Social responsibility, Christian virtue and the ills of government-run healthcare

It truly astounds me that there are quite a lot of supposedly traditionalist Catholics who actively promote coercive redistribution of wealth. They do not seem to realise that this is fundamentally antithetical to Christian virtue. For instance, you can regularly witness supposedly traditionalist Catholics stating that government-run healthcare (which they often even call "free healthcare") is essentially good, and only impossible at present because of countless numbers of irresponsible degenerates who parasitically leech off the system. They explicitly state their belief that in a conservative, Christian society, government healthcare would be fine and dandy.

I must disagree, and when I recently expressed that disagreement (indeed on the subject of so-called "free healthcare"), I was asked to explain my reasoning. Naturally, I did so quite gladly. What will follow here is a somewhat more expansive and refined version of my initial reply. I think it might be of some use to share it publically.

The fact of the matter is that the position of these supposedly traditionalist Catholics perplexes me. They defend a system that is parasitical in its very core by claiming that it would be good if only the parasitic excesses were somehow removed from it. Do they not understand that the system itself fosters that parasitism, and that it therefore legitimises the degeneracy associated with it? And do they not comprehend that this in itself is enough to condemn the system of "government healthcare" wholly and unequivocally?

Even if they somehow fail to notice this, or have some excuse about how their proposed alterations to the system would curb those excesses... their arguments are purely utilitarian. Now, utilitarianism is indisputably the morally hollow creed of the modernist; of the man-as-machine, of the culture that reduces society to a mere collection of inhuman processes. If they were truly traditionalists, and if they were truly Christian, and certainly if they were truly Catholic, then they would know that utilitarianism is in no way a valid argument. Instead, they would know to look elsewhere-- namely to the tradition of natural law.

If they did this, they would soon realise that their premises are flawed and their ethics clouded. After all, "free" healthcare simply doesn't exist. It may perhaps be true that the system of state-enforced redistribution could get somewhat more viable if you were to remove all the "useless eaters" (as the commies themselves put it), but that doesn't make it free. It's still based on the theft and redistribution of wealth by the government. Not only that, but to see people as "useless eaters"—rather than the victims of sin who deserve our human and personal compassion—is in itself deeply disturbed.

We may say, therefore, that some "utilitarian fix" for the system of government healthcare can at best make it "just" immoral, instead of immoral and flat-out impossible in the long term. If that is the best case scenario of the approach that these supposed traditionalist Catholics advocate, then how Christian is their approach, really? Should they succeed in getting it done (which is doubtful in itself), would we then be justified in calling that a victory of virtue? I think not. On the contrary.

Let there be no doubt: there are countless admonitions in the Bible for all of us to practice charity and kindness, but none that allow us to steal from others, give away the wealth of those others, and then pride ourselves on that ill deed. In fact, "thou shalt not steal" is fairly clear. When one steals in order to be a false-faced benefactor, one is guilty not only of theft, but of a twisted and self-aggrandising pride. That it is purportedly done with good intentions matters not one bit, since we know very well that those good intentions have ever paved the road to hell...

It does not matter whether this twisted act of theft is carried out for the sake of healthcare, subsidies, welfare or any other goal that should theoretically be noble. Evil means cannot bring about good ends. To sanction evil in the name of doing good is precisely the easy way to get it done, the way of abusive power... the Satanic way of doing things. The way we must reject. The way of the just, conversely, entails that we ourselves must take responsibility for the things that we believe must be done, instead of mandating government thugs to steal from others.

One may at once conclude the obvious, then: that it is our personal, Christian duty to actively extend a hand to others. And that to provide healthcare is not a governmental task, but a communal responsibility. I do not think that I need to explain to these Catholics that the best way to do this on any scale beyond the directly interpersonal is almost invariably to do it via the Church. Indeed, the irresponsible hand-over of all power and all manner of social missions to the state has terribly injured the Church in its social capacity. The Church once had the capacity to bind social work and spiritual work together into one sacred mission. The state is wholly unspiritual (in fact it is anti-spiritual), and now the social and the spiritual are too often divided by a great chasm.

Removing all aspects of social welfare from the abusive hands of the government, and returning them to a multitude of communal networks and societies—most of them Christian in nature—will quite literally do wonders for society. When such concerns are returned to the hands of organic, rather than artificial communities, we will soon see a far greater respect for the human soul. A government is a system, a machine, a great automaton. It is defined by regulation and policy, and to its method of operation, such things as mercy and charity can only ever exist in the abstract. If we want virtue to be tangibly expressed (to be made real in the world) we must not put our faith in government, but in each other. Community must replace bureaucracy, and in many cases, Church must once again replace State.

As a further consideration, I would urge Christians to keep in mind that the current government-funded (so actually theft-funded) healthcare is also government-controlled healthcare. And then you ultimately end up with true horrors. For instance, with cases in which the government "experts" can decide when infants (such as in the now infamous case of Alfie Evans) are to be "terminated". This, I would argue, is the very depth of depravity. That sort of evil becomes possible when the state is raised up to be almighty, and to exert authority over all aspects of life. To avoid it, we must ensure that responsibility and authority remain in the hands of moral actors, instead of soulless bureaucracies.

All of this is why government healthcare is always inherently immoral, and furthermore why every sort of overbearing government (including all possible manifestations of forced wealth redistribution) are always evil.

The Heart of Winter

For someone born in the very heart of summer, I am surprisingly fond of winter. It is no doubt my favourite season, and as time brings us closer to the months of frozen blue skies and cloudy breath, I find myself looking forward in anticipation. At present, it is still too warm for my liking.

Years ago, in school, a girl asked—in response to some no doubt cold-hearted thing I had said, as I quite often do, sometimes even unironically—whether it was always winter in my heart. I have no idea what exact remark of mine prompted the question, but it was presumably meant to be critical. Of course, always one for deliberately missing the point when it suits me, I remember the question because I found it unintentionally flattering.

Yes, of course it is always winter in my heart. What else would it be? The squelchy, fickle insecurity of spring and autumn? The sweltering, oppressive weight of muggy summer? People tend to romanticise summer, of course, but what is summer, other than a great blur of sticky heat, filled with the teeming of insects and the odious stench of rotting garbage?

I may have been born in summer, but I do not live there. My home resides within the crisp, clean clarity of winter. The cold months bring everything into a sharp focus. The stillness of the air allows all tiny sounds to be heard, no longer drowned out by the roar, as in summer. And what is greater than to be out for a walk, deep in some winter night, leaving the first footprints in fresh snow, as above you the cold stars are scattered all across the endless dark?

Yes, I find that there is much to love in winter, and so I keep it in my heart. Surely that is not an altogether strange sentiment? Even if it should be, let me be strange, then. I eagerly anticipate the coming of winter. It really is the most wonderful time of year.

On the duty to mind one's own business

There is a distinct tendency among ethicists in the West to stress a perceived duty to always help other human beings in distress. In many Western countries this has become—not co-incidentally—enshrined within the frame-work of legal dictates imposed by the government upon all persons. The very idea of the "obligation to help" is the fundamental ethical legitimation of socialist ambitions and in fact of all redistributative schemes. Some have even argued that it is a fundamentally Christian principle.

At most, it is a principle deriving from a deliberate misreading of Christian ethical traditions. There is, you see, a very powerful counter-argument to be made. The refusal to help does not stem (as the socialists like to claim) from an inherent lack of empathy, but from an opposite and more fundamental ethical obligation: the duty to mind one's own business. Why? Because we ought to treat other human beings as possessing moral agency (a notion which really is Christian). This implies that we must respect their choices, insofar as they render no harm upon the innocent, even when we believe those choices to be very poor indeed.

This is doubly important because in many cases, we lack sufficient knowledge to interfere in others' lives in ways that are actually helpful. Our (presumably well-meaning) tendency to coddle may very well do more harm than good.

A truly "Western" and also truly Christian ethical stance would be to leave people be, so long as they cause no harm to you or to any third party, and to only help them when they ask for it. And even then, you should provide aid on an individual basis, because you choose to. The moment you are forced into it (by, say, the government) your actions by definition cease being ethical— because at that point, moral considerations are taken out of the hands of the relevant party. We call that tyranny.

Tradition and Hierarchy

Wisdom for the ages. Many of those who are, like myself, opposed to the coercive power of the state would nevertheless do well to keep this in mind. A voluntary society will not survive if it becomes an egalitarian free-for-all. On the contrary: a voluntary society will only thrive if it becomes highly hierarchic.

The difference with the coercive state society is that these voluntary hierarchies will be natural, instead of artificial. Those in positions of authority will only be there because they are endowed with that authority by those who voluntarily follow such leaders. And they will only retain their authority as long as they remain worthy of it.

This is the ancient basis of kingship, and aristocracy, and priesthood. It is to those deep roots that we must now return.

In blue, we have the US states that have a smaller population than Los Angeles County. This is an enlightening map in the context of the debate about whether or not the Electoral College should perhaps be abolished.

The issue people have with the EC is that it leads to unequal representation: it entails that the vote of a person in a low population state is weighed more heavily than the vote of a person in a high population state. Of course, constitutionally speaking, the states elect the president. The people of each state send Electors, who will vote for a presidential candidate on that state's behalf. Still, the people of the low population states still do get more 'elector per capita' than the people in high population states. They get more bang for their buck (or in this case, for their vote).

However.. if you simply get rid of the EC, every single election will be decided by California, New York, Texas and Florida. All campaigns will focus there, and the rest of the states will become largely meaningless (politically speaking). Generally speaking, only the interests of those four big states will be considered when political decisions are made. This is also very far from equal representation.

So whatever you do, it seems, the current system will be unfair. As far as I can tell, any real solution would require a more fundamental (indeed drastic) reform. There are only two solutions I can think of that would solve the issue of representation:

1. Cut up the states with large populations and merge the states with small populations. Considering that the USA's largest city by population (NYC) has c. 8,5 million inhabitants, and that such a city would be hard to divide into multiple states, this number would become the "state population standard" by default. NYC would become a city-state, and the rest of the USA would be re-organised into 37 other states, each with roughly 8,5 million inhabitants. Some would be small (centred on a big city), others would be vast and largely rural. Nevertheless, each would have roughly the same population, so the same representative weight, regardless of whether or not there's an EC.

2. Radically decentralise the USA, so that 90% of all political decisions are made on a state or local level. Have the federal government reduced to main (national) infrastructure, the FBI, the US Marshals, foreign affairs and the military. That way, the 'weight' of any given state simply becomes far less important, because nearly all of politics plays out within the states themselves.

Personally, I'd suggest combining the two above ideas. Radically decentralise and re-organise the states at the same time. Why? Because lots of states have both progressive (often urban, high population) areas and conservative (often rural, low population) areas. Consider coastal California and inland California, for instance. Separating these areas would, combined with decentralisation, mean that in every new state, the vast majority of the population would get exactly the politics they'd like. Los Angeles could be a wildly progressive place, while inland regions in northeastern California could be part of a completely separate conservative state. And because the USA would be very decentralised, none of this would have undue influence on the rest of the Union.

Perhaps there is some other, better way to cut this Gordian knot of representative imbalance, but if so, I've yet to find it. As far as I'm concerned, the best solution is to bring politics closer to home.

Imaginary victims

It's very interesting how there are always people who completely warp historical reality to suit their political agenda. I just now came across a bizarre claim by a Native American action group, claiming that European settlers in the USA (not the Americas as a whole, just the USA!) have historically killed 50 million Native Americans. And that's with disease not even included: they purely mean the purposeful killing of natives.

50 million. What a number! But a number out of thin air. The truth is that, after the Old World diseases had burned their way through the New World, there were only about 10 million Native Americans left in all of the Americas! Perhaps, if we're charitable, some 3 million of those lived in what is now the USA. How can you murder 50 million in a region where only 3 million exist? How could that be done? Do tell.

Either out of incompetence or out of wickedness, these 'activists' with their (too-)big claims are conflating certain numbers to fit their own narrative. The truth is that much larger numbers of Native Americans than those c. 10 million have indeed historically existed... but they died in vast multitudes due to disease. In all likelihood, Old World diseases killed c. 90% of the pre-contact population of the Americas. If the post-disease population is c. 10 million, that would make the pre-contact population c. 100 million.

Needless to say, there is a lot of debate about that. Historiographers once tended to consider numbers like 2 or 3 million when estimating how many Native Americans there must have been in 1491. But Henry F. Dobyns rather convincingly made the case for a number between 90 and 110 million, spread across the Americas.

Even the modern-day "low counters", who are sceptical of such high claims, simply believe that disease killed fewer people, like 50% for instance. (That's about the lowest credible estimate in use today.) So there are those who believe that disease killed 90% of the pre-contact population, leaving behind 10 million or so. And then there are those who believe disease killed perhaps 50%... leaving behind 10 million or so.

This is important to note, because this is where those 'activists' get it all wrong. In truth, the low counters simply believe there were much fewer pre-contact natives than the high counters do. That is the point of contention. But the 'activists' muddle the numbers. They claim the pre-contact numbers of the high counters (100 million) and the death rate of the low counters (50%) and claim that post-disease, there were some 50 million natives left.

That's simply not the case. And even then, that would be a number for all of the Americas, and not just for the USA.

Whether disease killed roughly 10 million or roughly 90 million or some number in between... that's still being debated. [1] But that there were roughly 10 million natives left in total after the disease had burned its way through the population is not under discussion.

Of those remaining 10 million, Europeans no doubt killed quite a lot. Although the fact that there are about 69 million Native Americans around today (which means considerable population increase from those 10 million), the amount killed by Europeans must not be overestimated. We are probably talking about hundreds of thousands. Probably not about multiple millions. Certainly not about tens of millions, which weren't there in any case.

-----------

[1] A footnote regarding the discussion about pre-contact numbers. Personally, I tend towards the position of the high counters. The effect of disease cannot be underestimated. By the accounts of Hernando de Soto (the conquistador, obviously, not the economist), who traveled the southeastern (later-to-be) USA in the 1500s, the place was filled with settlements. Hundreds of towns, from Florida to the Mississippi. When latter-day explorers reached the area again in the 1700s, they found... nothing. Except that De Soto had not made these villages up. Their archeological remains have been found. As have the mass graves that started appearing after he passed through.

The thing is, he brought livestock along, and animals escaped into the wild. They spread European disease, which killed countless natives and utterly destroyed many communities. This all happened without any Europeans there to witness or actively influence events. De Soto was gone when the dying started, and by the time other Europeans reached the area again, it was all over...

Patriots and Tyrants

Robert E. Lee was the foremost general of the Confederate forces in their desperate war for independence from northern tyranny, which sought to illegally subdue them by armed might after they had chosen to separate themselves from the central government in Washington DC. His words, quoted above, are a clear indication of his character and his motives. In a time when Abraham Lincoln is often (wrongfully) regarded as a heroic figure, and the Southern secession is (equally incorrectly) viewed as evil and treasonous, we should take some time to explore Lee's reasons for supporting Virginia in its secession and opposing Lincoln in his war of conquest.

General Lee, an educated man, knew very well the shape of history— and he tried his best to fight in the name of his sovereign state, Virginia; defending it against the despotic ambitions of Lincoln and his centralist ilk. The victory of the northern aggressors, in their war against the southern states that peacefully and lawfully seceded, remains a great tragedy. That war destroyed the last bastions of honour and aristocracy in North America, thus sealing the fate of the United States. Rather than saving the Union, Abraham Lincoln and his butchers destroyed it, and put a centralist colossus in its place. This was their plan from the outset, and fighting that depraved ambition was the South's foremost reason to secede in the first place. (Anyone who claims that it was primarily about slavery is either wholly ignorant or wholly evil.)

Everything Lee predicted has come true, and the United States are fated to perish— at least in their current form. Observe that I write "their form", because the states ought to be referred to in the plural. But nowadays, we all too often hear "the United States is" rather than "the United States are". That, too, is the legacy of northern aggression and centralism. And it is exactly that unitary, centralist moloch that will ultimately perish. One may hope that one day, there will again be sovereign and voluntarily united states, once more capable of bringing something worthwhile into this world.

Until that day comes, we should do our best to remember the courage and honour of general Lee, in a world where uneducated scoundrels are tearing down the statues that were once put up the memorialise him and his fellow heroes of independence.

Californian secession? Great! But let's re-draw some borders first...

So. The California secession movement starts gathering petition signatures. I think this is an awesome idea. Not because I think it'll be good for California. No. California will turn into a socialist shithole, that can no longer feed on the rest of the union. But it will be GREAT for the USA. Without California's electoral votes, there will never be another Democratic president.

Regardless of such considerations, I will simply state that I generally defend the right of secession simply because I support the principle of it. With that in mind, I must observe that when right-wing activists quite recently suggested that Texas should secede (during Obama's administration), they were called traitors and racists.

A typical case of the left-wing "it's okay when we do it!"-mentality, then. But never mind that. Let them go ahead. Let them secede. So much the better for the rest of the USA. But before we start cheering for the secession of California, I think it's wise to reconsider the whole idea of the so-called "left coast". After all, it's not like all of California is left-wing. No; it's the coastal strip and the southern portion of the state. The northeastern part is solidly Republican. The left-wing part is just far more densely populated, so they force the entire state to always go Democratic. Considered in that way... California should be split up before any vote regarding secession takes place.

