You're might be spoiling the Brexit side's reputation as a fact free zone. Just imagine Randblade admitting that Johnson actually did equate the EU with the Third Reich.Originally Posted by Aimless
Oh, well, who am I fooling.
You're might be spoiling the Brexit side's reputation as a fact free zone. Just imagine Randblade admitting that Johnson actually did equate the EU with the Third Reich.
Oh, well, who am I fooling.
Congratulations America
While Johnson did compare one aspect of EU with some aspects of the ambitions of Hitler, Napoleon etc. that does not mean the similarity is such that it should inspire or justify armed resistance of the same kind as the former attempts were met with let alone the murder of an innocent civilian. The resistance appropriate to this modern endeavour to create a unified Europe is exactly what you're seeing: political debate, a referendum, possibly an ordered and negotiated withdrawal in the near future.
The comparison was wrong and extremely dumb. However it had two important purposes. One was to associate the EU with Hitler and Napoleon and sure Brits like RB love that stuff, dumb as it is. The other purpose was to express in a strong and colorful way the following thoughts:
Trying to associate the EU with Hitler and Napoleon is about as misguided as trying to associate Johnson's remark with the murder of Jo Cox. I mean, I kinda get how you might wanna take potshots like that, but there's no benefit to stooping to the level of those people."But fundamentally what is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe.
"There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not. . . entirely. If you're opposed to the idea of a unified Europe, if you like the idea of independent and homogenous political communities, then it is entirely apropos. It's not about the means used to unify the continent. And the UK has quite a number of these people. I'm not familiar with Johnson and don't know if he's one of them but the UK is a political entity which seems to favor even further devolution from what it has right now.
Hitler and Napoleon are, in fact, the only good comparisons to reach for in modern history. The next closest analog is the early-to-mid HRE and the socio-political context of that construction was so radically different from that utilized in modern times it would be meaningless. By the time the HRE reached a more recognizable form if had lost so much of its coherency that it made confederacies look monolithic. The EU is already well beyond the HRE in the forms it took in the last five centuries.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
This is like equating Gandhi and Hirohito because they both wanted greater rights for Asians: technically true, but that's not what one of them was mainly known for.
Hope is the denial of reality
And what are they supposed to use as an example? It is, at the very least, no more correct to treat the EU as completely sui generis for these people than to make the allusions Johnson did. The EU is an exercise in building an empire.This is like equating Gandhi and Hirohito because they both wanted greater rights for Asians: technically true, but that's not what one of them was mainly known for.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Nothing. Because the PEACEFUL unification of a continent is unprecedented, and this is precisely what the EU known for. HRE would be the closest analogy, though not a great one. The only reason to mention Hitler is because of Godwin.
Hope is the denial of reality
OK, this deserves the answer that you are writing utter bullshit. You basically have lost the authority to express anything about the EU by saying the EU is an exercise in building an empire.
The EU was from the beginning a conflict solving mechanism to prevent conflict solving through the more traditional means of inter-european war. Your post becomes even more ridiculous if one takes into acount that you are an American; your country has been - more than anything else - the driving force in the process that got European unity on the way.
And by all means; don't bother to respond to this post. Your replies have lost their interest for me.
Congratulations America
Of course, to a certain extent it was scoring an easy point.
However, I think you dissmiss this too easily given that having people in the types of positions that Johnson and Grove express opinons which have a xenophobic undertone to say the least, has a trickle down effect. Johnson didn't pull the trigger, didn't hold the knife, but he did his part to create an environment where the debate wasn't really about the facts but about the person. Jo Cox wasn't killed in the course of a civil debate, but because she was a traitor of her according to a significant part of the British electorate.
Just like we don't get hate preachers away with washing their hands of the actions of their followers, we shouldn't let the Brexit lot get away with washing their hands entirely of this political murder.
Congratulations America
So? He could have thrown in a line about at least this method isn't violent but it would be empty PC verbiage (and would be ignored in the soundbytes as such). It being peaceful is unprecedented but it being a means of unifying Europe into a very heterogenous empire is not, and the latter is something plenty of Brits reasonably view with a degree or horror. Particularly since the UK has held itself a degree apart from the continent for so long.
Believe it or not, but political discourse doesn't follow old usenet etiquette. He could have stuck with just Napoleon but it wouldn't have been received much better.and this is precisely what the EU known for. HRE would be the closest analogy, though not a great one. The only reason to mention Hitler is because of Godwin.
And Hazir, you may be ignoring me but an ever-closer Europe IS an empire in formation, whether it's being built to avoid conflict or not. Empires don't have to be built with violence. You may consider it a dirty word. That's your PC hang-up, my background is in political science. It's a category, nothing more.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Okay, before we go any further the illiterates among us would like to request a clarification of the relevant definition of the term "empire" (or at least a brief explanation of characteristics or criteria of an "empire") and pref. also a clarification of what exactly it is in Johnson's message that is better communicated through the comparison to Napoleon's and Hitler's shenanigans.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
An empire if a form of political organization in which the "metropolis" exercises control over diverse (heterogenous) actors through formal annexations and/or various forms of informal domination. That's the short definition from the International Encyclopedia of Political Science. As it goes on to mention, efforts to make it more specific or precise tends to come at the expense of consensus among political scientists
As for what it is in Johnsons's message that is "better communicated" you have failed to provide a contrast. Better than what? I laid out what merits their mention, they are the only other two "credible" attempts at unifying Europe in modern history. Further, the UK (or Britain, in the case of Napoleon) was the single major European power which successfully avoided integration in both throughout their attempts to unify the continent that is involved in the EU now. As I said, the only other candidate for comparison is the HRE and it's even crappier. You may want there to be no comparison whatsoever, for the EU to be treated as []sui generis[/i] in every particular but. . . that is AT LEAST as inaccurate as the comparison you dislike, particularly in the mentioned British context. Johnson didn't say a word about either Hitler's nor Napoleon's shenanigans, he referred to what both of them tried to build.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Just wanted to point out that the nazi jibe didn't fall on deaf ears with the Brexiteers; tonight Cameron was told that he is a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. Hardly a coincidence I think.
I wonder if Cameron is on the traitors list already.
Congratulations America
Where's the metropolis in the EU, Fuzzy? And are you really so gullible as to think Johnson was searching for the best analogy and not for a way to connect the EU to everyone's favorite bogeyman?
Hope is the denial of reality
The metropolis is the ministerial (and related semi-independent organs, like the ECB) technocracy. And unless the EU ends up settling into a permanent federal structure without further integration as it moves along its "ever-closer union" path (which I don't see happening and which I've seen Hazir mock those few times semi-concrete examples show up as opposed to an abstract concept. Technically confederal would also work but examples like Greece show the EU is already moving past that) then it is going to be an empire. And a federal structure won't necessarily preempt that either, no few poli-scientists consider the US an empire and with decent reason.
A few years ago, in one of Nessie's "mock the Republicans" threads, he and I talked about the probably inevitability of a not-terribly accountable technocracy replacing meaningful democracy as the source of governance in modern states, as the pressure for increasing centralization continues to grow from the pressures of constantly expanding human knowledge forcing greater degrees of specialization to become truly informed about various topics. He saw corporatism, I saw bureaucracy. It'll come to the same thing, eventually.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You're stretching the concept beyond all recognition. An empire requires a privileged center, and there is none. Anyone can become a eurocrat. Anyone can gain power within the EU structure, including those who want to destroy it. An empire requires central authority that can be used to establish and maintain control of the empire. The EU has no central authority. The EU has no means of enforcing compliance except that provided to it by the periphery. The EU is allowing something no empire ever would: it is allowing a large piece to splinter away without a fight, not even an economic fight. An empire seeks to subjugate nearby people, prospering at their expense. The EU does not subjugate people; they join (and leave) the EU of their own free will. The rich parts of the EU do not seek to centralize wealth; they willingly shift it to the periphery.
