Thursday, December 26, 2024

The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Imperial America

Facebook

Image by Paul Weaver.

Some 2,000 years ago, an itinerant preacher, Saul of Tarsus, was writing to a wayward congregation in Corinth, Greece. Curiously enough, his words still capture the epochal change that may await us just over history’s horizon. “For now we see in a glass, darkly,” he wrote. “Now I know in part, but then shall I know fully.”

Indeed, mesmerized by a present filled with spellbinding events ranging from elections to wars, we, too, gaze into a darkened glass unable to see how the future might soon unfold before our eyes — a future full of signs that the four empires that have long dominated our world are all crumbling.

Since the Cold War ended in 1990, four legacy empires — those of China, France, Russia, and the United States — have exercised an undue influence over almost every aspect of international affairs. From the soft power of fashion, food, and sports to the hard power of arms, trade, and technology, those four powers have, each in its own way, helped to set the global agenda for the past 35 years. By dominating vast foreign territories, both militarily and economically, they have also enjoyed extraordinary wealth and a standard of living that’s been the envy of the rest of the world. If they now give way in a collective version of collapse, instead of one succeeding another, we may come to know a new world order whose shape is as yet unimaginable.

An Empire Once Called Françafrique

Let’s start with the French neocolonial imperium in northern Africa, which can teach us much about the way our world order works and why it’s fading so fast. As a comparatively small state essentially devoid of natural resources, France won its global power through the sort of sheer ruthlessness — cutthroat covert operations, gritty military interventions, and cunning financial manipulations — that the three larger empires are better able to mask with the aura of their awesome power.

For 60 years after its formal decolonization of northern Africa in 1960, France used every possible diplomatic device, overt and covert, fair and foul, to incorporate 14 African nations into a neo-colonial imperium covering a quarter of Africa that critics called Françafrique. The architect of that post-colonial confection was Jacques Foccart, a Parisian “man of the shadows.” From 1960 to 1997, using 150 agents in the Africa section of the state’s secret service, he managed that neocolonial enterprise as France’s “presidential adviser for Africa,” while cultivating a web of personal connections to presidential palaces across the northern part of that continent.

As part of that postcolonial empire, French paratroopers (among the world’s toughest special forces) shuttled in and out of northern Africa, conducting more than 40 interventions from 1960 to 2002. Meanwhile, more than a dozen client states there shared autocratic leaders shrouded in vivid personality cults, systemic corruption, and state terror. In that way, Paris ensured the tenure of compliant dictators like Omar Bongo, president of the oil-rich country of Gabon from 1967 to 2009. Apart from exporting their raw materials almost exclusively to France, the firm economic foundation for Françafrique lay in a common currency, the CFA franc, which gave the French treasury almost complete fiscal control over its former colonies.

From Paris’s perspective, the aim of the game was the procurement of cut-rate commodities — minerals, oil, and uranium — critical for its industrial economy. To that end, Foccart proved a master of the dark arts, dispatching mercenaries and assassins in covert operations meant to eternally maximize French influence.

The exemplary state in Françafrique was undoubtedly Gabon, then a poor country of just a half-million people rich in forestry concessions, uranium mines, and oil fields. When the country’s first president was being treated for fatal cancer in a Paris hospital in 1967, Foccart manipulated its elections to install Omar Bongo, a French intelligence veteran, who was then only 31.

As political opposition to his corrupt rule intensified in 1971, Foccart’s office dispatched notorious assassin and mercenary Bob Denard. When a key opposition leader arrived home from the movies one night, “Mr. Bob” stepped from the shadows and gunned the man down in front of his wife and child. The Foccart network also secured Bongo’s rule by training the presidential guard and forming a security force to protect French oil facilities there.

Through rigged elections in 1993, 1998, and 2005, Bongo clung to power while French officials enabled his graft, facilitating more than $100 million yearly in illicit payments from France’s leading oil company. When he finally died in 2009, his son Ali-Ben Bongo succeeded him, inheriting 33 luxury properties in France worth $190 million and a country a third of whose population lived in misery on the equivalent of two dollars a day. But in August 2023, after one too many rigged elections, Ali Bongo was finally toppled by a military coup, ending a dynasty that had lasted nearly six decades.

As it turned out, his downfall would be a harbinger for the fate of Françafrique. During the preceding decade, France had deployed some 5,000 elite troops to fight Islamic terrorists in six nations in Africa’s Sahel region, an arid strip of territory extending across the continent just south of the Sahara Desert.