In the same way, sparsely populated Nevada is almost always forced to go left-wing, just because densely populated Las Vegas always goes that way. And the northeastern states of Washington and Oregon are also pulled to the left by their coastal cities, while the rural hinterland always votes Republican.

I propose the following, for the consideration of my American friends: that the borders of these four states are radically re-drawn, to create a Democrat-dominated "California" and "Oregon", and a Republican-dominated "Nevada" and "Washington". The two left-wing states should then be given the option to secede (or to join Canada and Mexico, respectively).

Even if the Democratic states stay with the union, this will at least free the Republican parts of the current states from Democratic overlordship, turning four Democratic states into two Democratic and two Republican states.

The map would look a bit as pictured here, with the Democratic states in shades of pink, and the Republican states in shades of yellow. I have based the border on multiple electoral maps, after figuring out which regions generally vote Democratic, and which regions generally vote Republican. I admit it's just a crude concept formulation, but it gets the idea across.

The free market

When I speak about the free market, it's important that you know I'm thinking of an actual market. I'm not talking stock brokers and central bankers here. I mean small shops run by families. I mean a real marketplace, where fresh fruits and vegetables are bought and sold without government thugs getting in on the deal. I mean large guildhalls filled with a lot of tiny stalls, where there's something to be found for all of us, and at a decent price to boot.

I don't mean big glass skyscrapers. I don't mean oily men in expensive suits who live above the clouds and never think of the folk down here. Those things have nothing to do with freedom. Those men don't even know what a marketplace looks like.

When I speak about the free market, I mean the real deal.

Kurds, Turks and the importance of secession

It is my conviction that any sensible freedom-loving individual ought to be, by definition, a proponent of secession in all circumstances. Indeed, many classical liberals and libertarians of note have argued as much. I find it astaunding that there are self-styled 'libertarians' and 'classical liberals' who are opposed to secession in some or all cases. Something that just recently struck my as truly bizarre is the reaction of some people in egards to Turkish government aggression towards Kurdish secessionists. That is to say: there are people involved in the liberty movement with such a weak grasp of basic economic concepts and such a shocking lack of historical perspective that they will happily side with the imperialist Turkish regime when it comes to the Kurdish struggle for independence... "because the PKK is communist!"

Maybe an elementary lesson in history would benefit them. One might consider, for instance, that if Turkey had let the Kurds go on their merry way to indepence long ago, the communist revolutionary nonsense would never have had any appeal to the Kurds at all. Beyond that, it's a simple fact that the Kurds (who have no ethnic or linguistic relation to the Turks) don't want to be a part of Turkey. Even if they want to be communist (and I wouldn't advise it), it's still their own damn business. Turkey has occupied Kurdish land for far too long, and putting an end to that immoral occupation is simply a matter of respecting the fundamental right to self-determination.

This whole mess is the fault of Turkish imperialism in the first place. Personally, I remain convinced that at the end of World War One, both the Kurdish areas in the east of Anatolia and the Greek areas in the west ought to have been freed from Turkish rule. Instead, the Turks were allowed to continue to oppress the Kurdish people, and even to expell the Hellenes from Anatolia (where they had lived for thousands of years, long before the invading Turkish hordes ever stirred from their barbarian tents in East Asia). Civilised people ought to condemn these mistakes of history, as well as the sorry situation that has emerged as their result. Civilised people ought to support a free Kurdistan, and perhaps—just perhaps—they ought to give some consideration to the question wether the world would not be better off if 'Istanbul' would still be known as 'Constantinople'.

History clearly condemns the Turkish state, and puts the Kurds in the right. Yet even if one ignores all this, the secession of the Kurdish regions of Anatolia would still be a very good idea. Secession is always desirable, because it always improves the situation. This has been explained perfectly by professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who should perhaps be considered the greatest living thinker within the liberty movement. Writes Hoppe:

Forced integration invariably creates tension, hatred and conflict. In conflict voluntary separation leads to harmony and peace. Through secession hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual – mutually beneficial – foreign relations. Rather than promoting a downward leveling of cultures, as under forced integration, secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement.

