and obstinately recidivist in this respect. The fact that the 28th of June passed in obscurity stands in part as testament to this recidivism.
This year is the seventieth anniversary of the Peoples Republic of China [1st of October 1949] consequent to the Communist victory over the Nationalist Forces of the Kuomintang. Today that sad county is still in the process coming to terms with its internal problems and its position in the broader geopolitical picture. Hong Kong has emerged, as many of us knew it always would, as a litmus test of the modern political reality of China. How it chooses to resolve this problem will determine its status in the eyes of the international community. I have no doubt the joss-stick auguries have been burning late into the night in the offices of President for Life, Xi Jinping.
Also commemorating its seventieth anniversary is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO - 4 April 1949], also called the North Atlantic Alliance. This venerable Organisation earned its britches in the Cold War as a tangible bulwark against the Communist Iron Curtain, but since the collapse of Communism it has itself been somewhat left out in the cold. It proved generally ineffective during the tragic shambles that was the collapse of Yugoslavia. Established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001, the International Security Assistance Force was the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan. This was supported with great variance of commitment, enthusiasm and success by its members.
Today NATO is a grab-bag intergovernmental military alliance between twenty-nine vastly differing North American and European countries. From the NATO website:
Security in our daily lives is key to our well-being. NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defence clause of NATO's founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.
In discussing anniversaries it is moot to recognise that Friday last [30th August] marked the twentieth anniversary of the referendum that secured East Timor its independence from Indonesia consequent to that country’s 1975 invasion of the former Portuguese colony. I have written elsewhere in academic detail the history of this country. My views on this basket-case remain unchanged after twenty years – it will remain a demi-European pimple on the rump of the Malay world and a continuing thorn in the side of Australia.
Given that Russia continues to loom, menacingly, on the increasingly dulled Western European consciousness, it is appropriate to reflect that it is also the twentieth anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s ascent to leadership in Russia. He has served his country both as Prime Minister and President and has indubitably stamped his authority throughout. Putin’s flaws notwithstanding, he has returned to this proud country stability, economic growth and international respect. He has also maintained, albeit perhaps imperfectly, democracy. Ironically, he and his country stand as a bulwark in defence of Western traditionalism. Moreover, under his watch Russia is providing the world with an alternative construct of both domestic and international relations.
Tempting as though it can be, historians should never assume the role of ‘soothsayer’- but I intend to break this rule and suggest that Vladimir Putin will be judged most kindly by history.
Concluding on a light note, with a Russian sense of the ridiculous, I was delighted by a headline on my RT News app over the weekend:
Internet loses its mind over ‘racist’ Dior perfume ad featuring Johnny Depp & Native American dancer
The following story was a wonderful account of the lunatic offenderatti and the question of ‘cultural appropriation’: for those that haven’t yet caught this riveting nonsense I reproduce for you, direct from RT:
Dior has pulled posts promoting its ‘Eau Sauvage’ men’s perfume after a new ad for the fragrance triggered the PC cyber police. The ad’s unspeakable crime? Featuring a Native American grooving to Johnny Depp’s guitar.
A clip of the promotion, called ‘We are the Land’, was posted on Dior’s social media accounts on Friday. The teaser shows Depp, clad in a poncho, shredding on an electric guitar as a Native American, decked out in full ceremonial garb, performs a tribal dance.
In an apparent attempt to preempt internet outrage over alleged ‘cultural appropriation’, Dior noted that the spot was filmed with the help of Native American consultants. In a caption to a now-deleted Instagram post, the company wrote that the film was made in “close collaboration” with Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO) “in order to respect Indigenous cultures, values and heritage.”
However, what some would argue was the brand’s attempt at preemptive damage control did little to help Dior escape the internet’s wrath, spurred by accusations of cultural appropriation and outright racism.
Many took issue with the French name of the fragrance, ‘Sauvage’ which can be translated into English in several ways, including ‘wild’, ‘unspoiled’, ‘unsociable’, ‘savage’, and ‘fierce’.
The majority of those incensed over the campaign, however, presumed the most obvious (which is not always correct), while pointing to the uncanny similarity between the word ‘sauvage’ and the English ‘savage’.
“Using Native American people and imagery to market a cologne whose name means ‘Savage’ is completely out of pocket,” a user wrote in one of the most-shared tweets.
“There’s no way in hell that Dior didn’t know that it was inappropriate to equate Native Americans as savages. They know what they’re doing. It’s purposeful,” another chimed in.
Some members of the indigenous community have joined the criticism, with one Twitterer, who identifies as a member of a Seminole Tribe, accusing the Hollywood star and the long-time face of the perfume of “profiting off a racist reference.”
In fact, it’s possible that Dior knew that the video would enrage the politically correct hordes lurking on social media – thus increasing the ad’s reach.
Others argued that neither the creators of the ad, nor Depp – an honorary member of the Comanche Nation since 2013 – did anything wrong, with the ad itself being a powerful homage to Native Americans.
What can one say about such unselfconscious abandonment of common sense? And these total-progs are increasingly in charge of our lives. There is much to commend the dictum:
Revolt against the Modern World!
 Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory.