Taliesin

Are they willing?

I woke the other morning thinking maybe the countries that US foreign policy wants to see changed, can't because they don't have the willingness to change? I am wondering if Madame Secretary, Hillary Rodham Clinton knows this?

For most of us live with change because we were born to change. Our stability sometimes comes from change. But what about Muslim countries? or Asian? or Middle Eastern? It is going to be a longer haul to ask countries like India or Pakistan to change, even Iran, to change - there has to be a way foreign policy thinkers can aim for a movement on change in order counter terrorism and insurgency. How does one aid change when one isn't inclined to be willing enough to change?

Are we Ravens?

“Common Ravens have been observed to manipulate others into doing work for them, such as by calling wolves and coyotes to the site of dead animals. The canines open the carcass, making it more accessible to the birds…”

“They have also been observed pretending to make a cache without actually depositing the food, presumably to confuse onlookers…”

“Common Ravens are known to steal and cache shiny objects such as pebbles, pieces of metal, and golf balls. One theory is that they hoard shiny objects to impress other ravens. Other research indicates that juveniles are deeply curious about all new things, and that Common Ravens retain an attraction to bright, round objects based on their similarity to bird eggs. Mature birds lose their intense interest in the unusual, and become highly neophobic…”

“They watch where other Common Ravens bury their food and remember the locations of each other's food caches, so they can steal from them. This type of theft occurs so regularly that Common Ravens will fly extra distances from a food source to find better hiding places for food…”

“They are also one of only a few species that make their own toys. They have been observed breaking off twigs to play with socially. (Another species is dolphins that blow bubbles to play with.)…”

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Raven    

I am thinking that maybe 2010 will be about humans being Ravens – a ‘Year of the Ravens’ perhaps. (If there is anything called a Year of the Raven – I have not referenced it, as I don’t know if it exists). The behaviour of humans reminds me of Ravens. Deceptive, manipulative secretive, excellent thieves and engrossed in very shiny things! Shiny things that appear in shop windows – The Plasma TVs, watches, etc for us humans would be analogous.

What say you then to that?  

Morality Wars

In recent years I have been thinking about global politics in a way that seems natural to me – to look at the really big picture. This year, and particularly in the last four months I have also been thinking about the role of conspiracy theorist worldview. I guess it’s a bit like Machiavelli, or reading The Art of War. Yesterday I watched a movie on Sky: ‘International’ with Clive Owen in lead role as a determined Interpol agent in pursuit of a bank that is brokering a dodgy weapons deal.

Midway through the film he is interviewing a banker who commented an answer to the question ‘why was IBBC (the bank – not a real bank) dealing in weapons sales?’ '...For control he said, for control of the debt… that’s the whole idea of banks – to make everyone a slave to debt.’ This profound piece of theatre is quite true in my opinion. Because the idea is to look at the very big picture and longer term view because we will nearly always find a level that is either really scary or downright stupid (Hubris does that).

So, here I am celebrating my 50th on December 26. And I am thinking about the models I have created for myself that helps me to analyse patterns in global politics and where it’s taking us all and I remembered the three category hypothesis that cements the patterns I see repeating themselves in global and national policy decision-making, particularly foreign policy. These three are:

First, Atomic Politics: Are we still using Cold War rhetoric and why?

Second, Supply Politics: Whoever has the supply has the power – e.g., Gazprom for gas supply to Europe from Russia; banks with control of debt servicing.

Three: Eco-Politics: The politics of climate change, eco-systems and green economics.

These three help me to see the really big picture from a Track One perspective. Track One is a term used in negotiations with world leaders; presidents, prime ministers, kings and queens and foreign ministers, secretary of states. Track Two is the diplomat level that deal with the details of negotiations. Copenhagen is a good example: mostly Track Two until the leaders turn up to assess and even signs the final deal (yeh right).