By 2020, however, nationalist consciousness against repeated transgressions of their sovereignty was rising in many of those relatively new countries, putting pressure on French forces to withdraw. As its troops were expelled from Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, Russia’s secretive Wagner Group of mercenaries moved in and, by 2023, had become increasingly active there. Just last month, the foreign minister of Chad announced that it was time for his country “to assert its sovereignty” by expelling French forces from their last foothold in the Sahel, effectively ending Françafrique after 60 years of neocolonial dominion.

In those same months, Chad also expelled a U.S. Special Forces training unit, while nearby Niger cancelled U.S. Air Force access to Air Base 201 (which it had built at a cost of $110 million), leaving Russia the sole foreign power active in the region.

Russia’s Fragile Empire

While France’s African imperium was driven by economic imperatives, the revival of Russia’s empire, starting early in this century, has been all about geopolitics. During the last years of the Cold War, from 1989 to 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, with Moscow losing an empire of seven Eastern European satellite states and 15 “republics” that would become 22 free-market democratic nations.

In 2005, calling the collapse of the Soviet Union the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Russian President Vladimir Putin set about reclaiming parts of the old Soviet sphere — invading Georgia in 2008, when it began flirting with NATO membership; deploying troops in 2020-2021 to resolve a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan; and dispatching thousands of Russian special forces to Kazakhstan in central Asia in 2022 to gun down pro-democracy protesters challenging a loyal Russian ally.

Moscow’s main push, however, was into the old Soviet sphere of Eastern Europe, where, after a rigged election in 2020, Putin backed Belarus strongman Alexander Lukashenko in crushing the democratic opposition, making Minsk a virtual client state. Meanwhile, he pressed relentlessly against Ukraine after the ouster of his loyal surrogate there in the 2014 Maidan “color revolution” — first seizing Crimea, then arming separatist rebels in the eastern Donbas region adjacent to Russia, and finally invading the country with nearly 200,000 troops in 2022.

But perhaps Putin’s boldest move was a little-understood geopolitical flanking maneuver against NATO, played out across two continents. Starting in 2015, Moscow hopped over the NATO barrier of Turkey by setting up a naval base and an airfield in northern Syria and began a bombing campaign that would soon reduce cities like Aleppo to rubble to keep its ally, President Bashar al-Assad, in power in Damascus. In 2021, Moscow skipped over another U.S. ally, Israel, and began supplying Egypt with two dozen of its advanced Sukhoi-35 jet fighters so its airmen could compete with Israelis flying American F-35s. Completing Russia’s push into the region, Putin built upon shared interests as oil exporters to befriend Saudi Arabia’s uncrowned leader, Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Using his Syrian bases as a springboard, his final geopolitical gambit was a pivot across North Africa from Sudan to Mali conducted covertly by a notorious crew of Russian mercenaries called the Wagner Group.

In recent weeks, however, Putin’s geopolitical construct suffered a serious blow when rebels suddenly swept into Damascus, sending Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad fleeing to Moscow and ending his family’s more than 50 years in power. After suffering a stunning 700,000 casualties and the loss of 5,000 armored vehicles in three years of constant warfare in Ukraine, Russia had simply stretched its geopolitical reach too far and no longer had sufficient aircraft to defend Assad. In fact, there are signs that Russia is pulling out of its Syrian bases and so losing a key pivot for power projection in the Mediterranean and northern Africa.

Meanwhile, as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte condemned the “escalating campaign of Russia’s hostile actions” and its attempt to “crush our freedom and way of life,” Western Europe began ramping up its defense industries and cutting its economic ties to Russia. If Senator John McCain was right when, in 2014, he called Russia “a gas station masquerading as a country,” then the rapid switch to alternative energy across Eurasia could, within a decade, rob Moscow of the finances for further adventures, reducing Russia, now also harried by economic sanctions, to a distinctly secondary regional power.

The Limits of China’s Power

For the past 30 years, China’s transformation from a poor peasant society into an urban industrial powerhouse has been the single most dramatic development in modern history. Indeed, its relentless rise as the planet’s top industrial power has given it both international economic influence and formidable military power, exemplified by a trillion-dollar global development program and the world’s largest navy. Unlike the other empires of our era that have expanded via overseas bases and military intervention, China has only acted militarily on contiguous territory — invading Tibet in the 1950s, claiming the South China Sea during the past decade, and endlessly maneuvering (ever more militarily) to subdue Taiwan. Had China’s unprecedented annual growth rate continued for another five years, Beijing might well have attained the means to become the globe’s preeminent power.

But there are ample signs that its economic juggernaut may have reached its limits under a Communist command-economy. Indeed, it now appears that, in clamping an ever-tighter grip on Chinese society by pervasive surveillance, the Communist Party may be crippling the creativity of its talented citizenry.

After a rapid 10-fold expansion in university education that produced 11 million graduates by 2022, China’s youth unemployment suddenly doubled to 20% and continued climbing to 21.3% a year later. In a panic, Beijing manipulated its statistical methods to produce a lower figure and began fabricating numbers to conceal a youth unemployment rate that may already have reached 30% or even 40%. The potential power of youth to break the hold of the communist state was evident in November 2022, when protests against zero-Covid lockdowns erupted in at least 17 cities across China, with countless thousands of youths chanting, “Need human rights, need freedom,” and calling for President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party to “step down.”

The country’s macroeconomic statistics are growing ever grimmer as well. After decades of rip-roaring growth, its gross domestic product, which peaked at 13%, has recently slumped to 4.6%. Adding to its invisible economic crisis, by 2022 the country’s 31 provinces had shouldered crippling public debts that, the New York Times reported, reached an extraordinary “$9.5 trillion, equivalent to half the country’s economy,” and some 20 major cities have since leaped into the abyss by spending wildly to give the economy a pulse. Seeking markets beyond its flagging domestic economy, China, which already accounted for 60% of global electric vehicle purchases, is launching a massive export drive for its cut-rate electric cars which is about to crash headlong into rising tariff walls globally.

Even China’s daunting military may be a bit of a paper tiger. After years of cloning foreign weapons, Beijing’s arms exports have reportedly dropped in recent years after buyers found them technologically inferior and unreliable on the battlefield. And keep in mind that, even as its military technology has continued to advance, China hasn’t fought a war in nearly 50 years.

Nonetheless, President Xi keeps promising the Chinese people that Taiwan’s reunification with “the motherland is a historical inevitability.” However, should Beijing launch a war on Taiwan, whether to fulfill its promise or distract its people from growing economic problems, the result could prove catastrophic. Its inexperience with combined arms — the complex coordination of air, sea, and land forces — could lead to disastrous losses during any attempted amphibious invasion, and even a victory could do profound damage to its export economy.

The End of the American Century

When it comes to that other great imperial force on Planet Earth, let’s face it, Donald Trump’s second term is likely to mark the end of America’s near-century as the world’s preeminent superpower. After 80 years of near-global hegemony, there are arguably five crucial elements necessary for the preservation of U.S. world leadership: robust military alliances in Asia and Europe, healthy capital markets, the dollar’s role as the globe’s reserve currency, a competitive energy infrastructure, and an agile national security apparatus.

However, surrounded by sycophants and suffering the cognitive decline that accompanies aging, Trump seems determined to exercise his untrammeled will above all else. That, in turn, essentially guarantees the infliction of damage in each of those areas, even if in different ways and to varying degrees.

America’s unipolar power at the end of the Cold War era has, of course, already given way to a multipolar world. Previous administrations carefully tended the NATO alliance in Europe, as well as six overlapping bilateral and multilateral defense pacts in the sprawling Indo-Pacific region. With his vocal hostility toward NATO, particularly its crucial mutual-defense clause, Trump is likely to leave that alliance significantly damaged, if not eviscerated. In Asia, he prefers to cozy up to autocrats like China’s Xi or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un instead of cultivating democratic allies like Australia or South Korea. Add to that his conviction that such allies are freeloaders who need to pay up and America’s crucial Indo-Pacific alliances are unlikely to prosper, possibly prompting South Korea and Japan to leave the U.S. nuclear umbrella and become thoroughly independent powers.

Convinced above all else of his own “genius,” Trump seems destined to damage the key economic components of U.S. global power. With his inclination to play favorites with tariff exemptions and corporate regulation, his second term could give the term “crony capitalism” new meaning, while degrading capital markets. His planned tax cuts will add significantly to the federal deficit and national debt, while degrading the dollar’s global clout, which has already dropped significantly in the past four years.