That is to say: as long as the Turkish regime (or any regime) forcibly keeps the Kurdish people (or any unwilling people) enchained within the confines of its imperialist state, that state will suffer from internal strife. This benefits absolutely no-one, and as the conflict escales, it will actually demand a very high toll; in lives, in freedoms, and (if one is heartless and does not care for life or liberty) in wealth. Constantly fighting an internal war costs a lot. By allowing the unwilling people to secede, relations can be normalised, costs can be avoided, and profitable trade relations can be established.

Perhaps more importantly, the simple act of secession also creates a seconds polity, which automatically competes with its neighbours. It is a funamental truth of economics that competition drives down prices and drives up quality. Hoppe explains what this has historically meant in a European context:

Contrary to the political orthodoxy of the contemporary Eurocrats, precisely the fact that Europe posessed a highly decentralised power structure of countless independent political units explains the origin of capitalism – the expansion of market participation and of economic growth – in the Western world. It is not by accident that freedom and prosperity first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralisation: in the northern Italian city states, in southern Germany, and in the secessionist Low Countries. 

It is assumed that larger political units – and ultimately a single world government – imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. However, this is untrue. The larger the territories the lower a government’s incentive to continue its domestic liberalism will be because people will lose the possibility of voting with their feet. 

Hence, the argument that the Kurds should not be allowed to secede because they are "communist" is essentially ludicrous. Secession itself will ultimately benefit all involved parties, and if secession becomes standard practice, the vastly increased 'competition of nations' will make communism itself impossible to maintain. Communist statelets will simply be unable to compete.

Finally, the reasoning that secession of "communists" should be prevented because this would trap non-communist Kurds within a communist state is inconsistent and illogical. Anyone who only supports the secession of any region when freedom in that region will increase as a result (and refuses to endorse secession when freedom in the seceding region will decline) is not thinking logically.

Let us consider state A, consisting of provinces B and C. now imagine that B is very freedom-loving, whereas C is very collectivist and totalitarian. they both influence the politics and culture of A, which ends of rather moderate. Now imagine someone supporting the secession of B, because this will lead B to enjoy greater freedom... but opposing the secession of C, because this will cause C to become less free.

This makes no sense. If B secedes and becomes more free, A consists only of C, and becomes less free... which is the exact result of C's own secession! And if C secedes and becomes less free, A consists only of B and becomes more free... the same result as in the case of B's secession!

We are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that almost all secessions will result in either the seceding territory becoming more free and the remnant becoming less so... or the exact reverse. Yet in any case, as Hoppe has explained, secession ultimately increases competition between states and thus aids liberty everywhere. Therefore, secession, regardless of the ideology of the secessionists, is a good thing and ought to be supported by freedom-loving individuals. In the words of Hoppe:

Throughout the entire period of European and, indeed, global unification we have witnessed a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation and regulatory expropriation. In the light of social and economic theory and history a very strong case can be made for secession.

A very strong case indeed. One might go so far as to call it irrefutable. Therefore, the Kurds ought to be supported in their struggle for independence. And if the communist Kurds currently living in Turkey form one Kurdish state, and the non-communist Kurds in northern Iraq and syria form a separate state of their own... so much the better! The more competing territories, the greater everyone's share of freedom will ultimately be. In the past, this has worked wonders for Europe. The same applies to the Middle East. Let several Kurdish states emerge! A Yazidi state; a Druze state; an Assyrian state; an Aramaic state; a Lebanese Greek state; a Circassian state... etc. etc.

One may go on forever, splitting the large, artificial states of the present day into smaller and smaller autonomous communities. One may go on forever, but first one must commence. An independent Kurdistan would be an excellent start.


The Facebook thread discussing this article may be found here.

Old Shanghai and all that jazz…

The Shanghai waterfront in the 1930s

Nowadays, Hong Kong is generally viewed as the capitalist bastion in China; the place most friendly to Western interests and economic sensibilities. Back in the day—meaning the period stretching from the 1840s to the early 1940s—that distinction was reserved for Shanghai. The city that would become, for a time, the glamourous and decadent “Paris of the East”. A unique gateway between China and the rest of the world. A turbulent metropolis where East not only met West, but veritably merged with it. Where an old world almost seamlessly transitioned into a new one. More than any other Chinese metropole, Shanghai during this turbulent century drew in businessmen, outlaws, expatriates and adventurers from all over the world. Needless to say, that time and place continue to hold the fond interest of all true romantics.

The Green Hills of Earth

Let’s talk songs. Let’s talk poems. Let’s talk science fiction. It can’t be all politics all the time, and I like to read and write and discuss all of the aforementioned business.