I object to those stretching the term empire to describe the US, and the case against that label is even easier for the EU. The EU is a confederation, in many ways similar to the American, Swiss, and German ones that came before. And like those confederations, it cannot survive in its current state. Confederations are inherently unstable. There's constant tension between those who want ever closer union and those who want to return power to the constituent political blocks. Eventually, one side will win. And will have either a European Federation or we'll have dozens of independent European states. The concept of empire is irrelevant to the European project, it does not explain it and offers no lessons for the present or the future. So why use the term except for its negative connotations? Why mention Hitler or Napoleon if not for their negative connotations? Furthermore, given how unique the EU is - whether the technocracy, the democracy of its members, the consensual way in which they joined, or a host of other factors - what use is there to making inappropriate analogies and using inaccurate language? If someone wants to attack the EU, they should do it on the basis of EU behavior, not by using the high school debate trick of saying X is part of Y and then attacking Y.
Hope is the denial of reality
I was out all yesterday for Father's Day but looks like Fuzzy has covered this better than I could.
He did. He was more comparing the EU to an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire, or specifically "the golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans" anyway. He said that "The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods".
I said building and I meant building. I did not say it was there yet. But Johnson wasn't limiting himself to the immediate present either. As for allowing pieces to splinter away without a fight, well, that fight has been going on for years, decades, and I think we should wait and see what sort of economic reprisals might accompany actually leaving before saying it has no means of enforcing compliance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
He didn't compare it to the Romans, he compared it to Napoleon and Hitler's attempts. Which he did with a specific goal. And even if he did mean to compare it to the Roman empire. The Roman's didn't exactly build their empire with pictures of cute kittens, neither did they keep it together that way. Even if you weed out the obvious character murdering from the Twelve Ceasars, you still end up with a very grim dictatorship. It didn't get much better after the Julii became extinct either.
Congratulations America
Unlike you I've read what he wrote. He compared it to the Romans "Golden age of peace and prosperity".
I thought we were talking about history but it seems I made a mistake not understanding we were talking about fiction. My bad.
Congratulations America
"Roman Empire" and "peace" together in one sentence are not really a good fit. You must have a very redacted overview of Roman history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs_and_battles
There may have been the odd decade where they had no war going on, granted.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The Pax Romana is regarded as such not because there was no conflict anywhere, but because there was not really any conflict in a very large heartland comprising almost all of the Mediterranean and most of Roman Europe.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a very peaceful empire. You're cherry picking.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Or the fact that it was committing a new genocide every few decades.
Hope is the denial of reality
So conflicts on the periphery and in foreign territory count against something being peaceful? If that's the case, I don't think the EC has brought much peace over the last 70 years.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It always makes me smile if people use the term Pax Romana for a period during which the Romans mercilesly oppressed the nations they were ruling and they themselves were suffering under a military dictatorship. By comparisson the British Empire was a benevolent brotherhood.Or the fact that it was committing a new genocide every few decades.
Congratulations America
If you equate full-scale wars and annexations of countries with "conflicts on the periphery" then you should take off those reality distortion goggles.
To keep with the military setting: You're fighting a rearguard action here. No shame in admitting that you got it wrong.
Pax North Korea anyone?
By Fuzzy's logic a Porpoise and a Great White Shark amount to the same thing because they're roughly the same size and swim in water.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
That's horrible. Sympathies for the British people.
Questions: Since the guy was mentally ill....how did he get ahold of a gun? And if he is associated with right-wing extremists (with ties to US White Nationalists) as reported....wasn't he/they on some terror watch list?
My impression is that it's really hard to get a gun in the UK, and that it's also a heavily policed and "monitored" place, especially when it comes to extremists and terrorism. Seeing that tensions are high for the upcoming Brexit vote, I also assumed security would be tight for PMs.
I think those are less distorted than the idea that the Cold War between two powers (neither in the EC) competing for hegemony constituted a European-sourced peace.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
This must be why EC/EU members have been at each other's throats since 1989.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