In defiance of reality, he remains wedded to those legacy energy sources, coal, oil, and natural gas. In recent years, however, the cost of electricity from solar and wind power has dropped to half that of fossil fuels and is still falling. For the past 500 years, global power has been synonymous with energy efficiency. As Trump tries to stall America’s transition to green energy, he’ll cripple the country’s competitiveness in countless ways, while doing ever more damage to the planet.

Nor do his choices for key national security posts bode well for U.S. global power. If confirmed as defense secretary, Peter Hegseth, a Fox News commentator with a track record of maladministration, lacks the experience to begin to manage the massive Pentagon budget. Similarly, Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has no experience in that highly technical field and seems prone to the sort of conspiracy theories that will cloud her judgment when it comes to accurate intelligence assessments. Finally, the nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, is already promising to punish the president’s domestic critics rather than pursue foreign agents through counterintelligence, the bureau’s critical responsibility.

By the time Trump retires (undoubtedly to accolades from his devoted followers), he will have compressed two decades of slow imperial decline into a single presidential term, effectively ending Washington’s world leadership significantly before its time.

A New World Order?

So, you might ask, if those four empires do crumble or even collapse, what comes next? The forces of change are so complex that I doubt anyone can offer a realistic vision of the sort of world order (or disorder) that might emerge. But it does seem as if we are indeed approaching a historical watershed akin to the end of World War II or the close of the Cold War, when an old order fails with utter finality and a new order, whether redolent with promise or laden with menace, seems inevitable.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

On Organized Religion and Prophets in History… 

 December 26, 2024
Facebook

Zoroastrian Eternal Flame at the Fire Temple in Yazd, Central Iran. Photograph Source: Adam Jones – CC BY-SA 2.0

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” — Carl Sagan

Religious prophets, far from the nonsensical concoctions most have come to understand them as, were really radical dissidents—potentially militant given the times—and who supported, belonged to or led working class movements fighting for more egalitarian measures against tyrannical state power. All throughout organized human history, people have sought saviors whom they imagine will appear in the form of prophets, who will articulate our goals in clear language, and guide our practical action with such clear methods, that all we need do is surrender with a full heart, commit entirely to “the cause”, and then continue to act in accordance with a sense of the principles we have attributed to “the Prophet,” whose fulfilment guarantees us an eternal paradise.

This paradise can be here on earth, as in the case of Orthodox Marxism, or, more frequently, in a promised “afterlife”, as in the case of most organized religions throughout history. Regardless of the metaphysical or material presentation of the problem, the promise is the same–you can shed all the natural human reactions that arise in response to witnessing and experiencing the world in which we actually live–horror, disgust, disdain at the hypocrisy–and instead feel righteous, morally correct, and ultimately destined to be rewarded, if you contribute to the existing system of power, belief and justification in a manner that is sanctioned by the forces which dominate the sociopolitical system at a particular time.

PROPHETS: ANCIENT & CONTEMPORARY

To be believe this, though, is deeply ironic considering how past radicals—take Jesus and Muhammad as examples—tend to have have had their teachings bastardized throughout history. Interestingly enough, if one is looking for historical parallels between prophets of past and contemporary times, it’s easy to find them with how the work of people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Karl Marx has been distorted to serve the interests of power. In the US, and the Western world more generally, Dr. King is celebrated by governments and the corporate sector alike as a pioneering hero of social progress, given the victories of the Civil Rights Movement he helped bring to the forefront of public discourse.

Though there haven’t been as many advancements when it comes to the other messages in King’s work that he’s conveniently, and intentionally, less known for—anti-war, anti-poverty/establishment economics, etc. The military industrial complex and rampant inequality in the US, and indeed globally, has only worsened in years since during the neoliberal era. And whenever Lenin or any paramount leader of a Marxist or supposed “Communist” regime quotes or references Marx’s work to justify what they’re doing, we should be immediately reminded of how the words of prophets like Jesus and Muhammad have been misinterpreted, misrepresented and ultimately used as pretexts for public policies that serve the interests of state power rather than that of ordinary people.

Jesus, Muhammad and most other prophets were, in all probability, real people or combinations of several historical figures—most experts and historians agree on this—but they didn’t exist like we are *supposed* to remember them, nor do Marx or Dr. King at this point.

To quote historian and expert on religious studies, John Dominic Crossan: “Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. He was crucified because he threatened Roman stability—not as a sacrifice to God for humanity’s sins.”