And why not? After all, it’s not the essays and manifestos that bare our souls. Those reveal our minds, our intellect. For the more romantic inclination, we must often look elsewhere. And where else do we reveal as much of ourselves as in our songs? Not the mass-produced drivel that all too often pollutes the airwaves, but true songs, blessed with meter and rhyme. Our lyrical poems. These are the purest expressions of our mind, more direct and more transcendant than our prose could ever hope to be.

It is with this notion in mind that I direct your attention to the lyrical poem “The Green Hills of Earth”. A song of the future. A song of space travel. A song, above all else, of our own dear Earth. Most people familiar with it will most likely have come across it in a short story of the same name, written by Robert A. Heinlein.

It is the story of Rhysling, “the Blind Singer of the Spaceways”, whom Heinlein presents as the composer of the work in question. At this point I feel that I should tell you that it is not without reason that SFWA’s annual poetry award is called the Rhysling Award, in honour of the character that Heinlein made up to be great bard of his future history.

The future of Europe

Yesterday, I published an article discussing the many problems of the EU, which have until now gone unsolved due to the unwillingness of the Europhiles to accept that their utopian dreams are simply impossible. Arrogance has poisoned the European project beyond any hope of rescue, and it seems that arrogance will in the end destroy the EU altogether.

The question is now: how do we get rid of the bad, while preserving the good? Cooperation and good relations between the many states of Europe are by no means a bad thing. How can we preserve those elements, while dismantling the European bureacracy and the undemocratic power of Brussels? Well, if you think about it, it’s not that difficult. The only thing missing to achieve a peaceful and relatively painless end to the EU is the political will to go about it.

That’s certainly a problem, because the Eurocrats in charge are dead set on creating a centralized political union. I explained yesterday how their efforts are inherently counterproductive, serving only to sow futher animosity between the nations of Europe. If they continue to force their utopia on all of us, they even risk sparking off a civil war. That catastrophe must be avoided at all costs.

So how? What’s the alternative? That question is imperative, because Europhiles will repeat again and again that we need the EU, and that to dismantle it would be tantamount to economic suicide. What we need to do is prove them wrong, so everyone can see that there is a viable alternative to Eurofederalism. To that end, I’ve written this article: a proposal for dismantling the European Union in a peaceful and orderly manner. Because we can prevent the disastrous future currently awaiting Europe, and we can lay the ground work for a far better future for us all.

When will the Europhiles learn their lesson?

Countless citizens of EU-member states are asking themselves “Where are we going?”, and with good reason. The European Union is tearing itself apart through bad policy and undemocratic efforts at forced centralization of power. It is entirely unclear where this road will lead the many nations of Europe, but the notion that all of them will eventually end up in the same place is becoming increasingly unlikely. An outcome long held unthinkable – the break-up of the EU – is steadily becoming inevitable.

The Europhiles in Brussels and across the EU will hear nothing of it. Just as they have done for decades, they dismiss the notion of the EU being split up as nothing more than small-minded chauvinism. It is easy, however, to portray your opponents as small-minded. It is much harder to actually prove them wrong. In this case, it might not be possible at all: the Eurosceptics have been proven right time and again since the start of the global financial crisis.

In fact, it turns out that the “small-minded chauvinists” have, in fact, for years and years been the most forward-thinking people in Europe. It was the Eurosceptics who forsaw that expansion of the “European family” (as Europhiles lovingly call it) was going too fast: many new member states were simply not yet ready. The cultural and economic mindsets of Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe were insufficiently aligned to accommodate a grand unification project.

These warnings were ignored, but it turns out they should have been heeded instead. Similarly, the Eurosceptics warned that the institutions of the Union were not democratic enough, and that there was not (yet) enough popular support for the EU among the peoples of Europe. Again, they cautioned, more time was needed. But no – the Europhiles pushed for more centralization, at the expense of national sovereignty and popular democracy. The EU thus became a project of the elite, disliked by the people at large.

The grand misconception of the Europhiles was that they would be able to shape Europe as they wanted: that they could force their utopian ideal on the people without any resistance at all, and everyone would come to love their creation as much as they did. Simply put: the Europhiles behaved like a bunch of arrogant tossers. As a result, they – and everyone else in Europe – are now faced with the results of their hubris. Many countries weren’t ready for a monetary union, and precicely due to that single currency, their economic woes are also ravaging the countries that were ready. The people have come to hate the EU, rather than love it.