As I begin to engage myself in learning about the 14th century in comparison with the 21st century the three categories of analysis are furthered by the arrival of a newer thought: that of ‘Morality Wars’. What happens from here on is about the morality of economics and the morality of our interactions with nations; of the way we want to conduct ourselves. E.g. are we doing what we as a nation do, out of self-interest or equity? E.g. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq? The Answer? For the oil and the reconstruction contracts. Not to mention the “bringing Democracy to the Middle East” (yeh right).

Therefore, it is a wonder that I have taken to thinking like a conspiracy theorist (CT). But that’s ok because if there are even half-truths in what a CT says – then there I will find a weight of gold to work with, to fan out the theory, squeeze it, plug it and push it back into reality. And I will use my three little mates, Atomic Politics, Supply Politics and Eco-Politics to gauge where it’s all moving. Then, I will be able to test it again using my hypothesis of ‘Morality Wars’.

Bring it on!  

Soil: the conquest of mind and lands

Below is the abstract for my essay project for next year: Post Graduate Diploma: Political Science. I loved reading Dante and realized how incredible the 14th century was. I have to write about 20,000 - 30,000 words and so have plenty of books to read and notes to take.  

Abstract

Dante Alighieri was born May-June 1265, in what could be described as a revisionary period for Europe and Italy. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was primarily a political struggle between popes and emperors for supremacy of their worldview; for the temporal and spiritual governance of Europe and Italy; about how society ought to live and work, as well as accept who is governing.

Dante’s Divine Comedy completed just before his death in September 1321, was a three volume prophetic and political statement - a statement about corruption, about the struggle for the temporal and spiritual realms of human societies [in the name of self interest]. It is loaded with observations and allusions; criticism of both popes and emperors.

Dante chose to write The Divine Comedy because he saw it as a way of questioning the motives and attitudes; the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary people, for the control of commerce of trade and for large tracts of land. 

In the twenty-first century therefore, is this struggle for supremacy of one political worldview over another any different from the fourteenth century? Is the ‘war on terror’, globalization and the ‘new world order’ any different from fourteenth century politics? I propose to posit that there is very little difference. Apart from advances in technology, Dante’s three-volume work (Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradise) has explicit notions of sin and spiritual degradation, self-interest, avarice and violence.

Therefore, these prophetic mentions are also prevalent in the twenty-first century. Second, I will argue that the twenty-first century is also a revisionary period, much similar to the fourteenth century of Dante Alighieri. Third, I will explore what kind of political philosophy best describes Dante’s work and how it relates to the century we live in.  

Keywords and Phrases:

Empire, worldview, Christianity, Islam, New World Order, American Democracy, Americanism Neo-conservatism, papacy, Holy Roman Empire, sin, crusades, Beatrice, Virgil, Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradise, Middle Ages, utopian idealism, secularism, realism, Islamikaze terrorism, globalization, axis of evil, good versus evil, supremacy, resource depletion, climate change, conspiracy theories, factions, moralizing, popular culture, hubris, Herodotus, power, hegemony, überpower, War Corporatism, Exceptionalism, Zealous Nationalism, Liberal Idealism, Corruption  

I have been reading Donald Kagan's "Thucydides: The Reinvention of History". A narrative essay on the one man who was there at the Peloponnesian War. Kagan asks about how and why Thucydides wrote what he did- why he left out great chunks of speeches and other comments about the leaders of his day. It is a wonderful read about the politics of war and peace and the art of negotiations. The spin and the deceit. The careful way the Athenians used the offensive - defensive treaty system in order to avoid war. Kagan weaves the story with history and asks what was on the minds of the players, Spartans and Greeks.

Kagan writes about how to write history and keep it alive. The method is quite important and I have learnt to try the same when doing my essay next year on comparing 14th century politics with 21st century politics which I will argue that both periods are similar. The ball bearing point I will be using to write this narrative essay is Dante's Divine Comedy ion which he heavily criticized popes and emperors.

Thanks for the recommend Peter.

welcome to my blog. A new adventure where I will be writing for change, one page or blog at a time