State sanctioned organized religion asks humans to sacrifice (to the institutions; the church/state) in the immediate for the hope of heaven and eternal happiness in the future, while the priesthood is charged as the guardians of sacred doctrinal truth. Rather familiar to how a dogmatic and fundamentalist belief in Marxism-Leninism asks you to do the same—sacrifice yourself to a miserable working class present for the hope of a free and socialist future, while the institutions maintain their power and control.

At this point most contemporary human societies have collectively come to worship “market” ideological principles rather than that of any state sanctioned religion. Instead of economic life centering around the church and state as its institutions, economies are now owned by handfuls of corporations who, in conjunction with corporate-funded politicians controlling the levers of power, dominate everything. All the while, citizens are urged to passively consume, work obediently and trust the supposed benevolence of the corporate state’s ideologues, all examples of human exploitation and pure faith.

ESCHATOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

One often overlooked aspect of prophecy is what is known as ‘eschatology’. Eschatology is the belief in an apocalypse—the belief that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end. Not all societies, nor all religions, are eschatological—Hinduism or the ancient Egyptian religion for example, as well as Chinese society, hold the view that time and the universe are cyclic in a never ending wheel. Whether a society is eschatological or not can make a massive impact on its outlook and its response to crises, and Western society is deeply eschatological. This includes even those who refer to themselves as atheists.

As an example of how drastically different societal responses to crises can be depending on their stance toward eschatology, take Ancient Egypt. They had two corollary concepts–Ma’at (balance, order, truth, justice) and Isfet (disorder, decay, chaos, lies). Its society actually collapsed twice—we call these the first and second intermediary periods. The collapses were brutal, as they often are—hunger, chaos, a third of the population dying—but the Egyptians saw this as a period of Isfet, which was bound to rejuvenate into another period of Ma’at. So you have a society that actually collapsed, but simply saw their condition as a part of the natural cycle.

Similarly, when Chinese empires have collapsed in history, and new dynasties took over—often times in bloody civil wars—no one thought of burning all the libraries and destroying all evidence of the preceding civilization. They simply felt the “mandate of Heaven” had passed to a new ruler.

Now where did eschatology enter into Western thought? There is little evidence of it in early Yahwist writings. They seem to have originated with Zoroastrianism, which posits that there is a good god (Ahura Mazda) and an evil god (Anra Maynu) who are locked in a battle over good and evil, and that there will be a final cataclysm. The contemporary way to interpret this belief is that human beings have a choice between righteousness and greed; it is our job as a species to make sure that solidarity and truth trumps evil and deception. This leads to a very different worldview. Contrast this with Egyptian beliefs—sure, sometimes Isfet might need to be employed to avoid greater evil, say, if a neighboring civilization keeps attacking you. But you can’t pretend destruction and enslavement are Ma’at; and so you must return to balance as soon as you can. On the other hand, in the Zoroastrian worldview, evil must be destroyed. But a problem arises—who defines what is evil?

The Zoroastrian prophet Mazdak believed it was the state that was evil, as it used violence to maintain its power; he believed ownership was evil as it represented greed; and he even believed marriage was a form of ownership. He advocated for a conception of what we might term polyamory, and a communal raising of children that would make parentage impossible to determine, and thereby eliminate the lines of succession that led to accumulation of wealth and power. One can imagine what happened to him—he and his followers were slaughterered. But to return to the question of how eschatology entered into western thought—the Judean elites were taken into captivity in Babylon in 597 BCE; then freed by the Persians, who were Zoroastrians, in 539. The Persian King Cyrus funded the rebuilding of the temple. It seems that this is where eschatology entered into Judaism, and from there into Christianity, and ultimately into broader Western thought.

In modern times almost everyone in the West is an eschatologist. Even, as mentioned, avowed atheists. The form this often takes is the belief that we are going to end the world in a nuclear apocalypse. While this is a most definitely a possibility, people have believed this before—in the 1920s and 30s, everyone was certain the Second World War would end civilization within weeks. After all, we had aircraft bombers and would flatten each others cities in days. Of course that didn’t happen, but in the chaos of the war the Holocaust—a horror no one had expected or foreseen—unfolded. The legacy of Thomas Malthus and the Malthusian catastrophe has haunted us like a spectre—Western societies still mostly fear we are running out of resources, and instead of slowing down our reproduction and consumption, we race against each other to make sure our own nation will be the one best fit to survive the inevitable catastrophe.

Of course in the US there are a large number of Christians who expect to be raptured in their lifetimes, but even the idea that a nuclear war would destroy the world is a tad overblown. There have been over 2,000 nuclear tests since World War II, and we haven’t seen any traces of nuclear winter. It is us, at the top of the pyramid, who are actually the most vulnerable as well. If we decided to go to nuclear war with each other, those who pick our bananas in tropical countries would likely be relieved that they could return to their previous lives of subsistence agriculture, fishing, and so on. The few remaining hunter gatherer tribes–the Khoi-San, the tribes in the Amazon–would see their biggest threat remove itself.

It is primarily those in the global north who would starve in the nuclear winter without shipments of food from tropical countries, and who would freeze without electricity infrastructure or imports of oil and gas from other nations. While the risk of nuclear holocaust is certainly real—being that humans possess enough weapons of mass destruction to blow up the world several times over—it doesn’t seem particularly likely given the existential consequences—which includes those with their fingers on the button. While those at the heart of crafting state policy in the apex centers of power are ruthless barbarians chasing power and profit, and while we are closer to a nuclear conflict than perhaps any time other than the Cuban missile crisis—we have to believe (hope?) they are at least wise enough to not start a nuclear war between opposing empires. But while full out nuclear war is, in all likelihood, not going to occur anytime soon, the same cannot be said for the trajectory of organized human civilization with regards to the rapidly evolving climate crisis that’s only just beginning to wreak havoc and destroy our fragile ecosystem. In this sense, the aforementioned eschatological atheists who view our impending doom as inevitable may have a point. After all, even non-western societies have largely been doubling down on policies that effectively kill the environment and the prospects of human survival.

THE NEW PHILOSOPHY

This approach has its roots in the expansion of consumerism and public relations over the last century-plus—which has now spread across the entire globe during the neoliberal era—and champions individual material gain as the driving factor of human life. Is it any wonder that our global “leaders” seem content to enact harmful environmental policies and ignore the existential threat staring us all in the face? Everyone is, more or less, worshipping market principles that are destined to destroy us. In the time of what anthropologist and activist David Graeber called the ‘Age of the Great Capitalist Empires’—roughly the last 500 years or so when Western culture, practices and thought essentially conquered the globe—capitalism and a strict adherence to market ideology seems to be humanity’s response to the failures of antiquity and the Middle Ages, as well as the discovery of modern science which freed us from theology but offers little hope in the empty void of space.

Consider a thought from English philosopher Bertrand Russell: “The ancient world found an end to anarchy in the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire was a brute fact, not an idea. The Catholic world sought an end to anarchy in the church, which was an idea, but was never adequately embodied in fact. Neither the ancient nor the medieval solution was satisfactory—the one because it could not be idealized, the other because it could not be actualized. The modern world, at present, seems to be moving towards a solution like that of antiquity: a social order imposed by force, representing the will of the powerful rather than the hopes of the common men. The problem of a durable and satisfactory social order can only be solved by combining the solidarity of the Roman Empire with the idealism of St. Augustine’s City of God. To achieve this a new philosophy will be needed.”

If human coexistence is going to continue and flourish, then it’s an absolute necessity that people grapple with the fundamental reality of the human experience being both deeply individual and communal, which both Marxism and Fascism are at odds with. We all have individual tastes and desires, as well as a collective humanity, and it is often the need to fit in or belong in a shared sense of community that is exploited by powerful interests intent on maintaining their privileged position. It’s our task as human beings to remain intellectual free agents, who are critical and individual thinkers, while at the same time being acutely aware of our collective potential and circumstances. Our options at this point of globalized connectivity are a path towards socialism, egalitarianism and an assurance of human rights—at least as much as possible—or hyper-individualism, barbarism and a kind of neofascist groupthink that brings about the worst possible traits of human beings.

FINAL THOUGHTS

To suggest that there’s an all powerful force of morality (be it a God, King, state priest, radical revolutionary or corporation) controlling everything with benevolence is an exceedingly human thing to believe. And though these figureheads and religions that people have worshipped all throughout history are continually proven to be false idols, it never seems to stop humans in subsequent generations from creating their own hierarchal institutional structures and justifying the exploitive practices on the grounds of doctrines based on hope and faith rather than empirical evidence and truth. The idea of “God” was never supposed to be about religion, nor were the messages of prophets; they’re about a spiritual bond with existing and having compassion for your fellow humans. Call God the “Laws of the Universe” or even the “Grand Electron” to quote the great George Carlin. I don’t know of any long bearded and white-skinned male in the sky judging the actions of mankind but it would be sheer insanity to deny the existence of physical laws.

Also worth mentioning is the subdivision that exists within Christianity: Constantinian and Prophetic. The Roman empire co-opted the Christian Movement when it couldn’t control it and at that point it became a defanged tool of the state known as Constantinian Christianity, the dominant form. Prophetic Christianity, on the other hand, draws on the prophetic legacy of Jesus; humility, loving your neighbors, helping the poor, social justice and dissent. Think of Cornel West, Chris Hedges, William Barber II, Martin Luther King Jr., John Brown, etc. Christianity wasn’t intended to be a religious cult with a deified figure (neither were Communism and Karl Marx); as Crossan said, it was a movement based around ideas that threatened the interests of the Roman ruling class. Which is why it had to be stopped. As power so often does, the elites of Rome adopted it and exploited the nature of the movement, weakening the real intent and threat to power that came from its prophetic tradition. This also sounds rather familiar to how “Communist” leaders adopted the socialist movement and destroyed its ideals immediately while consolidating their own power.

Prophets, as mentioned, are really best understood as ancient radical dissidents and intellectuals, with the word ‘prophet’ itself a poor translation of the Hebrew word ‘Navi’. Including Moses, Amos, Muhammad, etc. They gave geopolitical analyses, argued that the acts of ruling elites were going to destroy society, condemned evil kings, had a more humanitarian vision of social organization and engaged in their own versions of what we would call “theory” today. And these types of people weren’t praised or honored, as dissidents never are. They are imprisoned or assassinated like Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Debs, Gramsci, Dr. King, Malcolm X, etc. These people were hated by privileged interests, condemned and driven into the desert, or martyred. However, there were flatterers of the court, intellectuals treated very well, as there always are. Centuries later these types would come to be known as ‘false prophets’. Think of intellectuals you’ve seen in the public sphere praising the status quo or those who seized and serve state power (Thomas Friedman, Salman Rushdie, John F Kennedy, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, etc) for your modern view of a false prophet.

It’s also worth remembering that Jesus was the most quoted prophet in the Quran, while Muhammad was the most mentioned, though Constantinian Christianity wants desperately for us to think of them as holding entirely separate ideals. Interesting contexts often left out of these discussions when considering who these people really were.

Throughout history most of the intellectual class serves power. This has been true since the days of Sumer or Egypt’s United First Dynasty all the way through the Romans and up to the British, Russians and Americans. However, prophets were radicals whose teachings went against the status quo or prevailing order. When their challenges go too far, they are often killed or relegated to the dustbin of history, and their messages co-opted by the exact powerful state and moneyed interests that they’d been preaching against. But Western prophecy and culture contains another danger—eschatology.

When societies believe in a cyclic universe and experience collapse, they simply feel they are in a phase that will inevitably return to the positive. On the other hand, when those who live in eschatological societies (and we’ve, more or less, managed to become a single globalized society the last couple centuries) see so much as a crack in the wall, they believe the end is nigh and this actually causes them to behave in ways that bring about catastrophes which may otherwise have been avoided. In the postmodern philosophical era we are living through, it is often this nihilistic attitude that permeates intellectual discourse regarding human history and our nature as a species.

There seems to be a real continuity with postmodernism, the modern propaganda system inducing people to become pointless consumers while annihilating truth, and the policies enacted by modern states that are championed by public intellectuals intent on serving the interests of economic elites and their paid-for political mandarins. Any complex and organized society in human history has a fringe of dissidents who go against the state and are met with force, often death. If people like Dr. King, Malcolm X and Marx existed back in the days of Jesus and the Romans, they would likely have met similar fates. Especially when considering how the lives of so many modern prophets have ended in tragedy and their work twisted or left intentionally incomplete to serve corporate and state power.

Eric Elliott is an educator who writes on geopolitics, philosophy, history and social justice. Grant Inskeep is an activist from Denver, Colorado currently based out of Phoenix, Arizona. He writes on socioeconomics, philosophy and geopolitics on Instagram @the_pragmatic_utopian.

Solstice, Bloody Solstice: Thoughts on the Darkest Day





Facebook

What the Romans called “the new sun” has risen. The seed catalogs are arriving and while the wood stove’s fire struggles against the strengthening cold, a new year is being born. This theme of death and rebirth, ebb and the flow has long occupied human thought and practice. Huge stones, hauled great distances and erected with astronomical precision at places like Stonehenge, for ritual observance testify to the long fascination this season has held for we shivering tenants, squatting on the “third stone from the sun.”

As Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) organized they tended to displace such “pagan” observance while appropriating their important ceremonial dates. Thus, we flock to stores rather than stones to ritualize the Christmas convention. Theoretically the jealous Sky God is pleased.

Meanwhile, Gazan children, mothers, doctors, nurses and “relief” workers die in the thousands from gleefully delivered U.S. munitions, while “excess deaths” and falling life expectancies are “delivered” stateside to our distracted and downscale population. Ralph Nader has argued that in Gaza, “The probative evidence …. points to over 300,000 deaths and almost the entire population of 2.3 million Palestinians sick or injured without medical treatment, shelter, food, clean water, electricity and fuel.”

Nader and the organization he founded, Public Citizen, have been reporting on and organizing against corporate criminality for decades. Yet here the story is similar to Gaza in some ways. In January 2023 the annual “point-in-time” count set a record of 653,104 Americans “experiencing” homelessness.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reports that 26 million of us are “experiencing” life without health insurance—— which translates into what the wonks call “worse health outcomes” —— more sickness, early death, pain, and suffering.

In more civilized countries (not subject to US sanctions,  bombing, partition, and resource theft) universal healthcare, housing and education are broadly shared. Lately the media have been enthusing about allegedly good news from Syria, where (reportedly woke) jihadi forces have taken power.

On August 31, 2013, Barack Obama issued a presidential “Finding,” (based on alleged use of WMD) officially committing the United States to the removal of Syria’s  secular government. He pledged to “support the Syrian people (sic) through our pressure on the Assad regime.” He pledged support to what he called “the opposition” which consisted mostly of Islamist fighters, Kurdish separatists and “color revolutionists.” Almost 10 years later, it  apparently all worked out.

Back in 2016, I stumbled across a piece by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Politico; “Why the Arabs Don’t Want Us In Syria.” He began, “Because my father was murdered by an Arab, I’ve made an effort to understand the impact of U.S. policy in the Mideast….”

Kennedy went on to recite a pretty straightforward (William Blum-style) history of hope-killing largely unknown to Americans but well understood in the Arab world. “The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949——barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had…. created a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in 1949 Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria.” The CIA, in typical fashion engineered a coup (see “Legacy of Ashes,” by CIA historian Tim Weiner). More coups and counter-coups followed. By 1955, CIA Director  Dulles declared that, “Syria is ripe for a coup” again. He dispatched Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt and “Rocky” Stone, fresh from their coup against the elected president of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh and the installation of a ruthless king/“Shah” Reza Pahlavi on his “Peacock Throne.”  Mosaddegh’s Iran, you see, had “nationalized” its oil and was bent on using the proceeds to benefit its population: An unpardonable sin also committed by Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and other upstart nations.  But I digress.

In his 2016 Politico piece Kennedy argued that “We should let the Arabs govern Arabia and turn our energies to…. nation building at home.” That’s not what we did—— exactly.

But now that our Islamist proxy HTS has taken Damascus journalist Kit Klarenberg reports (SeeScheerPost 12/18/24) that, “one thing seems assured——the country will be broken open to Western economic exploitation at long last.”

“Syria’s economic independence and strength ….and the benefits reaped by average citizens,…. were never acknowledged in the mainstream before or during the decade-long proxy war. Yet, countless reports from major international institutions underline this reality…now vanquished, never to return. For example, an April 2015 World Health Organization document noted how Damascus  “had one of the best-developed healthcare systems in the Arab world.”

“Per a 2018 UN investigation, ‘universal, free healthcare was extended to all Syrian citizens  who ‘enjoyed  some of the highest levels of care in the region.’” (Klarenberg)

In 2022 HTS pledged to “open up local markets to the global economy.” Their “free-market model” promises big profits for insurance corporations and a climate-killing trans-Syrian pipeline at last.

Happy  (bloody) Solstice.

Richard Rhames is a dirt-farmer in Biddeford, Maine (just north of the Kennebunkport town line). He can be reached at: rerhames@gmail.com